HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-14 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 3
July 9, 2014
Draft Minutes 5
Application No. GPA14-0001,ENV14-0001; City Wide / City of
Saratoga; 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element and a
Negative Declaration. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-
1235
Staff Report 7
Attachment 1: Resolution 12
Attachment 2: Initial Studay and Negative Declaration 14
Attachment 3: Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element 77
Application ZOA13-0011, ENV13-0004, & PDR13-0028; 19700
Prospect Road (386-35-070,071); Weske Associates – The
applicant is requesting approval of an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-
Combined Zoning District (P-C) to a 2.402 acre parcel, and a
design review application to add approximately 6,500 sq. ft. of
building area including, but not limited to, a new chapel, central
rotunda, and associated spaces to an existing 22,000 sq. ft.
synagogue. The height of the exiting synagogue would
increase from 30 feet to 40 feet. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati
(408)868-1212.
Staff Report 243
Att 1 Resolution 252
Att 2 Ordinance 256
Att 3 Public Benifit 260
Att 4 Perspective 261
Att 5 Draft Parking Agreement 262
Att 6 Arborist Report 268
Att 7 MND 277
Att 8 Neighbor Notification 308
Att 9 Plans 311
Application No. PDR13-0026,GRE14-0001,ARB13-0069; 22700
Mount Eden Road; APN 503-10-006; Sholeh Diba Goetting -
The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to
construct a new 6,942 square foot two story single-family home
with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square foot one
story detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also
includes a grading exception for 9,339 cubic yards of grading
which includes 1,226 cubic yards to construct the basement.
The net size area is 3.83 acres or 166,835 square feet and is
zoned HR (Hillside Residential). Staff Contact: Chris Riordan
(408) 868-1235
Staff Report 318
Attachment 1: Resolution 328
Attachment 2: Arborist Report 332
Attachment 3: Geotechnical Clearance 341
Attachment 4: Public Hearing Notice 342
1
Attachment 5: Neighbor Notification Forms 343
Attachment 6: CalGreen Checklist 351
Attachment 7: Photo Renderings 359
Attachment 8: Project Plans 361
Application PDR14-0014; 12970 Glen Brae Drive (389-03-002);
Crown Castle on behalf of Sprint PCS – The applicant has
requested to replace three existing panel antennas and
associated equipment with three new panel antennas and
associated equipment at Congress Springs Park. Design
Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal
Code Section 15-44.020. The site is approximately 10 acres
and is located within the R-1-12,500 zoning district. Staff
Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212.
Staff Report 375
Att 1 Resolution 379
Att 2 Antenna Locations 384
Att 3 Coverage Maps 385
Att 4 Photo Simulations 386
Att 5 RF Report 388
Att 6 Reduced Plans 395
Staff Report 405
Att 1 Resolution 409
Att 2 Antenna Locations 414
Att 3 Coverage Maps 415
Att 4 Photo Simulations 416
Att 5 RF Report 418
Att 6 Reduced Plans 425
2
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777
FRUITVALE AVENUE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 9, 2014
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters
not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such
items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under
Planning Commission direction to Staff.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision.
PUBLIC HEARING
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives
have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for
up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing
statements.
1. Application GPA14-0001,ENV14-0001; City Wide / City of Saratoga; 2015-2023 General Plan Housing
Element and a Negative Declaration. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235
Recommended action:
Approve the attached resolution recommending that the City Council:
1. Adopt a Negative Declaration, and.
2. Adopt the 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element.
2. Application ZOA13-0011, ENV13-0004, & PDR13-0028; 19700 Prospect Road (386-35-070,071); Weske
Associates – The applicant is requesting approval of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to a 2.402 acre parcel, and a design
review application to add approximately 6,500 sq. ft. of building area including, but not limited to, a new
chapel, central rotunda, and associated spaces to an existing 22,000 sq. ft. synagogue. The height of the
exiting synagogue would increase from 30 feet to 40 feet. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-028 thereby adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommending City
Council approve the project subject to conditions of approval.
3
3. Application PDR13-0026,GRE14-0001,ARB13-0069; 22700 Mount Eden Road; APN 503-10-006; Sholeh
Diba Goetting - The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,942
square foot two story single-family home with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square foot one
story detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also includes a grading exception for 9,339 cubic yards
of grading which includes 1,226 cubic yards to construct the basement. The net size area is 3.83 acres or
166,835 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-025 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
4. Application PDR14-0014; 12970 Glen Brae Drive (389-03-002); Crown Castle on behalf of Sprint PCS –
The applicant has requested to replace three existing panel antennas and associated equipment with three
new panel antennas and associated equipment at Congress Springs Park. Design Review approval is
required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-44.020. The site is approximately 10 acres and is
located within the R-1-12,500 zoning district. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408)868-1212.
Recommended action:
Approve Resolution No. 14-027 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of
the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on July 17, 2014 at the City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added
to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp.
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
4
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT Commissioners Leonard Almalech, Wendy Chang, Kookie Fitzsimmons,
Dede Smullen, Tina Walia, Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald
ABSENT Pragati Grover (excused)
ALSO PRESENT James Lindsay, Community Development Director
Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Cynthia McCormick, Planner
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 25, 2014.
Action:
ALMALECH/CHANG MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 25, 2014 MINUTES. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, SMULLEN, WALIA.
NOES: NONE. ABSENT: GROVER. ABSTAIN: NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Application CUP14-0003; 13631 Saratoga Ave; 393-25-029; St. Andrews Parish and
School - The applicant is requesting approval to move an existing portable classroom to
an adjacent location. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230.
Action:
FITZSIMMONS/ALMALECH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-024
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: GROVER. ABSTAIN: NONE.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Application No. ELN14-0003; 13591 Beaumont Avenue / 393-39-030; Beverly Yu &
Willson Huang; The applicant is proposing an addition to a legal non-conforming
structure. The project will result in expenditure of approximately 48% of the estimated
construction valuation of the existing structure. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-
1235.
5
Action:
CHANG/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 14-026 WITH
CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS:
Change date to July 9 in the Resolution.
Change heading on the Conditions of Approval to include correct address and
project number.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: GROVER. ABSTAIN: NONE.
DIRECTOR/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
6
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No.: GPA14-0001 / ENV14-0003 Housing Element Update & Negative
Declaration
Subject: 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element and a Negative
Declaration
Location: Citywide
Applicant: City of Saratoga
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Meeting Date: July 23, 2014
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the attached resolution recommending that the City Council:
1. Adopt a Negative Declaration, and
2. Adopt the 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Saratoga is required by the State of California to update the City’s Housing Element on a
prescribed schedule. The current Housing Element is valid for the 2007-2014 planning period. For all
jurisdictions within the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region, an update is to be
prepared for the 2015-2023 planning period. The California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) deadline to certify the Housing Element as complete is January 31, 2015.
Every city and county in California must adopt a Housing Element as part of its General Plan. The
purpose of the Housing Element is to ensure that local governments adequately plan to meet the
housing needs of all people within the community—regardless of their income. The underlying
premise of Housing Element law is that, for the private market to adequately address housing needs
and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems which provide
opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.
On December 4, 2013, the City Council approved a contract with the Metropolitan Planning Group (M-
Group) to assist staff with the Housing Element Update.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Housing element law requires a quantification of each city’s existing and projected housing needs
and requires each to provide their “fair share” of regional housing needs. This is accomplished, in
part, through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. The RHNA defines each
city’s existing and future housing needs in a regional context.
7
2
A city’s share of the RHNA, as determined by ABAG, is the projected housing need that must be
addressed in the Housing Element. Each city’s RHNA is distributed among four income categories
(very low, low, moderate, and above moderate) to enable cities to address the requirement to provide
for the housing needs of all income levels.
The current RHNA allocation for the City of Saratoga is 439 units, distributed among income
categories as follows:
Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Income Limits
City of Saratoga
2013 Santa Clara County
Median Income = $105,500
Number of Units Income Limits **
Very Low* (31-50%) 147 $53,050
Low (51-80%) 95 $84,900
Moderate (81-120%) 104 $105,500
Above Moderate (120% +) 93 $126,600
Total Units 439
* 50% of the very low need is assumed to be in the extremely-low category ($31,850)
** These income limits are based on a 4 person family and are adjusted for family size
Community Workshops
The Community Development Department held two Community Workshops to provide the public
the opportunity to discuss and provide input on the update to the Housing Element. Both meetings
were held in the Joan Pisani Community Center.
• February 25, 2011 – Planning staff provided an overview of housing element law and the RHNA
process and participants provided input on the opportunities and affordability challenges
effecting housing in Saratoga.
• March 11, 2014 – Participants provided input to staff on the identified housing opportunity sites
and possible ways to increase affordable housing in Saratoga.
Planning Commission Study Sessions
The Planning Commission held three study sessions to discuss the Housing Element.
• January 21, 2014 – The Planning Commission discussed and reviewed the Housing Element
update process, the RHNA allocation, and the different housing affordability categories.
• March 25, 2014 – The Planning Commission discussed the various housing opportunity sites,
received input from the public, and provided direction to staff on the preferred sites.
• June 24, 2014 – The Planning Commission reviewed the initial draft of the Housing Element,
received public comments, and provided input to staff on its proposed text and polices. The
attached draft Housing Element includes the reline text edits that were recommended by the
Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION:
The draft Housing Element, includes updated text, tables, and revised policies to address changes in
state law. In addition, the draft Housing Element identifies a list of available sites with sufficient
capacity for the City to meet the RHNA goals without a change to existing zoning designations.
8
3
The only modification to existing zoning regulations, for the purpose of increasing the allowable
density of the Prospect Road Candidate Site, would include an amendment to the existing C-N(RHD)
district standards. These changes would include the following:
• Increasing the allowable density from a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre to a
minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre.
• Increasing the allowable building height from 30 to 35 feet and from two to three stories.
• Requiring Planning Commission review and findings for developments exceeding 40
dwelling units per acre.
The City currently has 33 housing units in approved projects and subdivisions which leaves a
remaining RHNA need of 406 units. The following table illustrates those sites that the City has
identified as vacant or underutilized to accommodate its regional growth requirement which includes
the construction of secondary dwelling units:
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Approved Units/
Subdivisions
0 0 0 33 33
Vacant Land Capacity 0 0 0 77 77
C-N(RHD) Candidate Sites
on Prospect Road
(with zoning changes)
173 0 0 173
Potential Saratoga Village
Center Sites
0 22 0 22
Potential Saratoga
Gateway Sites
65 65
Fellowship Plaza
Retirement Community
75 0 0 75
Second Unit Potential 18 17 35
TOTAL Unit Potential 283 87 110 480
2014-2022 RHNA Need 147 95 104 93 439
The Housing Element also includes the City’s Policy Program to address specific policy actions
necessary to address present and future housing needs, to meet the specific requirements of State law,
and in consideration of the input provided by residents. Many of the proposed policies were included
in the 2007-2014 Housing Element and were only updated with revised text. However, the draft
Housing Element also includes the following new Policies:
9
4
Policy Action 4-1.1: Amend Commercial-Neighborhood (Residential High Density) Standards
To further encourage mixed-use development, the City shall amend the C-N(RHD) district standards
from a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre, increase
the allowable building height from 30 feet to 35 feet and from two to three stories. The City will also
modify the standards such that only developments proposed at over 40 dwelling units per acre would
require additional Planning Commission findings. The modification to the height limit will require a
corresponding General Plan Amendment. In conjunction with the Zoning text amendments, the City
will contact the property owners of the six adjoining C-N(RHD) parcels concerning the increase in
development potential, and the City's support for redevelopment with higher density
residential/mixed use.
Policy Action 4-2.3: Historic Preservation Program and Mills Act
The City will continue to implement its historic preservation and Mills Act programs to offer
property tax relief as an incentive to preserve, rehabilitate and maintain historic resources in
Saratoga. The City's goal is to conserve the historically significant residential structures identified in
the City's Heritage Resource Inventory, and encourage additional property owners to pursue listing as
a qualified historic property and associated Mills Act incentives for preservation. The City has
processed an average of two Mills Act preservation contracts per year over the past Housing Element
cycle and expects to continue with an average of two per year over the course of this cycle.
Policy Action 4-4.1: Encourage Development of Second Dwelling Units
The City understands that second dwelling units provide a viable tool to enhance the availability of
affordable housing opportunities in Saratoga. The City currently provides policies and procedures for
the development of second dwelling units within the Saratoga Municipal Code. To ensure the City’s
existing policies and procedures for second dwelling units are effective in providing additional
affordable housing opportunities, the City shall review the existing Second Unit Ordinance and
amend the Second Dwelling Unit standards to eliminate the minimum square footage requirements
and reduce the minimum lot size for Second Dwelling Units to 90% or more of the standard lot size
for the underlying zoning district. The City will consider additional incentives including: a fee
reduction, and exemption of a portion of second unit floor area from lot coverage requirements. In
addition, the City shall create an informational brochure regarding Second Dwelling Units to
disseminate to the public.
Policy Action 4-4.2: Zoning Code Amendment for Special Needs Housing
In April 2010 and pursuant to SB 2, the City adopted provisions within its Code for transitional and
supportive housing within the C-N(RHD) zone district. However, further direction since that time
by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) clarifies that SB 2
requires these uses be permitted in all zone districts where residential uses are permitted. To address
this deficiency, the City will amend the Code to identify transitional and supportive housing as a
permitted use in all residential and mixed use zones subject to the same development standards as
similar housing in these zones.
As part of the SB 2 Zoning Code amendments, the City also adopted provisions to allow emergency
shelters by right within the C-N(RHD) zone. However, development standards for shelters were not
defined in the Code at that time. As permitted under the provisions of Government Code 65583, the
10
5
City will establish written, objective development standards for emergency shelters to regulate the
following:
• The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility.
• Off-street parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards do not require
more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or commercial uses within the
same zone.
• The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas.
• The provision of onsite management.
• The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to
be more than 300 feet apart.
• The length of stay.
• Lighting.
• Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
Policy Action 4.4-8: Support Preparation of a Countywide Nexus Study of Affordable Housing
Impact Fees
The City of Saratoga will work collaboratively with other Santa Clara County cities towards
preparation of a joint nexus study for the purpose of establishing an affordable housing impact
fee.
ENVIRONMETAL REVIEW:
Environmental review was completed in the form of an Initial Study and it was determined that the
proposed adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element would not result in potential significant
impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. A notice regarding the
opportunity to review the document and a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration was
published in the Saratoga News and the 30 day comment period took place between June 23, 2014
and July 22, 2014. Staff has not received any comments directly relating to the environmental
review.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The public participation component of the Housing Element’s development is described in Appendix
A of the draft Housing Element. This included two community Workshops and three Planning
Commission Study Sessions. Notice of this meeting was properly posted and published in the
Saratoga News on July 11 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Attachment 3 – Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element
11
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO: 14-0029
Applications GPA14-0001 and ENV14-0003
2015-2023 Housing Element Update
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines with respect to the above
described application:
WHEREAS, the Housing Element is the state-mandated General Plan element that
addresses how the City of Saratoga will strive to achieve its share of regional housing needs within
the assigned planning period. The State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) is responsible for providing the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) with the
region’s share of the state-wide housing need. ABAG, in turn, through the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), works with cities to determine each jurisdiction’s share of regional housing
need. The housing need numbers are then incorporated into the Housing Element update and
provide the basis for formulation for housing programs for the ensuing planning period, and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an update to the General Plan Housing Element for the
2015-2023 planning period; and
WHEREAS, public participation opportunities were provided through several means
including, two community workshops, three Planning Commission study sessions, and the City of
Saratoga Website; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public
Hearing on the draft Housing Element at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning Commission
considered the draft Housing Element, the Staff Report, CEQA documentation, correspondence,
presentations from the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing,
and
WHEREAS, environmental review was completed in the form of an Initial Study and it
was determined that the proposed adoption of the Housing Element would not result in potential
significant impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the
Housing Element Update is consistent with the City of Saratoga General Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
12
Section 1: The recitals set forth are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: The legislation described in the recitals is subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt a
Negative Declaration for the draft 2015-2023 Housing Element.
Section 3: After careful consideration of the staff report, and other materials, exhibits and evidence
submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby recommend to the City Council to adopt the updated Housing Element subject
to the approval of the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 23rd day of
July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
13
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
CITY OF SARATOGA
2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Contact: Christopher Riordan, AICP Senior Planner
408-868-1200 x 235
PREPARED BY:
Metropolitan Planning Group
579 Clyde Avenue, Suite 340
Mountain View, CA 94043
Contact: Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner
707-259-1790
June 23, 2014
14
15
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES/GOALS ........................................................................................................................ 12
2.4 PROJECT PHASING ............................................................................................................................................ 12
2.5 AGREEMENTS, PERMITS AND APPROVALS .................................................................................................... 12
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 15
3.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 16
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................................................................ 17
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS............................................................................................................ 18
4.1 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 21
4.3 AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 22
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 25
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 28
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................................................... 31
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 34
4.8 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................................................................. 35
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 38
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................................................... 41
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 42
4.12 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................................. 43
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................................................. 48
4.15 RECREATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 49
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................................ 50
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................. 54
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................... 57
4.19 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 59
4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL ............................................................................................................ 60
5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................. 60
6.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION ..................................................................................................... 61
16
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-0.1 Sites Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 2-2.1 RHNA Allocation For Housing Cycle 2014-2022 ......................................................................................... 11
Table 4.13-1 Housing Element Projections (2014-2022) Compared to ABAG ............................................................... 46
LIST OF EXHIBITS
2-1 General Plan Planning Area ...................................................................................................................... 9
17
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2015-2023 Housing Element
- 1 - Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Saratoga’s Housing Element comprises one of the seven General Plan Elements mandated
by the State of California. The Housing Element update covers the planning period from January
2015 to July 2023 relative to the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of
existing and future residents. The Project includes the 2015-2023 Housing Element as described in
section 2.0.
The Project is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects
associated with the Project, as proposed.
1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000–21177) and pursuant to Section
15063 (Initial Study) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City of Saratoga,
acting in the capacity of the lead agency, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to
determine whether the Project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the
Initial Study, the lead agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the Project may cause a
significant environmental effect, the lead agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is warranted to analyze Project-related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if
the lead agency finds that there is no evidence that the Project, either as proposed or as modified to
include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency shall find that the Project would not have a significant effect on the
environment and shall prepare a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for the Project.
Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before the lead agency” that such an effect may occur (Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code).
The environmental documentation, which is ultimately approved and/or certified by the City in
accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an
environmental basis of subsequent discretionary actions upon the Project. The resulting documentation
is not; however, a policy document, and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor
mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from which permits and other discretionary
approvals would be required.
The environmental documentation and supporting analysis are subject to a public review period.
During this review, comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to
the City. Following review of any comments received, the City will consider these comments as a part
of the Project’s environmental review and include them with the Initial Study documentation for
consideration by the City.
18
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
City of Saratoga 2015-2023 Housing Element
- 2 - Introduction
1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY
The purpose of the Initial Study is to: (1) identify environmental impacts; (2) provide the lead agency
with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration;
(3) enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is
required to be prepared; (4) facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project;
(5) document the factual basis of the finding in a negative declaration that a project would not have a
significant environmental effect; (6) eliminate needless EIRs; (7) determine whether a previously
prepared EIR could be used for the project; and (8) assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by
focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be
significant, and explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be
significant.
Section 15063(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15000–15387 of the CCR) identifies the
following specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study:
(1) A description of the project including the location of the project;
(2) An identification of the environmental setting;
(3) An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method,
provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is
some evidence to support the entries. . . ;
(4) A discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any;
(5) An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and
other applicable land use controls; and,
(6) The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the initial study.
1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study, and are incorporated into
this document by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Saratoga City Hall
located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga.
• City of Saratoga General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR). The City of
Saratoga General Plan (General Plan) contains the plan for the future development and
operation of the City. The General Plan is composed of seven elements mandated for
inclusion by the State: Land Use (updated June 2007), Circulation and Scenic Highways
(updated November 2010), Open Space and Conservation (these two elements consolidated
and updated June 2007), Safety (updated February 2013), Noise (updated March 2014), and
Housing (updated June 2007). The General Plan EIR has been updated by inclusion of the
2007 Housing Element Negative Declaration, the 2013 Safety Element Negative Declaration, the
2014 Noise Element Negative Declaration and the 2007 Land Use Element Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The GP EIR concluded implementation of the General Plan would result
in a built out capacity of approximately 35,000 persons. The 2007 Housing Element and
Land Use Element found no significant impacts to population as the housing needs and
population projections were covered by the residential units projected and analyzed in the GP
EIR.
19
- 3 - Project Description
The GP EIR was utilized throughout this Initial Study as the fundamental planning document
governing the proposed update to the Housing Element. Background information and policy
information from the General Plan is cited in throughout this Initial Study.
• Design Guidelines, adopted for the Saratoga Village Specific Plan area and for commercial
properties in the Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Gateway District. The Guidelines serve to guide
new development and redevelopment in a manner that enhances the unique character of the
area. In particular the Guidelines provide direction for the design of mixed-use projects that
introduce a residential component. The City also adopted the Residential Design Handbook,
which further guides design considerations to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
•
• City of Saratoga Zoning Code, as (continuously) updated. Chapter 15 of the City of Saratoga
Municipal Code is known as the Zoning Regulations. The purposes of the Zoning Regulations
are to protect, promote, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare, ensuring
that development within the City is related to the City's ability to provide essential urban
services and is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Specifically, these regulations are
adopted to achieve the following:
a) To control the physical development of the City in such a manner as to preserve it as
essentially a residential community with a rural atmosphere.
b) To achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the General Plan.
c) To foster a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses.
d) To promote the stability of existing land uses which conform with the General Plan, and to protect
them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions.
e) To ensure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes, which are most
appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole.
f) To prevent population densities in excess of those prescribed in the General Plan, and to
maintain a suitable balance between structures and open spaces on each site.
g) To ensure adequate light, air and privacy for each dwelling unit.
h) To minimize traffic congestion and to avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the
construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them.
i) To facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities and institutions.
j) To provide for adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.
k) To provide for the orderly, attractive development of commercial facilities in those areas where
permitted by the General Plan.
l) To exclude new industrial development in order to preserve the essential residential
character of the City.
m) To preserve natural beauty of the City.
n) To ensure that uses and structures enhance their sites and harmonize with improvements in the
surrounding area.
o) To protect and enhance real property values within the City.
20
- 4 - Project Description
p) To protect and preserve heritage, native, and other significant trees at all times, including, the
real property development planning and implementation processes.
The Zoning Code specifies regulations that must be followed by every project within the City’s
jurisdictional area. Information within the City’s Code was utilized in various sections of this
Initial Study.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the City of Saratoga’s 2015-2023 Housing Element, which constitutes
an update to the 2007-2014 Housing Element. The purpose of the Housing Element Update is to
document the projected housing needs within the community and to set forth policies and programs that
promote the development of diverse housing types and ensure affordability of housing Citywide. The
proposed project for environmental review is the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, which
includes the following:
• Introduction (Chapter 1)
• Housing Needs Assessment (Chapter 2)
• Housing Constraints and Resources (Chapter 3)
• Policy Program (Chapter 4)
• Appendices A-D
The Housing Element is one of seven General Plan Elements mandated by the State of California as
outlined in Section 65580 to 65589.9 of the California Government Code. California State Law requires
the Housing Element include, “... identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and
a statement of goals, policies, qualified objectives and schedules programs for the preservation,
improvement and development of housing.” California State law further requires that a City plan for its
share of new housing needs for all five state-defined income categories through the identification of an
adequate amount of land zoned at densities necessary to accommodate the respective income
categories. The RHNA goals established by the State of California do not represent a requirement that
the city physically construct housing; rather, it requires the City address housing needs in its
discretionary planning actions; this may involve incorporation of housing opportunities into the land use
plan or facilitation of housing development through City policies.
Housing Element Statutory Requirements
California State Law requires the Housing Element be updated on an eight-year basis, on a timeline that
is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan, unless extended by the Legislature. Article 10.6,
Section 65580-65589.8, Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code stipulates the legal
requirements for housing and encourages the provision of affordable and decent housing for all
communities. The 2015-2023 Housing Element update serves as the policy document that assesses
current and projected housing needs as identified by the Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD) and the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) and addresses those needs
through targeted goals, policies and objectives that will be part of the comprehensive policy document.
21
- 5 - Project Description
Housing Programs and Objectives
The 2015-2023 Saratoga Housing Element profiles community demographics and examines the
interrelated housing needs of different groups including owners and renters, low-income households,
elderly households and homeless persons amongst others. The programmatic information therein
displays the City’s good faith effort to provide and maintain an acceptable housing stock that serves the
community at large per Government Code Section 65583(c). Saratoga’s Housing goals and objectives
can be found in Chapter 4.
In order to reach the RHNA goals for extremely low, very-low, low, and moderate-income housing, the
Housing Element has identified under-utilized or vacant sites that are prime areas through which to
accommodate the City’s projected housing needs. Saratoga needs to demonstrate that it has an
adequate supply of land to support higher density housing, consisting of 20 or more du/acre. The
concentration of high density housing on the identified “opportunity sites” opens up the potential for
subsidies and affordable housing programs that may not otherwise be available.
Meeting Regional Share Goals
To enable the City of Saratoga to meet its share of the region’s housing needs, the City has evaluated its
capacity to provide available sites to meet the projected future housing needs, based on entitled
development, existing development capacities, and vacant land resources. Chapter 15 of the City of
Saratoga Municipal Code identifies eleven residential zoning districts. The City must demonstrate that it
has, or will make available, adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that are
sufficiently served by public utilities and services with capacity available to accommodate the outstanding
RHNA. The Housing Element Update identifies the City’s plan to fulfill its share of regional housing needs
through:
Entitled Development (to Date (March 2014): The City of Saratoga has approved 18 new single family
residential units, 10 new parcels through approved subdivisions and 5 new condominiums in mixed-use
projects as of March 2014. It is anticipated that these approved units will be constructed within the 2014-
2022 RHNA Planning Period. The 33 approved units will be affordable to above-moderate income
households. As these units are anticipated for development within the 2014-2022 planning period, the
adjusted RHNA figures total 406 units. However, the city is planning for a buffer of 41 units, bringing the
total unit count over the planning period to 480 including the 33 already approved units.
Vacant Land Resources: It is expected that a capacity of 77 dwelling units could be accommodated
through development of vacant lands within existing residential areas based on the permitted densities,
ranging from 1 to approximately 15 dwelling units per acres the sites identified in Table B-3. The 77
units that could be developed on vacant lands would fulfill a large portion of the above-moderate income
RHNA allocation.
Candidate Sites for Mixed Use Development: Pursuant to AB 2348, jurisdictions with a shortfall of vacant
and underutilized residential land to meet its RHNA needs must commit to a rezoning program to provide
adequate sites to meet its housing growth needs. The Housing Element identifies several opportunity
sites that along with vacant and underutilized lots provide sufficient opportunity to meet RHNA needs. As
such, a rezoning program is not warranted. The following sites are identified in the Housing Element
Update as having an opportunity to support residential development in conjunction with mixed-use:
22
- 6 - Project Description
Opportunity Site 1. Prospect Road
The Prospect Road site includes six adjoining parcels located on Prospect Road between Saratoga
Avenue and the Lawrence Expressway. The site currently supports a variety of uses including retail,
restaurant, personal services and office uses and is located along an easily accessible, major
transportation corridor. The Prospect Road site is bordered on three sides by parcels in San Jose that
are zoned to allow residential development of up to 55 du/ac. The Prospect Road parcels contain
adequate infrastructure to support residential development and no environmental constraints have been
identified which would significantly limit the potential for residential development.
During the 2007-2014 planning cycle, the identified parcels on the Prospect Road Opportunity Site were
rezoned from Commercial Neighborhood (CN) to Commercial Neighborhood Residential High Density C-
N(RHD). This rezone was intended to encourage mixed use development with a minimum net density
standard of 20 du/ac thereby allowing 87 units to be counted towards the City’s lower income housing
needs pursuant to AB 2348.
The 2015-2023 Housing Element Update modifies the C-N(RHD) ordinance to allow for up to 30 du/ac, a
maximum height of 35 feet and would permit 3-story development. Accordingly, this level of development
would provide for a realistic capacity of 173 dwelling units that would be affordable to low and very-low
income households.
Opportunity Site 2. Saratoga Village Center
The parcels are currently characterized by retail and service uses setback from the street and
surrounded by paved parking areas. The large surface parking area in front of the property is inconsistent
with the development pattern of the Village Center along Big Basin Way.
The Saratoga Village Commercial Center site consists of three adjoining parcels on 1.19 acres located
between Highway 9 and Third Street. All parcels are located in what is the Commercial Historic District of
Saratoga and are zoned CH-1 (Commercial-Historic). The CH-1 zone conditionally allows for mixed-use
development. It is expected that the site would accommodate 23 units with a mix of commercial uses.
These units would be affordable to moderate income households.
Opportunity Site 3. Saratoga Gateway Site
The Gateway Site feature four adjoining parcels located on the east side of Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road,
north of the Southern Pacific Railroad Line. This site is located on a major transportation corridor with
access to Highway 85 and Highway 280. The parcels are zoned Commercial Visitor (C-V) which
conditionally allows for mixed use development. The existing uses onsite include retail and service. The
existing buildings onsite is set back from the street and consists of single story structures dating from the
1960s to 1980s. The current retail businesses onsite include a public storage business, a funeral home
and a variety of other retail/service-oriented businesses. Adjacent to the site are moderate density
housing units. As described in Appendix B of the Housing Element Update the Gateway Site Opportunity
Site 2 could accommodate 65 units at a density of 15 du/ac with a mix of commercial uses. These units
would be affordable to moderate income households.
23
- 7 - Project Description
Opportunity Site 4. Abrams @ Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga Avenue at Cox is characterized by a relatively vacant lot that is zoned Professional/
Administrative (P-A). The P-A zoning designation conditionally allows for mixed-use development. The
site would support approximately 81 units at the low and very-low income level. This site is not counted
towards the RHNA goals, as sufficient housing capacity is identified through the sites described in
Housing Element. Nonetheless, in order to evaluate the site’s cumulative contribution to result in potential
impacts, Opportunity Site 4 is included as part of this environmental review document.
Fellowship Plaza
Fellowship Plaza is currently comprised of 150 independent living apartments. The Conditional Use
Permit for Fellowship Plaza allows for the development of a minimum of 75 additional units affordable to
Very Low- and Low-Income households without discretionary action beyond Design Review. The
Community is comprised of 10.53 acres and represents the greatest potential to accommodate the
RHNA need for lower income households.
Second Unit Potential
The City issued 15 final building permits for second dwelling units during the 2007-2014 reporting period.
The City anticipates that the demand for second dwelling unit permits will increase with modifications to
the City’s Second Unit Ordinance through adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element. Proposed
ordinance modifications include elimination of the minimum unit size and reductions to the requirements
for minimum lot size necessary to support a second dwelling unit. Based on the proposed amendment to
the City’s Second Unit Ordinance, it is expected that 35-second dwelling units could be built with an
average of five per year over the course of the 2014-2022 RHNA reporting period.
Sites Summary
Table a below summarizes Saratoga’s capacity to meet the RHNA goals. It accounts for construction
achievements and entitled projects and the realistic capacity from new units based on identified vacant
land, candidate site, opportunity sites, and Fellowship Plaza Retirement Community, as well as the
amendments to the Second Unit Ordinance. As indicated in the table below, the City has the capacity to
meet all of the housing needs of the RHNA for the 2014-2022 period.
Table 2-0.1 Sites Summary
Very Low-
Income1
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Total
2014-2022 RHNA Need 147 95 104 93 439
Approved Units/ Subdivisions 0 0 0 33 33
Vacant Land Capacity 0 0 0 77 77
24
- 8 - Project Description
Opportunity Site 1: C-N(RHD) Candidate Sites 173 0 0 173
Opportunity Site 2: Saratoga Village Center Sites 0 22 0 22
Opportunity Site 3: Saratoga Gateway Sites 65 65
Fellowship Plaza 75 0 0 75
Second Unit Potential 35 35
TOTAL Unit Potential 283 87 110 480
Source: City of Saratoga
1 The Extremely Low-income need is assumed to be 50% of the Very Low-Income allocation = 73 units.
The City’s Regional housing needs (determined by ABAG) for the 2014-2022 period amount to 439 with
147 units allocated to low and extremely-low income residents. It should be noted that Opportunity Site 4
has also been identified as a candidate site that could support residential development, as a CUP would
allow for mixed-use under the General Plan land Use designation. Accordingly, this site has also been
considered as part of the overall development potential of the subject Housing Element Update although
not specifically identified as part of the site survey location or counted towards achieving the designated
RHNA allocation.
Conforming Amendments: In conjunction with the Housing Element the City will consider adoption of
conforming amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to ensure consistency with the
proposed maximum height allowance and minimum density.
Zoning Ordinance: The City will undertake review and update o rdinances to implement the Housing
Element, including the provision to allow a smaller lot size to support Second Unit development, the
development of standards for Emergency Shelters, and the allowance of transitional and supportive
housing in all zones where residential is a permitted use in accordance with SB2.
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Saratoga (City) is located at the southerly end of the San Francisco Peninsula, in the Western
portion of Santa Clara County. The City lies southwest of San Jose and approximately 35 miles
southeast of San Francisco. The city boundaries encompass an area of approximately 12.8 miles.
However, the city’s sphere of influence extends beyond the city’s jurisdictional boundaries and includes
approximately 4 square miles of unincorporated land located south and west of the City. (See Figure 1
below).
The north, south and eastern limits of the City are sited on an alluvial plain that is shared with the
adjacent communities of Cupertino, San Jose, Los Gatos and Monte Sereno. The topography of the
western portion of the City is defined by the low-lying foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Regional Access is provided by State Route 85 (SR-85) that connects to US 280 in Cupertino, US 101 in
Mountain View and South San Jose, and SR 17 to San Jose and Santa Cruz County. Local connectivity
to adjacent cities is provided via Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Avenue, Highway 9, and Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road.
The Housing Element Update applies to the land located within the City limits of Saratoga.
25
- 9 - Project Description
FIGURE 1: GENERAL PLAN MAP
26
- 10 - Project Description
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
POPULATION
The City of Saratoga is one of 15 incorporated cities within Santa Clara County. The most recent census
data for Santa Clara County is provided by the 2010 Census and indicates a population of 1,682,585 in
2000 and a population of 1,781,642 in 2010; an increase of 5.9%. Those numbers continued to rise
between January 2012 and January 2013 to 1,862,041, making Santa Clara County, California’s Number
1 fastest growing county. The City of Saratoga’s population totaled 29,843 in 2000 and reached
approximately 29,926 in 2010, exhibiting a 0.3% increase. The City has experienced a slower growth rate
than the rest of the County.1
HOUSING
In the years between 2000 and 2010 Santa Clara’s housing units increased from 579,329 to 631,920 and
Saratoga’s from 10,667 to 11,123, an increase of more than 4%. Saratoga continues to accommodate
approximately 1.8% of the County’s housing units. Review of the 2000 and 2010 censuses indicate that
single family, detached homes plus detached units continue to make up more than 90% of the housing
stock in Saratoga. Detached homes make up the majority, with 85% consisting of single family detached.
There has been a very slight decrease in the percentage of single-family detached homes from 2000 to
2010 of 5.4%. One notable change that took place between 2000 and 2010 was the increase in
construction of the number multiple family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms.
Of Saratoga’s owner-occupied housing for the years 2007-2011, 93.1 percent or 8,493 were single-family
detached, which are followed by the second largest group of single family-attached, constituting 438 units
or 4.8 percent. Likewise, renter-occupied units are weighted to single family-detached, accounting for
approximately 606 units or 38.1% of renter-occupied units. The second largest renter-occupied housing
type is multi-family units (5+ units), which amount to 676 units or 425%. 2011 Census data indicates that
for that year 85% of the housing stock was owner-occupied with 15% renter occupied. In the greater Santa
Clara County census data indicates that from 2007-2011, owner-occupied housing accounted for
approximately 58.7% of housing units, followed closely by renter-occupied units at 41.3%.
At the time of the 2010 census the vacancy rate reported for Saratoga was 3.5 percent, up until 2008 it
was reported by the Department of Finance as 1.9%. Vacancy is an indicator of housing supply and
demand. Low vacancy rates influence greater upward price pressures and inversely, a high vacancy rate
influences downward price pressures. Typically, a 4-5% vacancy rate is considered in the healthy range
that is beneficial to renters and property owners.
The age of the City’s housing stock can also be a valuable indicator of housing conditions. In Saratoga,
approximately 80.1 percent of the housing units were built prior to 1980 and 31.6 percent prior to 1960. It is
expected that housing older than 30 years may require basic repairs and housing older than 50 years is
considered “aged” and likely to require more extensive repairs. A spike in home construction occurred in
the 1960s when 3,074 homes were built, which translates to 27.6 percent of the present housing stock.
The era exhibiting the most limited home construction was the era spanning from 1940-1949 when only
333 homes were built or 3.0 percent of the present housing stock.
1 US Census and Bay Area Census, 2010.
27
- 11 - Project Description
Further indicative of housing conditions is the level of infrastructure and utilities able to adequately serve
households. Housing is considered substandard when conditions are found to be below the minimum
standard of living as defined by the California Health and Safety Code. In addition to absence of adequate
infrastructure and/or utilities, housing may be considered substandard when it exhibits inadequate
maintenance, structural instabilities, faulty weather protection and potential fire hazards. The 2007-2011
American Community Census Data indicates that 74 or 0.7 percent of housing units in Saratoga lack
plumbing facilities and 140, or 1.3 percent, lack complete kitchen facilities. Some of the properties
accounted for lack both complete plumbing facilities and kitchen facilities.
Housing affordability is directly related to a household’s ability to pay for housing, and to be considered
“affordable”, housing expenses should constitute 30 percent or less of a household’s expenses. According
to the 2013 California Department of Housing the median value for all owner-occupied units in Saratoga
exceeded $1,000,000. Comparatively, in 2011 the median housing value for all houses in Santa Clara
County was $681,000. The American Community Survey data for 2007-2011 indicates that in Saratoga,
95.7 percent of homes are valued at or above $500,000 (with 83.9 percent of those valued at or above
$1,000,000), while 4.3 percent are valued at or below $500,000. In 2012 the median sale price in Saratoga
was $1,527,500 and in 2013 that number rose to $1,600,000, an increase of 4.75 percent.
The average gross rent in Saratoga in 2011 was $1,698, exhibiting a decrease of 25.5 percent from the
year 2000. Current surveys of market rents indicate an average rent of $4,510 for a 3-bedroom single
family home. According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 37 percent of renters in
Saratoga devoted 30 percent or more of their income to rent in 2011, and more than 20 percent of
households spent 50 percent or more of their income on rent.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Each local jurisdiction in California is mandated by State Law to adequately accommodate its “fair share”
of regional housing needs. The “fair share” is defined as the number of additional housing units needed to
accommodate the forecasted growth and is represented as the number of additional units needed to
accommodate future growth and replace demolished or converted housing units. The “fair share” should
be accommodated with the intention of achieving a future vacancy rate that allows for a healthy housing
market.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the entity responsible for allocating housing needs
to Bay Area Jurisdictions, including Saratoga. The allocation is reflected in the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA allocates housing for all respective income categories including
extremely low , very low, low, moderate and above moderate incomes. The RHNA allocation quantifying
the future housing needs for the period of 2014-2022 is depicted in Table 2-2.1, below. The total identified
housing needs inclusive of all income levels amounts to 439.
Table 2-2.1 RHNA Allocation For Housing Cycle 2014-2022
Extremely Low Income
0-30%*
Very Low
31-50%
Low
51-80%
Moderate
81-120%
Above Moderate
120%+ Total
Saratoga 74 73 95 104 93 439
28
- 12 - Project Description
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES/GOALS
The Housing Policy Program (Chapter 4) details the City’s goals, policies, and actions in regards to
the maintenance, improvement, preservation, and development of housing for all segments of the
community. In developing the Policy Program, the City assessed its current and projected housing
needs, evaluated performance in implementing existing policies and programs, analyzed current
constraints and resources, and considered input from residents and stakeholders.
Through the development of the Policy Program, the City has identified five broad housing priorities:
1. To ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to meet future and existing housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
2. To provide maintenance and rehabilitation activities to help ensure the quality of the City’s
existing housing stock and neighborhoods is preserved.
3. To ensure quality design of new developments and to enhance the aesthetic qualities and
livability of the City.
4. To promote the practice of providing equal housing opportunities for all persons without
discrimination on the basis of families with children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities,
the homeless and all other segments of the community.
5. To maximize use of limited local resources by building partnerships and coordinating housing
efforts with outside agencies and organizations.
2.4 PROJECT PHASING
The Housing Element addresses the planning period from 2015-2023.
2.5 AGREEMENTS, PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Approval of the Project is subject to the following legislative actions by the City of Saratoga:
• 2015-2023 Housing Element Approval
• Amendments to the Second Dwelling Units Ordinance, 15-56.030
• General Plan Amendment (to allow for increase in stories and minimum density; to be confirmed)
• Amendment to Ordinance C-N(RHD)
Copies of these proposed actions (the approval documents) are available in the City of Saratoga
Community Development Department and are a part of this project description.
Adoption of the update to General Plan’s Housing Element is subject to review and/or approval by the
following agencies:
• City of Saratoga Planning Commission; City of Saratoga City Council; and California Department
of Housing and Community Development.
29
- 15 - Environmental Summary
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
3.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: City of Saratoga 2015-2023 Housing Element
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Road, Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Contact Persons and Phone Number: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Phone: 707-259-1790
4. Project Location: City of Saratoga
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
6. General Plan Designation: Various
7. Zoning: Various
8. Description of the Project:
The Project consists of an update to the Housing Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan; refer to
Section 2.0, Project Description.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: City of Cupertino
South: City of Monte Sereno
East: City of San Jose
West: Sphere of Influence
and County of Santa Clara
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has authority of review and comment
on the Housing Element. No other public agencies have authority over the Project.
30
- 16 - Environmental Summary
3.2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Initial Study and Negative Declaration analyze the potential environmental impacts associated
with the proposed Project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study are:
• Aesthetics; • Land Use and Planning;
• Agriculture Resources; • Mineral Resources;
• Air Quality; • Noise;
• Biological Resources; • Population and Housing;
• Cultural Resources; • Public Services;
• Geology and Soils; • Recreation;
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials; • Transportation/Traffic; and
• Hydrology and Water Quality; • Utilities and Service Systems.
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by
the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and used by the City in its environmental review process. For the
preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a
determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the
Project’s impacts and to identify mitigation.
In the evaluation of potential impacts in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, the questions in the Initial
Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided based on the analysis undertaken as part of the
Initial Study. The analysis considers the short-term, long-term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts
of the Project. To each question, there are four possible responses:
• No Impact: The project would not have any measurable environmental impact on the
environment.
• Less Than Significant Impact: The project would have the potential for impacting the
environment, although this impact would be below established significance thresholds.
• Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The project would have the
potential to generate impacts that may be considered a significant effect on the environment,
although mitigation measures or changes to the project’s physical or operational
characteristics could reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.
• Potentially Significant Impact: The project would have impacts that are considered
significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce
these impacts to less than significant levels.
31
- 17 - Environmental Summary
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Land Use and Planning
Agriculture Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural Resources Public Services
Geology and Soils Recreation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Transportation/Traffic
Hydrology and Water Quality Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
32
- 18 - Environmental Analysis
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in this Initial Study and Negative
Declaration. Explanations are provided for each item.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X
c. Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
X
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Aesthetics Setting: The City’s Planning Area contains a number of aesthetic and visual resources that
include views of the Santa Cruz Mountains, landmarks and notable viewsheds.
Aesthetics Impact Discussion:
4.1(a) Less than Significant Impact: Scenic Vistas identified in the Saratoga General Plan are largely
limited to the ridgelines and hillsides of the Santa Cruz Mountains. All identified housing sites are confined to
previously developed and/ or underdeveloped sites located within an urbanized area. None of the identified
“opportunity sites” are located in an area that would block or adversely impact a scenic vista. Therefore,
impacts to scenic vistas would be below levels of significance.
4.1(b) Less than Significant Impact: The City of Saratoga has one State Designated Scenic Highway,
Highway 9. The designated scenic portion of Highway 9 begins at the Los Gatos City Limit, east of Saratoga,
and extends to the intersection of SR 35 (Skyline Boulevard) at the Santa Cruz County line. In addition to the
State designated Scenic Highway, the City also has locally designated the portion of Saratoga Ave, between
Fruitvale Avenue and Park Place, and Austin Way, south of Saratoga to Los Gatos way as “Heritage
Lanes.”
33
- 19 - Environmental Analysis
Five roadway segments are defined as Santa Clara County Scenic Roadways per Section 3.30.050 of the
Santa Clara Municipal Code. The county has designated portions of Skyline Boulevard; Congress Springs
Road; Bohlman Road/Montelvina Road; Mt. Eden Road; and Sanborn Road as County Scenic Roadways.
State Route 9 traverses the Saratoga Village Center, which is delineated as Opportunity Site 2. An increase
in density and/or height allowances at this location could potentially impact scenic resources viewed from the
State Scenic Highway if not properly protected. The stretch of highway in the Village Center extending from
just before 6th street to the terminus at Blaney Plaza is developed with existing residential and commercial
structures. The Housing Element Update does not propose an increase in height at this location, but would
support up to 23 residential units under a mixed-use redevelopment project.
The Housing Element Update proposes increases density and heights at Opportunity Site 1, which could
potentially affect viewsheds if not properly designed. However, any proposed development would constitute
infill and not significantly alter the view as seen from the State Scenic Highway. Furthermore, design
parameters will be reviewed during the site-specific development proposals and mitigated appropriately. The
Housing Element Update would not result in a cumulative impact that would substantially alter the views as
seen from a State Designated Highway. Therefore, impacts to scenic resources would remain at levels below
significant.
4.1(c) Less than Significant Impact: The new sites identified as part of the Housing Element Update are
generally confined to already developed or underdeveloped areas located within the City’s Planning Area. All
proposed development, including that of opportunity sites, would be confined to underdeveloped land and is
not expected to depart significantly from the existing conditions in terms of scale and/or character to
surrounding development. Impacts related to visual resources are expected to remain at levels below
significance.
The “opportunity site” located at Saratoga Avenue and Cox is vacant. It is presently zoned P-A (Professional
Administrative) which conditionally allows for mixed use development including residential. Given the current
zoning of the site, the residential development potential has been previously evaluated. Accordingly, the
identification of this site as an opportunity site for residential development is consistent with the existing
General Plan and zoning. Additionally, it should be noted that this site is surrounded by existing single-family
residential and commercial land uses and would constitute infill development. Any proposed development for
the site would be subject to design review and the goals and policies of the General Plan, which will ensure
that any new development is consistent with the scale and design of the surrounding urban setting.
The Housing Element introduces new policies and programs that encourage infill development in areas that
have been identified as opportunity sites capable of supporting residential development. Although residential
densities have the potential to increase slightly, the additional units would not substantially alter the character
of the Planning Area. All future residential development will be required to conform to the existing General
Plan and will be reviewed for compatibility with surrounding development. Therefore, the HE Element update
is not expected to adversely affect the visual environment of the Planning Area and any impacts to visual
resources would be at levels below significance.
4.1(d) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed 2015-2023 Housing Element Update would potentially
create new sources of light and glare associated with residential uses. However, site specific CEQA review
and site-specific design review per Article 15- 46 of the City’s Municipal Code will be performed at the time
that development applications are received. The subject updated to the HE would not introduce new sources
of light or glare beyond what has been anticipated as part of the overall development potential within the
Planning Area. Therefore, any impacts resulting from the Housing Element Update would be less than
significant.
34
- 20 - Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with the General Plan policies including the
following:
Land Use
LU 8 The natural beauty of the West Valley hillside area shall be maintained and protected for its
contribution to the overall quality of life of current and future generations.
LU 9 Preserve the rural nature of the hills by limiting incompatible development.
LU 10 Minimize he visual impacts of hillside development, especially on ridgetops.
LU 13 The City shall use the design review process to assure that new construction and major
additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings.
Open Space
OSC 2 Preserve the City’s existing character which includes small town residential, rural/semi-rural
areas and open spaces.
OSC 6 Preserve the hillside lands in their natural condition and inherent natural beauty.
OSC 7 Use the design review and environmental review process to ensure that development
proposals in the hillsides are compatible with the natural environment
35
- 21 - Environmental Analysis
4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
X
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
Agricultural Resources Setting: The City of Saratoga retains approximately 150 acres of agricultural
lands within the otherwise urbanized City. Approximately 109 of the 150 acres of agricultural lands are
protected under Williamson Act Contracts.
Agricultural Resources Impact Discussion:
4.2. (a-e) No Impact: The 2015-2023 Housing Element does not propose any changes to agricultural lands
including the conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to a non-
agricultural use, nor will the project conflict with any agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contracts. As the
project will be confined to urbanized areas within the planning area there is no expectation of impacts to
forestlands (lands exhibiting 10% native tree cover of any species that allow for management of one or
more forest resources) and therefore there is no indication that the project would conflict with existing
forested land zoning or encourage the loss or conversion of forested land to another use. The project will
be confined to already urbanized areas and underutilized sites and therefore, no impacts associated with
agricultural lands or forestlands are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with the goals outlined in the General Plan and
hillside Specific Plan including:
LU 7 Protect existing agricultural resources and encourage expansion of this use.
36
- 22 - Environmental Analysis
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
X
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
X
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? X
Sources: 2010 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan; and BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
Air Quality Setting: The City of Saratoga is located in the Santa Clara Valley and within the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and therefore subject to the ambient air quality standards
(AAQS) established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and those adopted by
the California Resources Board (CARB), and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Air quality within
the Bay Area Air Basin is determined by natural, geographical, and meteorological conditions, as well as
human activities including construction and development, operation of vehicles, and industry and
manufacturing.
The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the Bay to the north, and mountains to the east, south and west.
Winds in the valley are largely influenced by the terrain of the valley and typically parallel the valley’s
northwest-southeast axis. The air pollution potential for the Santa Clara Valley is considered high based
on the high summer temperatures, stable air and topographical features, which serve to promote ozone
formation. The inversion pattern that occurs in both the summer and winter months exacerbates the
impacts of pollutants. Ozone precursors are also generated by adjacent municipalities and carried over
by prevailing winds into the Santa Clara Valley. The high concentration of industry in the Silicon Valley
generates air toxics and criteria air pollutants with a high rate of mobile source emissions generated by
the many work-site destinations.
The BAAQMD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing air quality standards within the
Bay Area Air Basin, including the City of Saratoga. The BAAQMD operates a monitoring station nearby
in Los Gatos, where it records pollutant concentration levels for carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO 2 ), Ozone (O 3 ), and Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ). The BAAQMD Compliance and Enforcement Division
routinely conducts inspections and audits of potential polluting sites to ensure compliance with applicable
federal, State, and BAAQMD regulations.
37
- 23 - Environmental Analysis
The Bay Area Air Basin is designated as non-attainment for both the one-hour and eight-hour state and
national ozone standards; 0.09 parts per million (ppm) and 0.070 ppm, respectively. The Basin is also in
non-attainment for the PM 10 and PM 2.5 state standards, which require an annual arithmetic mean (AAM)
of less than 20 µg/m3 for PM 10 and less than 12 µg/m3 for PM 2.5 . In addition, the Bay Area Air Basin is
designated as non-attainment for the national 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. All other national ambient air
quality standards within the Bay Area Air Basin are in attainment.2
The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP), adopted by the BAAQMD in September 2010, served to
update the 2005 Bay Area Ozone plan in accordance with the requirements of California Clean Air Act.
The Bay Area CAP incorporated updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new
meteorological episodes and air quality modeling tools and serves as the framework for SFAAB to
achieve attainment of the California AAQS.
Air Quality Impact Discussion
4.3(a) No Impact: The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in September 2010 to
comply with state air quality planning requirements set forth in the California Health & Safety Code. The
2010 CAP serves to update the 2005 Ozone Strategy and provides control strategies to address air quality
pollutants including ozone (O 3 ), Particulate Matter (PM), toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse
gases (GHGs). A total of 55 control strategies have been developed as part of the CAP for land use, energy
and climate, stationary sources, transportation, and mobile sources. Control strategies are designed to
reduce emissions of ozone precursors, PM, air toxics, and greenhouse gases, work towards attainment of
state ozone standards, reduce transport of ozone to neighboring basins, and to protect public health and
the climate. Measures to implement control strategies include the use of clean and efficient vehicles, Green
Construction Fleets, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access, energy efficiency, and others.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines set forth criteria for determining consistency with the CAP. In general a
project is considered consistent if a) the project supports the primary goals of the CAP, b) includes control
measures and c) does not interfere with implementation of the CAP measures. The Housing Element
Update is consistent with the existing CAP and none of its proposed changes would conflict with the
implementation of the CAP. Therefore, no impacts related to a Regional Air Quality Plan are expected.
4.3(b-c) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element Update proposes that Saratoga
accommodate future housing on vacant and/or underdeveloped lands located within the boundaries of the
City’s Planning Area. It is anticipated that construction and operation of proposed housing will generate
pollutant emissions through both stationary and mobile-point sources. However, as the Housing Element
Update is a policy document and not a site specific project proposal, no emission calculations and have
been conducted. All future residential development proposed will be reviewed in accordance with CEQA at
which time air quality impacts would be evaluated and mitigated for as needed. The subject Housing
Element Update does not introduce new policies or require amendments that have the potential to
generate air quality emissions beyond what has been anticipated. Therefore, any air quality impacts
associated with the proposed Update will remain at levels below significant.
4.3(d) Less than Significant Impact: Sensitive Receptors refers to those who may have a heightened
sensitivity to air pollutants; these may include persons under the age of 14 and over the age of 65,
persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases and athletes in training. The Housing
Element identifies potential housing sites to be located in underdeveloped areas throughout the City. The
policy updates proposed would not substantially increase the risk to nearby sensitive receptors.
2 “2010 Clean Air Plan,” prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, September 2010.
38
- 24 - Environmental Analysis
Furthermore, air quality impacts to sensitive receptors will be reviewed and mitigated for on a site-specific
basis if and when development is proposed. Therefore, the subject Update will result in less than
significant impacts to sensitive receptors.
4.3(e) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element is not expected to create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people. Future development has the potential to generate odors during
construction from heavy-duty equipment exhaust or from application of paint and asphalt.
Construction activities would be temporary and not result in any permanent impacts to the adjacent land
uses, including those with sensitive receptors. All new development would be subject to compliance
with standards established for the BAAQMD for odor control. Therefore, impacts related to
objectionable odors are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with the following General plan policies:
LU 15 Improve local and regional air quality by ensuring all development projects
incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants.
LU 15.1 Require development projects to comply with BAAQMD measures to reduce fugitive
dust emissions due to grading and construction activities.
LU 15.2 Encourage use of trip demand measures as part of major commercial and office
development projects to reduce dependence on auto use.
LU 15.3 Discourage the use of wood burning fireplaces by limiting to one per residence,
including outdoor/patio fireplaces.
Circulation and Scenic Highway Element
CI 2.22 Require a transportation analysis for all development projects resulting in 50 or more
net new daily trips. The analysis shall identify potential impacts to intersection and
roadway operations, project access, and alternative travel modes, and shall identify
feasible improvements or project modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts. Impact
significance should be consistent with the criteria maintained b the VTA. City staff
should have the discretion to require focused studies regarding access, sight
distance, and other operational and safety issues.
CI 2.23 Evaluate development proposals and design roadway improvements based on
established Level of Service standards.
CI.2.28 Develop and adopt a Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Plan to specifically
include a process for identifying problem areas, and for evaluating, funding, and
implementing traffic calming measures to reduce high traffic volumes and travel
speeds on City streets.
CI 4.0a Promote local and regional transit as a viable alternative to automobile travel for
destinations within and outside the City.
CI 4.0b Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity,
safety, accessibility, and convenience of existing and planned transit, bicycle and
pedestrian systems.
39
- 25 - Environmental Analysis
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Sources: Saratoga General Plan: Open Space & Conservation Element, 2007; Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of
Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland, 1986); US Fish & Wildlife National Wetlands Mapper.
Biological Resources Setting: Biological resources are protected by statute including the Federal
Endangered Species Act (FESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Clean
Water Act (CWA). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) affords protection to migratory bird species
including birds of prey. These regulations provide the legal protection for plant and animal species of
concern and their habitat.
40
- 26 - Environmental Analysis
The Saratoga Planning Area includes two discrete habitat types within the boundaries of the
Planning Area: hillside habitat and urban habitat. The hillside habitat is largely confined to the
western portions of the City and is comprised of a mix of chaparral (on the dry hillsides), Oak
woodland, and Redwood groves. The urban habitat located on the relatively flat expanses of the City
is largely limited to, “ornamental landscaping, non-native grasses and weed associations (ruderal
vegetation) and/or scattered agricultural crop and orchard plantings.” (Holland). Sensitive animal and
plant species located within the urbanized portions of the City include Burrowing Owl, California
Tiger Salamander, and Red Legged Frog. There are also a number of native and ornamental tree
species within the urbanized area that are protected through Saratoga’s Tree Regulations per City
Code, Article 15-50 and through the adoption of the 2001 International Society of Arborist’s
Standards.
Biological Impact Discussion:
4.4 (a – d) Less than Significant Impact: As a policy document, the Saratoga Housing Element
Update is not expected to adversely impact any biological resources. Future housing anticipated by
this policy document will be accommodated in urbanized areas of the City, thereby avoiding
especially valuable and/or sensitive habitat. However, it is noted in the Saratoga General Plan a
number of plant and animal species, including, but not limited to, the Burrowing Owl, California Tiger
Salamander and Red Legged Frog may be present within City limits. Therefore, removal and/or
modification of vacant and/or underdeveloped lands within the urbanized area could adversely
impact said species. However, as stated earlier, the Housing Element Update is a policy document
intended to plan for and enable future housing development. Any development that is carried out as
an extension of the goals and objectives set forth in the subject Element will be evaluated and
reviewed in accordance with General Plan Policy OSC 11.2 at which time any adverse impacts to
biological resources will be identified based on site specific design.
The Housing Element does not alter the existing land use designations nor does it introduce new
policies that would promote development within sensitive areas. Rather, the majority of the
development potential identified by the Housing Element Update is within already developed areas
and underutilized lots. Adherence to the adopted General Plan policies such as OSC 11.2 that
requires site specific biological surveys will ensure that sensitive habitat is identified and protected or
mitigation appropriate as part of the development review process. Therefore, potential impacts to
sensitive habitat generated by the policies set forth in the Housing Element Update would be less
than significant.
4.4(e) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element Update encourages infill development
in previously developed or urbanized areas of the City. Thus, any potential for conflict with an
existing plan will be limited. As part of the development review process potential impacts to biological
resources will be evaluated on a project by project basis as required by CEQA. However, because
the proposed Housing Element Update and goals therein remain consistent with goals and
objectives outlined in the General Plan, specifically the Open Space and Conservation Element, any
potential impacts would be below levels of significance.
4.4(f) No Impact: At present, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan exists for the City of Saratoga.
The Housing Element Update sets forth policies to accommodate new residential development within
the existing, urbanized portions of the City thereby avoiding areas designated open space and/or
those supporting significant animal or plant habitat. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would
have no impact due to a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or any
other Natural Community Conservation Plan approved by a local, regional or state body.
41
- 27 - Environmental Analysis
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with General Plan policies and goals including
the following:
LU 8.1 Development proposals shall minimize impacts to ridgelines, significant natural hillside
features, including but not limited to steep topography, major stands of vegetation,
especially native vegetation and oak trees, and watercourses.
LU 8.2 Adhere to the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan (derived by Measure A) which is
incorporated herein by this reference.
LU 9.1 Limit the amount of grading within hillside areas to the minimum amount needed for
dwellings and access.
OSC 11 Protect and enhance sensitive vegetative and wildlife habitat in the Saratoga Planning
area.
OSC 11.1 Minimize development that would encroach into important wildlife habitats, limit or restrict
normal range areas, or restrict access to water food or shelter. This includes limitations on
the installation of barrier fencing in hillside areas.
OSC 11.2 Through the development and CEQA process, preserve, protect, and maintain riparian
habitats and creek corridors. This includes requiring biological surveys of parcels of land
that could contain sensitive species or their habitats prior to allowing development on
these parcels.
OSC 12 Support appropriate management for sustaining the health and increasing the extent of
urban forest resources in the City. The specific vision is to increase overall tree cover, tree
health and consequent tree benefits in an equitable, cost beneficial and sustainable
manner.
OSC 12.1 Development projects should include the preservation of protected trees and other
significant trees. Any adverse effect on the health and longevity of native oak trees,
protected or other significant trees should be avoided through appropriate design
measures and construction practices. When tree preservation is not feasible, individual
development projects shall include appropriate tree replacement as approved by the City.
OSC 12.2 It is the City’s policy that forested lands in the City’s Sphere of Influence shall be managed
to maximize environmental protection and to discourage logging to the maximum extent
possible, consistent with proper fire protection standards and practices.
42
- 28 - Environmental Analysis
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5?
X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
X
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
d. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? X
Sources: City of Saratoga General Plan; CEQA Section 15064.5, Subdivision (F); and California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5
Cultural Resources Setting: Saratoga’s beginnings date back to 1846 when Bill Campbell and sons
established Quito Mill along the banks of Quito Creek. The subsequent discovery of mineral springs
prompted a robust spa industry. Later, agricultural industry and orchards became a dominant facet of
the landscape until the 1940s when the post-WII Housing boom happened and much of the agricultural
land transitioned from crops to housing.
In order to perpetuate the unique character of Saratoga, the City adopted a resolution that established a
Historic Preservation Ordinance and created a Historic Preservation Commission that reviews the
impacts of new development on the City’s historic resources. There are a number of properties in
Saratoga listed on the National and State Register of Historic Places.
There are several archeological sites throughout the City with two formally listed on the State
Archeological Inventory Survey. One of the listed sites is located on or near Saratoga Avenue with the
other at an undisclosed location.
Cultural Impact Discussion:
4.5 (a) Less than Significant Impact: Historic resources are distributed throughout the City and are
present in both urbanized and rural areas. The 2015-2023 Housing Element Update encourages
targeted growth and infill development in vacant and underutilized lands including those identified as
“opportunity sites.” Historic resources located in or adjacent to “opportunity sites”, as is the case with
the “Village area” (Saratoga’s historical center) are potentially vulnerable to new development.
However, proper adherence to the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan will ensure that new
development occurs in a manner that preserves historic resources. Furthermore, the Historic
Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Review Committee require subsequent review and
analysis when a historic resources is involved. Therefore, with proper compliance to the General Plan
and Historic Preservation Ordinance, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant.
43
- 29 - Environmental Analysis
4.5 (b) Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Saratoga exhibits a rich archeological history due to
the presence of the Ohlone Indians during the prehistoric period. Potentially significant archeological
resources include, but are not limited to concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits,
modified stone, shell, bone, or other cultural materials such as charcoal, ash, and burned rock indicative
of food procurement or processing activities, or prehistoric domestic features including hearths, fire pits,
or house floor depressions or other such historic artifacts (potentially including trash pits and all by-
products of human land use greater than 50 years of age). As such, undisturbed lands within the City’s
Planning Area, particularly lands near Saratoga Creek have a heightened potential to contain
prehistoric archaeological resources.
Disturbance to buried cultural resources would constitute a potentially significant impact if not properly
managed. However, compliance with CEQA Section 15064.5, Subdivision (F) stipulates that should any
archeological resources be encountered during grading, all ground disturbing activity shall be halted
immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the artifacts identified and recommend further
action. Furthermore, the proposed Housing Element Update sets forth policies intended to facilitate
housing development in accordance with the RHNA needs and will not directly result in any specific
construction or development. Adherence to CEQA Section 15064.5, Subdivision (F) at the time that
future development occurs will ensure that archeological resources are protected. Additionally, General
Plan policies LU 12.9 stipulates that new development require reconnaissance level analysis, which will
be performed when project specific development is proposed, as necessary. Therefore, implementation
of the proposed Housing Element Updated would have a less than significant impact on archeological
resources.
4.5 (c) Less Than Significant Impact: The Saratoga General Plan does not identify the presence of
any paleontological or unique geological resources within the boundaries of the City’s planning area.
Therefore, the project is not expected to impact any paleontological or unique geologic resources.
Furthermore, as site specific development is proposed each project will be reviewed pursuant to CEQA
any will require conformance will all applicable General Plan policies including LU 12.9 as described
above. The subject Housing Element Update does not identify any new sites that were not previously
evaluated for development potential. Therefore, implementation of the Housing Element Update will
result in less than significant impact to paleontological resources.
4.5 (d) Less than Significant Impact: California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 mandates
that, in the event human remains are discovered in a location other than a dedicated cemetery, all
disturbance or excavation must cease and the county coroner must be notified. If the human remains
are found to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission will then identify
and contact a likely descendent to inspect the site and recommend future treatment associated with the
contents of the grave. No evidence suggests that human remains have been interred within the areas
considered to have residential development potential including vacant, underutilized, and “opportunity
sites”.
New developed promulgated by the subject Housing Element would require subsequent review and due
compliance with applicable policies and regulation including CA Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5.
In the event that future development project where to encounter human remains, all requirements of
state law shall be duly complied with, including the immediate cessation of ground disturbing activities
near or in any area potentially overlying adjacent human remains. Proper adherence to CA Health &
Safety Code Section 7050.5 will ensure any impacts to interred human remains are avoided.
44
- 30 - Environmental Analysis
The proposed Housing Element Update does not result in any ground disturbance nor does it identify
new land not previously considered for development. Therefore impacts due to discovery of human
remains will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond consistency with General Plan policies, including those
listed below:
LU 12 Recognize the heritage of the City by seeking to protect historic and cultural resources,
where feasible.
LU 12.1 Enhance the visual character of the City by encouraging compatibility of architectural
styles that reflect established architectural traditions.
LU 12.2 Develop zoning and other incentives for property owners to preserve historic resources
and seek out historic designations for their respective properties.
LU 12.3 In order to create an incentive for the protection of historic structures, modify the Zoning
Ordinance to allow the Planning Commission to have the authority to modify any of the
development regulations in the Ordinance, if the subject of the application is a structure
which has been designated as an historic landmark.
LU 12.4 The City shall continue to participate in the Mills Act program which allows property
owners of historic residences a reduction of their property tax.
LU 12.5 Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City’s past and foster
civic and neighborhood pride and sense of identity based upon the recognition and use of
the City’s heritage resources.
LU 12.6 The Heritage Preservation Commission shall regularly update the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory.
LU 12.7 Development proposals impacting any of the City’s heritage land and/or any historic
resources listed on any local or state inventory shall be reviewed by Heritage Preservation
Commission and the Planning Commission, as required.
LU 12.8 For any project development affecting structures that are 50 years of age or older,
conduct a historic review.
LU 12.9 Conduct reconnaissance-level analyses of new development projects to ensure that no
significant archeological, prehistoric, paleontological Native American resources would be
disturbed. If such resources are found, appropriate steps shall be taken, consistent with
CEQA requirements to protect these resources.
45
- 31 - Environmental Analysis
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
X
2) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
3) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
4) Landslides? X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on-site or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
California Building Code (2001),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
X
Sources: Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; Article 16-15 of the City’s buildings code; and
Title 24 of the California Building Code.
Geology and Soils Setting: Saratoga is located towards the Southern end of San Francisco Bay in the
Santa Clara Valley. The topography of the City features a low-lying, relatively flat valley floor and prominent
foothills located in the western portion of the city. The Castle Rock portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains lie
just outside of the City limits, but within the City’s sphere of influence. The valley floor is underlain by alluvial
deposits comprised of unconsolidated particles of clay, silt, sand and gravel whereas the hillsides feature a
limited amount of exposed bedrock.
46
- 32 - Environmental Analysis
The northeast-southwest segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone traverses the southwestern-most corner
of the Saratoga Sphere of Influence, along the eastern side of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Local regulations
related to geologic concerns are outlined in Article 16-15 of the City’s buildings code that is modeled after
the most current California Building Code requirements and enforces Title 24 regulations. All development
proposed within geographically hazardous areas are subject to detailed geotechnical investigation.
Geology and Soils Impact Discussion:
4.6(a.1-a.4; c) Less than Significant Impact: The City of Saratoga like the entire Bay Area is located in a s
seismically active region. The San Andreas Fault traverses the southwestern most part of the City’s sphere
of influence, along the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains and is identified as an Alquist Priolo Special Study
Zone. This is the only “active” fault in the immediate vicinity of Saratoga, meaning that it has experienced
displacement in the previous 11,000 years and is expected to do so again. The Berrocal, Monta Vista, and
Shannon faults are located within City limits and are considered “potentially active” faults, meaning that they
have moved within the last 2 million to 11,000 years. Although these potentially active faults do pose
seismic hazards it is expected that adherence to the stipulations outlined in the City’s Building Code and
compliance to Title 24 requirements will ensure that potential risks due to hazardous activity are minimized.
All vacant, underdeveloped and opportunity sites identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element inventory are
located within city limits. No faults identified as Alquist-Priolo fault zones are located within the City limits
and therefore no impact from fault rupture is expected. There is potential for liquefaction and or ground
failure on the Santa Clara Valley floor, especially adjacent to streams and/or creeks, however, with proper
geotechnical considerations and adherence to city code requirements and setback requirements future
development will not be at risk for impacts related to liquefactions or subsidence. Although there are a few
sites that are identified within hillside areas, these will require subsequent review and adherence to the
Hillside Preservation Ordinance. Landslides are generally confined to areas with slopes greater than 15%,
where developed is generally discouraged. Adherence to adopted General Plan Policies and the Hillside
Preservation Ordinance will ensure that potential geotechnical constraints are identified during project
specific development review.
The primary geotechnical consideration is that of strong ground shaking generated by seismic activity. It is
expected that any geotechnical concerns related to strong ground shaking will be anticipated in design and
construction activities in accordance with Saratoga City Code and California Building Code. As stated, all
future development projects proposed will individually be subject to CEQA review and will require a site
specific evaluation of geotechnical concerns. The subject Housing Element does not introduce any new
policies that would conflict with measures intended to protect residents from the adverse effects of seismic
activity. Therefore potential impacts due to seismic impact resulting from implementation of the subject
Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
4.6(b) Less than Significant Impact: The RHNA allocation will be accommodated on existing,
underdeveloped and vacant lands. Activities associated with site preparation and construction such as,
clearing, grading and/or grubbing may disturb top soil and could lead to soil erosion if proper measures
are not taken. Any projects proposed as part of the Housing Element will be required to evaluate and
mitigate for potential impacts related to the loss of topsoil and/or erosion on a site-specific basis. These
potential impacts have been previously identified and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, any
projects proposed for lands greater than one acre will be required to create a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and adhere to Best Management Practices. The subject Housing Element
Update does not result in any new ground disturbance not previously anticipated by the existing General
Plan. Therefore, impacts related to erosion and/or loss of topsoil will be less than significant.
47
- 33 - Environmental Analysis
4.6(d) Less than Significant Impact: Expansive soils are not especially prevalent in the City of Saratoga
and are largely confined to the western hillsides, where development potential is restricted. Nonetheless
as has been previously identified the presence of expansive soils has the potential to result in impacts to
foundations and structures. Future development promulgated by the subject 2015-2023 Housing Element
Update will be individually reviewed pursuant to CEQA and City regulations which require a thorough
geotechnical investigation if there is reason to believe that geotechnical concerns may be present,
including expansive soils. The Housing Element Update does not result in any policy changes that would
conflict with the requirements to perform site specific investigation, nor does it introduce any new
development on land not previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Implementation of the Housing
Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the General Plan EIR. Therefore,
impacts due to expansive soils would be less than significant.
4.6(e) No Impact: The 2015-2023 Housing Element Update identifies potential residential sites that can
be accommodated within existing developed areas, vacant lots, or underutilizes lots. There is no
expectation that any of the future projects envisioned as part of the Housing Element would warrant the
use of septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system. Rather, all new development would be
served by the City’s sewer system. Therefore, no Impacts associated with septic tanks or other
wastewater disposal systems are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with General Plan policies, including the
following:
LU 8.1 Development proposals shall minimize impacts to ridgelines, significant natural hillside
features, including but not limited to steep topography, major stands of vegetation,
especially native vegetation and oak trees, and watercourses.
LU 9.1 Limit expansion of urban development in the hillside areas.
LU 9.2 Limit the amount of grading within hillside areas to the minimum amount needed for
swellings and access.
OSC 6.1 Through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, designate lands in the hillier
portions of the Saratoga Planning Area for open space- managed resource production,
which allows very low-density residential uses while maintaining a significant amount of
open space.
SAF 1-2 Development in areas subject to natural hazards shall be limited and shall be designed to
protect the environment, inhabitants and general public. In areas that have been proven to
be unsafe, development of structures for human habitation shall be prohibited to the
maximum extent permitted by law.
SAF 1-3 Proposals for General Plan amendments, zone changes, use permit, variances, building
site approvals, and all land development application subject to environmental assessment
according to CEQA guidelines shall be reviewed for hazardous conditions utilizing the most
current data.
48
- 34 - Environmental Analysis
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
Sources: BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan; BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 2010 and 2012.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Impact Discussion:
4.7(a-b) Less than Significant Impact: This update to the General Plan Housing Element does not
propose any actions that would result in the development of a specific site. Rather, it provides policy
direction for the governance of residential development citywide. The goals and policies of the General
Plan Housing Element are intended to ensure the continued availability of housing to meet the diverse
needs of Saratoga’s residents. All future development projects would be required to undergo CEQA review
including an evaluation of impacts associated with the generation of GHGs during construction and
operation. Additional, all new residential projects proposed would be required to adhere to the adopted
policies that minimize the generation of GHG. The subject Housing Element Update does not introduce any
polices or programs that would interfere with efforts to reduce GHG emissions citywide. Accordingly,
impacts associated with GHG resulting from the Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with applicable General Plan policies.
49
- 35 - Environmental Analysis
4.8 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporate
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
X
d. Be located on a site, which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5, and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
X
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
X
Sources: General Plan Safety Element.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials Setting: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
defines a hazardous material as: “a substance or combination of substances that, because of its quantity,
concentration or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either: 1) cause, or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness; or 2)
pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.”
50
- 36 - Environmental Analysis
Regulations governing the use, management, handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste
and materials are administered by Federal, State and local governmental agencies. Pursuant to the
Planning and Zoning Law, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a hazardous
waste and substances site list, also known as the “Cortese List.” At present, Saratoga does not have any
sites designated as Cortese sites per the DTSC.
Hazardous waste management in the City of Saratoga is administered by the Santa Clara County
Department of Public Health. The Hazardous Material Compliance Division (HMCD) provides
comprehensive environmental regulatory compliance inspection services and is also the Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA) for Santa Clara County, with the exception of the Cities of Santa Clara, Gilroy
and Sunnyvale. Within the City of Saratoga hazardous materials are regulated by Chapter of 8 of the
Saratoga Municipal Code.
Hazards/ Hazardous Materials Impact Discussion:
4.8(a-b) Less than Significant Impact: The subject Housing Element Update does not propose any
new development projects. Rather, it identifies lands that could support residential development and
establishes policies and program to ensure that sufficient housing continues to remain available and
affordable for Saratoga residence. As sites identified include both vacant and developed lands, future
projects may require demolition, grubbing, site preparation and construction activities. Construction
activities may result in the temporary presence of hazardous materials including, but not limited to fuels
and lubricants, paints, solvents, insulation, electrical wiring, and other construction related materials
onsite. However, future development is required to comply with all existing federal, state and local safety
regulations governing the transportation, use, handling, storage and disposal of potentially hazardous
materials. Additionally, any residential development projects proposed in the future will be subject to site-
specific CEQA review including a Phase I investigation as appropriate to identify the presence of any
potentially hazardous materials. The Housing Element Update does not identify any new land not
previously considered to have development potential. Compliance with safety regulation as well as
policies identified in the General plan Safety Element will ensure that any future development would not
introduce a hazardous or potentially hazardous risk. As a policy for development that does not conflict
with any established regulations that project health and safety potential impacts associated with
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
4.8(c) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element Update will not generate potentially
hazardous emissions near or adjacent to an existing or proposed school. Although future residential
development projects proposed in proximity to schools may result in the limited and temporary presence
of hazardous materials, these sites will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time that development
is formally proposed. Therefore, the subject Housing Element Update would have less than significant
impacts due to the generation of hazardous materials in proximity to an existing or proposed school.
4.8(d) No Impact: As of May 2014, no CORTESE Sites were listed as being present in the City of
Saratoga. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with locating a future residential
development project on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites.
4.8(e-f) No Impact: There are no airports or private airstrips located within the boundaries of the
Saratoga Planning Area. Therefore, no impacts associated with airport-related hazards are expected.
4.8(g) Less than Significant Impact: None of the proposed policies or programs set forth in the
Housing Element Update would seriously impair the implementation of, or physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
51
- 37 - Environmental Analysis
Any future development projects proposed will be required to comply with adopted plans and regulations
which will ensure that emergency ingress and egress is accommodated in the design of the site, both
during construction and operation. Therefore, impacts due to conflict with an emergency response plan
are expected to remain at levels below significant.
4.8(h) Less than Significant Impact: Moderate to high fire hazard zones are located along the wildland-
urban interface in Saratoga, concentrated in the hillsides that border the City to the South and West
along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (HWY 9). However, while fire hazards
do exist in areas of the City, any future development proposed in these areas will be subject to the
Uniform Fire Code for Wildland-Urban Interface areas as well as development regulations set forth in
Chapter 14 and Chapter 16 of the City’s Municipal Code. Future development proposed be subject to the
County and City regulations that outline measures to prevent and reduce hazards associated with fire.
The Housing Element Update does not directly result in development nor does it introduce any policies or
programs that would increase the fire hazard risk. Therefore, impact due to the implementation of the
subject Housing Element update will remain at levels below significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
SAF 4.1 The City shall require the installation of an early warning fire alarm system.
SAF 4.4 The City shall continue to enforce existing regulation pertaining to hazardous fire
areas (wildland-urban interface) fire retardant construction and landscaping (fuel
modification).
SAF 4.5 The City shall coordinate with the Santa Clara County Fire Department on the need
for additional fire prevention regulation for the built up, populated area of the City.
SAF 5.1 The City shall review and update on a regular basis its plan for emergency
response and preparedness. This plan shall use local resources and manpower to
provide maximum benefit and protection for the City’s residents.
SAF 5.2 The City shall coordinate its Emergency Operation Plan with local jurisdiction and
regional agencies to anticipate cumulative impacts during times of disaster.
SAF 5.2b On an annual basis, the City will review the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex to
ensure that identified mitigation actions are being incorporated into upcoming City
sponsored projects, where appropriate.
SAF 5.3 The City shall encourage all citizens to take responsibility for their own safety in the
event of a disaster.
SAF 5.3a The City shall publicize and participate in disaster preparedness exercises and
distribute emergency planning information to the citizens of Saratoga.
52
- 38 - Environmental Analysis
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? X
b. Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
X
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of stream or river, in a
manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
X
d. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
X
e. Create or contribute runoff which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
X
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
X
i. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Source: FEMA; and General Plan including Safety Element and Exhibits therein.
53
- 39 - Environmental Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality Setting: The City of Saratoga is located in the North Central Flood Zone
of the Santa Clara County Water District. There are three primary drainages under the City’s jurisdiction
which drain in a north-south direction. From east to west, the primary drainages are; San Tomas Aquino
Saratoga and Calabasas Creeks, all of which ultimately discharge into the San Francisco Bay. As such,
limited areas within the city have been identified by FEMA as being located within the 100 year
floodplain. As the identified flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation, the City of Saratoga
developed a Floodplain Management Plan codified in City Code Article 16-66.
The primary source of water for Saratoga is supplied by the San Jose Water company, a private
company serving Central Santa Clara County; two smaller companies supply water to areas of the City
adjacent to Bohlman Road. The water is available from three sources including local groundwater, local
surface water and water imported from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The City participates in the
Santa Clara Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program which is intended to protect water bodies in
compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT DISCUSSION
4.9(a) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element is a policy document intended to facilitate
and guide future housing development. No policies within the Housing Element Update will directly alter
or conflict with existing water quality regulations and discharge standards. All future residential
development proposed will be subject to Federal, State and Local regulations governing storm water
runoff and water quality such as those stipulated by the Santa Clara Non-Point Source Pollution Program
and NPDES requirements including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
on sites that result in soil disturbance to more than 1.0 acres. Compliance with applicable regulation will
ensure that future development projects do not adversely impact water quality. The subject Housing
Element Update does not introduce any polices or programs that interfere with adopted regulation that
protect water quality. Therefore, the subject Update will have a less than significant impact due to the
violation of water quality and waste discharge requirements.
4.9(b) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element Updates identifies sufficient sites that could
support residential land uses consistent with the RHNA requirements. All of the sites identified currently
support or a planned to support residential development at densities that are comparable to what has
previously been anticipated. The San Jose Water Company Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
assumes a population growth of 1.1-1.5%. The UWMP indicates that sufficient water supplies are
expected to be available through normal and/or multiple dry years until 2025. It is expected that water
shortages may occur in the event of an extended drought period after 2025. The Housing Element
Update does not propose new housing or increased density that exceeds what has already been
evaluated for the General Plan or San Jose Water Company UWMP. Furthermore, any future
development projects proposed will be subject to CEQA review and required to comply with all existing
regulations governing water use. The subject Housing Element Update does not introduce any policies or
programs that would interfere with groundwater recharge or otherwise compromise water supplies.
Therefore, any impacts related to the depletion of groundwater will remain at levels below significant with
implementation of the Housing Element Update.
4.9(c-f) Less than Significant Impact: The sites identified in the Housing Element update that could
support future residential development were previously anticipated and considered as part of the General
Plan EIR. There are no new land use designations that were not previously anticipated to support
residential development. Accordingly, the proposed Housing Element Update will not generate impacts
greater than those previously identified in the GP EIR. Furthermore, all future development proposed
would be subject to local and state regulations governing erosion control, surface runoff and flooding.
General Plan policies outlined below ensure that flood control protection is afforded Citywide.
54
- 40 - Environmental Analysis
The proposed Housing Element Update does not introduce any policies or programs that would interfere
or otherwise conflict with adopted flood control, drainage, and stormwater runoff strategies. Therefore,
adoption of the Housing Element Update would have less than significant impacts due to the alteration of
drainage and contribution of stormwater.
4.9(g-h) Less than Significant Impact: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares
and maintains Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which show the extent of Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs) and other features related to flood risk. The City of Saratoga contains several drainage
creeks with floodplains that are susceptible to the 100-year flood (Zone A and AE). The balance of the
City is located within the 500 year floodplain (Flood Zone X). Refer to the Safety Element of the General
Plan, Exhibit 6, FEMA Flood Zones. The proposed Housing Element Update does not introduce any
policies or programs that would interfere with protection associated with the 100-year flood hazard
including the placement of structure within the 100-year flood hazard area. As mentioned, at the time that
future residential development is proposed, all projects will be subject the subsequent environmental
review pursuant to CEQA including an evaluation of potential flood zone impacts. All sites identified to
hold an opportunity for residential development have previously been analyzed and assessed for flood
hazards. The subject Housing Element Update does not introduce any new policies or development
potential not previously analyzed. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element would have a less than
significant impact due to the siting of structures within a flood hazard area.
4.9(i) Less Than Significant Impact: In the event that the Lake Ranch Dam were compromised,
upstream flooding could result in inundation along Saratoga Creek as described in the General Plan
Safety Element (and illustrated on Exhibit 5 therein). There are no other dams or levees that pose a
potential flooding hazard within the City of Saratoga. The subject Housing Element Update does not
introduce any policies that would alter the risk exposure associated with land along or in close proximity
to Saratoga Creek beyond what has been previously analyzed. Therefore, the subject Housing Element
Update would have less than significant impacts associated with increased risk of exposure due to the
failure of a dam or levee.
4.9(j) No Impact: The City of Saratoga is not located within an area that could be affected by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow. There are no substantial water bodies within City limits that would pose a particular
risk of exposure. Therefore, there will be no impacts from inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow
resulting from implementation of the subject Housing Element Update.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with the following General Plan policies:
OSC 9.2 Concentrate development in those portions of the community least susceptible to soil
erosion and minimize grading and the introduction of impervious surfaces. Where
appropriate, consider the use of on-site detention or retention basins to minimize
stormwater runoff from sites.
LU 6.1 Incorporate specific standards and requirements into the Zoning Ordinance to preserve
and protect sensitive watershed areas on hillsides within the community.
LU 6.2 Development proposals shall incorporate stormwater quality features, including but not
limited to grassy bio-swales, to protect surface and subsurface water quality.
OSC 9.a The City shall coordinate review of development projects adjacent to watercourses with
the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other applicable agencies.
55
- 41 - Environmental Analysis
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
No Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community? X
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
X
Source: General Plan; ABAG.
Land Use and Planning Setting: The City of Saratoga is nearly built out, with the predominant land use
being residential. Over 90% of the land in Saratoga is currently developed. A majority of the vacant lands
that remain are located on hillsides and therefore are restricted in their development potential. have
Land Use and Planning Impact Discussion
4.10(a) Less than Significant Impact: Division of an established community typically occurs when a new
physical feature, in the form of an interstate or railroad, physically transects an area, thereby removing
mobility and access within an established community. The division of an established community can also
occur through the removal of an existing road or pathway, which would reduce or remove access between
a community and outlying areas.
The City of Saratoga is largely built out, with limited opportunity for infill development and the development
of vacant land. The inventory conducted for the Housing Element Update shows that several of the
opportunity sites identified are located on underdeveloped parcels or parcels that are designated for mixed
use development. In accordance with the policies set forth in the subject update, it is expected that future
residential development proposals will be for projects located adjacent to similar and/or complimentary
uses and are comparable in scale and density.
Future development within will be accommodated within vacant and underdeveloped lands which would
be expected to encourage continuity and uniformity rather than division. There are no aspects of the
proposed Housing Element Update that would substantially reduce mobility or access. Therefore,
implementation of the Housing Element Update would have less than significant impacts due to the
division of an established community.
4.10(b) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element is consistent with all General Plan policies
and the Zoning Ordinance and does not introduce any policies or programs that would result in a conflict.
Future residential development proposals will be subject to CEQA and will require review to ensure
consistency with the Saratoga General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plan, and other regulations, as
56
- 42 - Environmental Analysis
appropriate. Due compliance with CEQA and adopted City plans and ordinances will ensure that all future
development is consistent with adopted City regulation.
The subject Housing Element Update does not introduce any policies or programs that would conflict with
regulations. Therefore, implementation of the subject Housing Element Update would result in less than
significant impacts.
4.10(c) No Impact: The City of Saratoga is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or a natural
community conservation plan. Therefore, the Housing Element Update will have no impact to any
conservation plan or natural community plan.
Mitigation Measures: None Required beyond compliance with those policies set forth in the General Plan.
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X
Mineral Resources Setting: Mineral Resources located within Saratoga’s Planning Area are limited to
Sandstone and Shale. Historically, the City supported a number of quarries but there are no active mineral
extraction activities within the City of Saratoga.
Mineral Resources Impact Discussion
4.11(a-b) No Impact: Although the City contains Sandstone and Shale deposits, the City has is largely
developed with existing residential land uses. Mineral extraction would be inconsistent with the established
land uses citywide. There are no active mineral extraction activities occurring within City limits. The subject
Housing Element Update does not introduce any policies or programs related to Mineral Resources.
Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed
Housing Element Update.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond applicable General Plan policies.
57
- 43 - Environmental Analysis
4.12 NOISE
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
X
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
X
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
X
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
Sources: Saratoga General Plan; and Noise Control Ordinance.
Noise Setting: Noise sources within Saratoga’s Planning Area include vehicular traffic, rail, aircraft,
commercial and industrial activities, as well as the use of mechanical equipment and refrigeration units.
The City of Saratoga regulates the noise environment through the Noise Control Ordinance outlined in 7-
30 of the City’s Municipal Code. The Saratoga General Plan indicates that single-family residential land
uses are considered normally acceptable in noise environments of 60 dB CNEL/L dn or less and
conditionally acceptable up to 70 dB CNEL/L dn . Multi-family residential land uses are acceptable in noise
environments of 65 dB CNEL/L dn or less and conditionally acceptable up to 70 dB CNEL/L dn. Residential
uses in areas with Ldn less than 70 dBA would be conditionally acceptable with noise reduction
measures that achieve 45 dBA or less.
Per Section 7-30.060 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, noise generating construction activities are limited
to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Residential
construction is generally prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays.
In order to ensure new development complies with the City’s established noise standards, Section 7-
30.080 grants the City authority to require a noise study prior to the granting of any license, permit or
58
- 44 - Environmental Analysis
development approval. If the study anticipates violation of any established noise thresholds and/or
standards then adequate mitigation measures will be developed to reduce impacts to acceptable levels.
Should it be found that a violation cannot be prevented or corrected, then denial or revocation of a permit
or development approval may be necessary.
Noise Impact Discussion:
4.12(a-b) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element Update anticipated the future
development of additional housing units. As all identified opportunity sites, vacant sites and underutilized
site are currently designated for residential or allow for residential development, the noise impacts
associated with these lands have previously been considered.
Site-specific noise impacts will be analyzed pursuant to CEQA at the time that development proposals
are submitted to the City and as appropriate will include the requirement for detailed acoustical analysis
in conformance with General Plan Policy 2.1 as set forth below. Short-term construction activities and
long-term operation of future residential developments would contribute to the City’s noise environment.
Compliance with Federal, State and Local regulations including the City’s General Plan and Section 7-30
of the Municipal Code will ensure that noise and vibration impacts related to exposure of persons to in
excess of those would be identified, disclosed and mitigated accordingly.
The proposed Housing Element Update does not introduce any policies or programs that would conflict
with adopted regulations that protect the noise environmental. Therefore, impacts due to excessive noise
or vibration resulting from the Housing Element Update would be less than significant.
4.12(c-d) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element Update is consistent with the anticipated
growth rates as set forth in the General Plan. Increased density and future development envisioned by
the Housing Element would result in new residential units distributed throughout Saratoga. This level of
development would generally have a minimal contribution to the noise environment including stationary
noise and mobile noise sources.
The gradual increase in dwelling units over a seven year period and distributed across different areas of
the Planning Area is not expected to introduce a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise
environment as a result of stationary or mobile sources. Stationary noise sources may include daily
activities and movements by residents, landscaping, maintenance and the use of HVAC. All of the noise
sources emit intermittent sources of low level noise and are not expected to cause a perceptible noise
increase. Mobile noise sources may include increased traffic proximate to the project site. However, the
wide distribution of development across opportunity sites and the gradual nature of development is not
expected to substantially increase ambient noise levels. Furthermore, the cumulative noise impacts from
continued growth and development within City limits has previously been analyzed and the subject
Housing Element does not introduce new policies or programs or anticipate rates of growth beyond what
has previously been anticipated. The General plan EIR found that significant noise impacts would result
from an increased amount of traffic. The analysis conducted in the General plan EIR remain consistent
with this Housing Element Update and no additional noise impacts would be generated.
All future residential development proposals will be reviewed on a site-specific basis and may be subject
to a noise study. New development will be evaluated pursuant to CEQA and in accordance with
applicable thresholds including a 5 dBA increase for determining whether the noise level resulting from a
given project would exceed what is “normally acceptable”. The provision of a noise study for site-specific
project review, and in particular for mixed-use development proposals, will be subject to compliance with
the Saratoga Noise Ordinance, specifically, Section 7-30.060, as well as General Plan policies set forth
59
- 45 - Environmental Analysis
below would ensure that any impacts associated with future development would be less than significant.
The subject Housing Element does not introduce any polices or program that would result in a temporary
or permanent increase in the ambient noise environment. Therefore impacts would be less than
significant.
4.12(e-f) No Impact: The City of Saratoga does not contain any airports or provide airstrips. Thus, there
are no such facilities that would be located within two miles of a future residential development site.
Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not expose people residing or working onsite to significant
noise levels generated by an Airport. No impacts associated with the exposure of people to aircraft
related noise are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with the following General Plan policies:
Policy 1.2 The City shall use the planning and code enforcement process to discourage activities,
practices, or land uses that create or result in excessive noise exposure.
Policy 2.1 An acoustical analysis is to be conducted for proposed Residential and Quasi-Public
development where the existing noise level exceeds Outdoor DNL 60 dB to determine
measures needed to reduce impacts to meet City noise standards.
Policy 2.2 New residential development shall be designed and constructed to provide an interior
noise level of DNL 45 DB or less in habitable rooms (due to outdoor sources).
Policy 2.3 Residential outdoor space intended for use and enjoyment shall be designed to meet
Outdoor DNL 60 Db. This policy does not apply to private exterior balconies. Where this
level cannot feasibly be met by incorporating reasonable measures, such as strategic site
layout and noise barriers, DNL 65 dB may be approved.
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
X
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
60
- 46 - Environmental Analysis
c. Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Sources: Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element, 2007; U.S Census.
Population and Housing Setting: Saratoga has experienced very limited growth since 1980 as a
majority of the City’s vacant, developable land was largely developed by 1979. Since 1980 much of the
growth the City has experienced is attributed to changes in household size within existing dwelling units.
The 2007 population projections prepared by ABAG assume a population of 32,400 in 2015 and a
population of 33,300 by 2020. As of May 2014 Saratoga’s population was 30,877.
The Housing Element facilitates the development of 480 dwelling units over the next seven years. The
addition of 480 dwelling units or 1,369 residents to the existing population would remain consistent with
the population projections set forth by ABAG.
Potential growth inducing impacts are primarily assessed based on a project's consistency with adopted
plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint. The Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the responsible agency for developing and adopting regional housing,
population, and employment growth forecasts for local Santa Clara County governments, among other
counties. Table 4.13-1, Housing Element Projections Compared to ABAG, analyzes the growth
anticipated with the Housing Element Update, as compared to ABAG’s 2020 growth projections for the
City.
Table 4.13-1
Housing Element Projections (2014-2022) Compared to ABAG
Description Dwelling Units Population
Existing 2014 11,172 30,887
Housing Element Update 480 1,3692
Projected 2022 11,588 32,073
ABAG 2020 Projections3 11,6854 33,300
1. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State,
2011-2014, with 2010 Benchmark. Released, May 1, 2014.
2. The population projection is based on 100 percent occupancy of the dwelling units and 2.85 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance, Table 2-E-5 Population, 2014).
3. 2020 ABAG projections.
4. The dwelling units projection is based on 100 percent occupancy of the dwelling units and 2.85 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance, Table 2-E-5 Population, 2010).
Population and Housing Impact Discussion:
4.13 (a) Less than Significant Impact: The adjusted regional housing need for the 2015-2023 housing
cycle amounts to 480 housing units for the City of Saratoga. The Housing Element Update anticipates
that future development will be accommodated through a combination of entitled development, use of
vacant lands and redevelopment of opportunity sites able to support higher densities and redevelopment
of mixed-use parcels. Assuming 100% occupancy and 2.85 persons per household (California
61
- 47 - Environmental Analysis
Department of Finance, 2014), the population growth facilitated by the Housing Element Update would
amount to approximately 1,369 new residents over a period of seven years.
Presuming that all new housing units facilitated by the Housing Element Update are occupied with new
residents, the population of Saratoga in 2022 would be 32,073. This level of growth is consistent with
what has been projected for the region and previously analyzed in the City’s General Plan. Thus, the
Housing Element would have less than significant impacts due to induced growth.
Population can also be induced indirectly through the extension of roads and/or infrastructure. However,
while the project will facilitate additional housing unit it is not expected to necessitate the extension of
infrastructure as housing will be accommodated within urbanized sites located within the boundaries of
the planning area. Therefore, based on the fact that population growth from residential development
facilitated by the Housing Element will fall within the ABAG projections for the City and that the
development will be confined to urbanized areas, potential impacts associated with the induced
population growth resulting from the Housing Element would remain at levels below significant.
4.3(b-c) No Impact: As a policy document the 2015-2023 Housing Element will not physically initiate
development necessitating the replacement housing or the displacement of residents thereby requiring
replacement housing elsewhere. As a guiding policy document the Housing Element Update does
directly result in residential development. Rather, the intent of the document is to facilitate the
development of residential units in underdeveloped and or vacant sites and accommodate the housing
needs in existing urbanized areas. The policies and programs set forth in the Housing Element Update
would not displace a substantial number, require replacement housing, or result in the removal of the
existing housing stock. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would have no impacts due to the
displacement of existing housing and the displacement of residents.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with General Plan policies.
62
- 48 - Environmental Analysis
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Sources: Saratoga General Plan
Public Services Setting: The City charges one-time impact fees on new private development in order to
offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities. Impact fees are used to fund the construction or
expansion of needed capital improvements. Saratoga collects impact fees for schools, parkland, and others.
Development impact fees are necessary in order to finance required public facilities and service
improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the costs of the required public facilities and
service improvements.
Public Services Impact Discussion:
4.14(a-e) No Impact: All potential impacts to public facilities generated by the housing development
proposed as part of the 2015-2023 Housing Element have been previously identified in the GP EIR and no
impacts beyond those previously identified are expected. Furthermore, any development proposed as part
of the Housing Element Update will be subject to the City’s Impact fees which are intended to offset
increased demands placed on Public Services and the associated costs. All development will be reviewed
and evaluated on a project specific basis, at which time it will be considered whether the project would
individually impact public services. As the General Plan anticipated the growth projections at level
consistent with what would be supported by the Housing Element Update, the potential cumulative impacts
to public services have already been identified and determined to be less than significant. The subject
Housing Element Update does not introduce any new policies or programs that would interfere with the
provision for public services. Therefore, the Housing Element Update will not increase demand on public
services beyond what has already been anticipated and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required beyond compliance with applicable General Plan policies.
63
- 49 - Environmental Analysis
4.15 RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
X
b. Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Sources: Saratoga General Plan
Recreation Setting: The City of Saratoga maintains approximately 87 acres of parkland, 63 of which
have been improved for park purposes. The existing parkland consists of neighborhood, citywide and
specialty parks distributed throughout the City. In order to ensure adequate park facilities the City seeks
to ensure 5 acres of developed, municipal, park-land per 1,000 residents. The City assumes that by the
year 2020 approximately 165.5 acres of parks will be needed to serve the City’s recreational needs.
Recreational features within Saratoga also include 29 linear miles of existing and dedicated, multi-use
trails and 12 linear miles of proposed or potential trail.
Recreation Impact Discussion:
4.15(a, b) No Impact: The 2015-2023 Housing Element identifies a potential population increase of
1,369, assuming the introduction of 480 dwelling units with an average household size of 2.85. While the
increase in population may put increased pressure on the City’s recreational facilities, this has been
previously identified and evaluated in the GP EIR. It is expected that future residential development will
be distributed across the planning area and not concentrated in any given area. Accordingly, increased
patronage at the City’s recreational facilities will be shared citywide. It should also be mentioned that
potential impacts to recreational resources will be evaluated and mitigated for on a project specific basis,
at the time that development proposals are submitted for residential development. The subject Housing
Element Update does not introduce any policies or programs that would conflict with the provision to
provide adequate park land facilities citywide. Therefore, no impacts to recreational facilities are
expected as a result of the Housing Element Update.
Mitigation Measures: None Required beyond the following General Plan policies:
OSC 3 To provide and maintain parks and a variety of passive and active recreational sites which
are located, designed, and improved to serve the needs of the residents, the community,
and the neighborhoods of Saratoga.
OSC 3.1 Ensure that existing and future parks and dedicated open spaces remain part of the public
domain in perpetuity.
OSC 3.4 Strive to achieve a ratio of 5 acres of park and open space area per 1,000 residents.
64
- 50 - Environmental Analysis
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Transportation/Traffic Setting: The City’s circulation system is well established and provides local and
regional access within city limits and to neighboring jurisdictions. Roadways within Saratoga are
classified into several categories ranging from Freeways to hillside streets. Local roadways have narrow
widths and are generally designed to discourage cut through traffic. Regional access to the City of
Saratoga is provided by Freeways, Expressway, and Major and Minor arterials. The City reserves
jurisdiction over all City streets and City operated traffic signals.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) serves as the independent special district
responsible for congestion management, specific highway improvement projects, and countywide
transportation planning and bus and light rail operations in Santa Clara County. The VTA serves as the
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for jurisdictions within the County including the City of Saratoga.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) serves as the regional transportation planning
agency for the SF Bay Area and reviews municipal Capital Improvement Projects.
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
X
b. Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
X
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
X
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e. Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
X
Source: General Plan.
65
- 51 - Environmental Analysis
Transportation/Traffic Impact Discussion:
4.16(a) Less than Significant Impact: Although the Housing Element Update will facilitate increased
residential densities, the development potential does not exceed what has been evaluated in the GP EIR.
Expected growth rates and associated increases in traffic volumes under the proposed Housing Element
Update are consistent with the growth rate utilized for local and regional traffic management efforts. In
addition, future residential developed projects proposed would be subject to the General Plan policies as
outlined in the General Plan’s Circulation Element and would further be subject to CEQA review on a
project-specific basis. Based on the Housing Element’s consistency with the GP EIR and that cumulative
traffic related impacts have previously been identified and evaluated, no new or exacerbated cumulative
impacts are expected to occur from the proposed Housing Element Update. Any increase in traffic related
impacts including a deterioration of level of service at planning area intersection will be evaluated on the
project specific basis. Given that the Housing Element does not introduce any policies or programs that
would conflict with the provisions to provide for a safe and multi-modal network, impacts associated with
traffic and circulation would be less than significant.
4.16(b) Less than Significant Impact: The City of Saratoga generally tries to maintain minimum Level of
Service (LOS) D operations at all signalized intersections under City jurisdiction. However, those under the
jurisdiction of the CMA are held to an LOS E standard. There are a number of roadway segments where
level of service is currently below LOS D and LOS is projected to further deteriorate under future year
traffic conditions. The acceptance of a LOS below D is considered acceptable, as there are no feasible or
practical improvements that can be made to correct the LOS deficiency.
The Housing Element does not directly contribute to increased traffic or generate new trips. The
development potential envisioned as part of the Housing Element Update is consistent with the level of
growth anticipated in the General Plan. Future residential development projects will increase traffic and
incrementally contribute to the future LOS deficits previously analyzed for certain roadways within
Saratoga. Potential environmental impacts to circulation and traffic will be analyzed pursuant to CEQA on
a project specific basis. It is anticipated that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be conducted for each
proposed project that would contribute notable traffic volumes and that the TIA would set forth
recommendations to ensure that future development projects do not generate disproportionally affect
LOS. Based on the consistency of the subject Housing Element with what was previously evaluated in the
GP EIR and anticipation of subsequent CEQA analysis required for project specific residential
development, as well as conformance to applicable General Plan policies that govern traffic and
circulation, the Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts due to a conflict in
level of service.
4.16 (c) No Impact: Given the nature and location of any future residential development, which is well
outside of the established airport flight pattern, the Housing Element Update would have no impact on air
traffic patterns.
4.16(d) Less than Significant Impact: The subject Housing Element Update does not introduce any new
policies or program that would conflict with the provisions for safe access set froth in the General Plan. As
part of the development review process the City may require that the a TIA include an evaluation of
sighting distance, site access and other design features to ensure that any potential hazard is identified,
and avoided or appropriately mitigated. All future circulation and traffic improvements are required to be
constructed pursuant to the City’s roadway safety standards.
66
- 52 - Environmental Analysis
Furthermore, any circulatory improvements that would result in a potential traffic hazards as part of a
future residential development project will be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA and will
be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Therefore, the Housing Element Update will have less than
significant impacts resulting from site design hazards.
4.16(e) Less than Significant Impact: The City is largely built out and future development will primarily
occur within already developed and underutilized lots that currently have sufficient emergency access. The
proposed Housing Element Update does not introduce any policies or programs that would conflict with
the provision to provide for emergency access.
Additionally, all development projects will be subject to review and approval by the City of Saratoga Fire
Department and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s department and will be reviewed in accordance with
CEQA including an evaluation of adequate emergency access. This process will identify any potential
constraints in emergency access and will require that the design of all new residential development
sufficiently accommodates emergency access. Therefore, impacts associated with the subject Housing
Element Update will be at levels less than significant.
4.16 (f) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element Update will facilitate development on
underutilized and vacant sites within the urbanized area of the City. Future residential development is not
expected to substantially impact existing alternative transportation facilities. Furthermore, all new
development are subject to the General Plan policies and implementing zoning ordinance that establishes
policies and programs supporting alternative transportation facilities including bus, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. The Housing Element Update does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, any impacts associated with alternative transportation will
be less than significant as a result of implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation beyond compliance with the following General Plan policies:
CI 2.3 Maintain a minimum level of service (LOS) D operations standard at all signalized street
intersections and roadway segments that are under City jurisdiction except for intersection
and roadways included in the Santa Clara County Congestion Management (which are
held to a LOS E standard,) and as otherwise specified in pursuant to Policy 2.4.
CI 2.4 Accept Level of Service E or F operations on City-maintained roadways after finding that: 1)
no practical and feasible improvements can be implemented to mitigate the lower levels of
service, or 2) vehicle capacity enhancements would conflict with existing or planned
bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities and services. A proposed development that
exacerbates LOS E or F operations and causes a significant intersection impact should
also be considered for approval if it will provide a clear, overall benefit to the City (e.g.,
library expansion or relocation, new community center).
CI 2.5 Ensure that new development or redevelopment projects provide adequate property
dedication to accommodate future roadway and multi-modal access improvements at key
intersections and other potential conflict areas.
CI 2.11 Protect the integrity of and improve existing hillside streets by planning future development
according to existing street function.
CI 2.12 Focus future improvements on the most congested intersections to maintain an acceptable
level of mobility for all modes of transportation.
67
- 53 - Environmental Analysis
CI 2.13 Require development projects to mitigate and reduce their respective traffic and parking
impacts by implementing practical and feasible street improvements to improve multi-modal
access.
CI 2.7 Require a transportation analysis for all development projects resulting in 25 or more net
new peak-hour trips. As appropriate, the analysis shall identify potential impacts to
intersection and roadway operations, project access, and alternative travel modes, and
shall identify feasible improvements or project modifications to reduce or eliminate
impacts. City staff shall have the discretion to only require focused studies regarding
access, sight distance, and other operational and safety issues or to require detailed
studies that generate fewer peak hour trips.
CI 4a Promote local and regional transit as a viable alternative to automobile travel for
destinations within and outside the City.
CI 4b Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity, safety,
accessibility, and convenience of existing and planned transit, bicycle and pedestrian
systems.
68
- 54 - Environmental Analysis
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
X
b. Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
c. Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
d. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g. Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
Source: General Plan.
Utilities & Services Setting: The planning area is currently well-served by existing public utilities and
service systems. Utility providers are responsible for the continued availability of services and increase and
expand as necessary to meet demands.
Water Service System
The City of Saratoga’s primary source of potable water is supplied by the San Jose Water Company. Water
is provided from three sources, surface water (10%), groundwater (40%) and imported water from the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (50%). The San Jose Water Company updated its Urban Water Management
Plan in 2010 in accordance with applicable state laws. The UWMP determined that sufficient water supplies
will be available through 2020. Post 2020 extended drought conditions could result in water shortages. The
District has planned to make investments to ensure that no greater than 20% shortages are expected
through year 2035. To ensure sufficient water supplies remain available during drought conditions additional
groundwater pumping, acquisition of additional imported supplies, and implementation of conservation
measures will be employed and are described in the UWMP.
69
- 55 - Environmental Analysis
Wastewater
The Cupertino Sanitary District and the West Valley Sanitation District treat all wastewater generated by
residential, commercial and industrial uses within the City of Saratoga. At General Plan buildout both
Sanitation Districts are expected to adequately accommodate the City’s wastewater treatment needs.
Storm Drains
In the City of Saratoga, storm drains convey runoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks,
and buildings to creeks that ultimately drain into the San Francisco Bay. This water is untreated and carries
with it any contaminants picked up along the way including solvents, oils, fuels, and sediments. The City
has standard conditions of approval for development projects that stipulates the use of Best Managements
Practices and low impact development.
Utilities & Services Impact Discussion:
4.17(a) Less Than Significant Impact: The subject Housing Element Update is consistent with the
anticipated level of development and population growth previously identified and evaluated in the General
Plan. While future development will result in the incremental increase in the generation of wastewater, the
established sanitation districts have sufficient capacity to treat all existing and future wastewater volumes
in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. Given that there is sufficient capacity
to mange wastewater and that any increase in wastewater treatment will occur incrementally over several
years, future residential development will not necessitate the expansion or construction of wastewater
treatment facilities.
Wastewater treatment needs that will be generated by future development projects are within the capacity
of the existing sanitary sewer lines and the City’s wastewater treatment facilities. The Housing Element
Update does not propose any industrial uses that would generate wastewater requiring special treatment
or would contain constituents exceeding applicable standards. The Housing Element Update is consistent
with the anticipated wastewater demand and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements.
Therefore impact associated with implementation of the subject Housing Element Update would have a
less than significant impact on wastewater facilities.
4.17 (b) Less Than Significant Impact: The expected wastewater generation and water supplies that
may be generated by future residential development envisioned as part of the Housing Element Update is
consistent with the level of service needs anticipated by the General Plan and will not require the
expansion of facilities or the construction of new facilities.
As new residential development proposals are submitted, each project will be evaluated on a site specific
basis to assess potential impacts associated with public services and to ensure compliance with existing
City policies and regulations regarding the availability of such services. The subject Housing Element
update does not interfere with the provision of applicable regulations intended to ensure the continued
availability of water and wastewater services, nor does it provide for an increased level of use beyond
what has previously been evaluated. Therefore, the Housing Element Update is expected to result in less
than significant impacts.
4.17(c) Less than Significant Impact: As described above under the Hydrology and Water Quality
discussion, the Housing Element Update facilitates residential development densities consistent with what
has previously been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Future residential development projects have the
potential to result in an increase in impervious surfaces including building roofs, pavements, sidewalks,
and associated surfaces that could increase stormwater runoff.
70
- 56 - Environmental Analysis
However, all new development project will be subject to regulations including BMPs and low impact
development standard that require onsite retention/detention and no net increase in offsite runoff. Site
specific development proposals will be reviewed and evaluated to ensure consistency with applicable
General Plan policies and CEQA requirements including the provision for adequate stormwater capacity.
Site specific design will be required to achieve the necessary storm flow requirements. Any future
development facilitated by the subject Housing Element Update would undergo subsequent review and be
conditioned accordingly to avoid any conflicts with stormwater drainage facilities.
The Housing Element Update is consistent with the General Plan and does not introduce and policies or
programs that would interfere with adequate storm water drainage or the requirement for new such
facilities as warranted by future development. Therefore implementation of the subject Housing Element
Update would result in less than significant impacts to due to stormwater and drainage facilities.
4.17(d) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element Update will not create a new water demand
that would exceed water supplies. The increase in population this new demand was considered in the GP
EIR. The increased water demand generated by buildout of the General Plan will be consistent with what
was previously identified in the GP EIR and what is anticipated for in the General Plan. In order to ensure
water availability, the UWMP proposes to make investments such that no greater than 20% shortages are
expected through the year 2035 in comparison to Santa Clara County’s historic hydrology. The proposed
investments include the replacement of two existing wells per year beginning in 2015 with new, higher
capacity groundwater wells. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
4.17(e-f) Less than Significant Impact: The Housing Element Update will not generate additional solid
waste beyond what has previously been anticipated. Future residential development facilitated by the
Housing Element Update would generate additional solid waste, placing an increased demand on solid
waste disposal services including disposal at a landfill. Without specific housing project details, it is not
possible to precisely determine the volume of solid waste that would be generated by future residential
development. However, the GP EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would increase
the amount of solid waste generation consistent with what is anticipated under the Housing Element
Update. As such, the solid waste generation associated with future residential development was
previously evaluated in the GP EIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be
consistent with the analysis presented in the GP EIR, and would result in no greater impacts than
previously identified. Therefore, no new or expanded solid waste facilities would be required as a result
of the Housing Element Update and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program: None required beyond compliance with the General Plan policies including:
OSC 9.2: Concentrate development in those portions of the community least susceptible to soil erosion
and minimize grading and the introduction of impervious surfaces. Where appropriate,
consider the use of on-site detention or retention basins to minimize stormwater runoff from
sites.
OSC.9.b. The City shall ensure erosion control measures are required with each development project
as part of the development approval process.
OSC 10 Maximize efficiencies in the use of the City’s water supply.
OSC 10.a The City shall inform applicants of water conservation provisions and require that all new
development proposals be in compliance with the water conservation provisions of the San
Jose Urban Water Management Plan.
71
- 57 - Environmental Analysis
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c. Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
4.18(a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Project is the City of Saratoga Housing
Element Update and related conforming and implementation actions. The Housing Element is a policy
document addressing demographic issues and local housing needs in the City for the planning period
from 2015 to 2023. The Project anticipates the development of 480 residential units to meet the adjusted
regional housing needs allocation. Although the presence of biological resources has been identified
(refer to Section 4.4) and the potential for uncovered cultural resources exists within the planning
area (refer to Section 4.5), implementation of the Project would not directly impact these resources,
because the Project does not infer direct development rights. Rather, at the time that site specific
development is proposed, individual assessments to identify any potential impacts to biological and
cultural resources pursuant to CEQA would be conducted. If necessary, mitigation would be required to
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory. It is hereby found that the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts, either
individually or cumulatively, on biological and cultural resources.
72
- 58 - Environmental Analysis
4.18(b) Less Than Significant Impact: As a policy document, the subject Housing Element Update is
designed to aid the City in future planning, and provides the policy and regulatory mechanism to allow
the market development of up to 480 new residential units for the planning period from 2015 to 2023.
Future development proposals will require individual assessments to identify impacts and if necessary,
mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
As described herein, the subject Housing Element Update is consistent with the level and intensity of
development previously envisioned within Saratoga. The Housing Element does not introduce increased
intensities beyond what has been previously considered. The cumulative affects of the Housing Element
Update are consistent with the anticipated population growth and rate of development expected in the
General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution and impacts would be less than significant.
4.18(c) Less Than Significant Impact:. The Housing Element is a policy document addressing
demographic issues and local housing needs in the City for the Planning period from 2015 to 2023.
The Project provides the policy and regulatory mechanism to facilitate the development of 480
residential units. Future residential projects would be evaluated for their potential direct and indirect
impacts on human beings. Through the City’s environmental review process, future residential
developments would be evaluated to determine their impacts pursuant to CEQA, and if needed,
mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The subject Housing Element Update does not introduce any new policies or programs that would result
in a substantial adverse effect to human beings. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant
impact.
Mitigation Program: No mitigation is required beyond compliance with the General Plan policies programs
and action implementation.
73
- 59 - Environmental Analysis
4.19 REFERENCES
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. These documents are
available for review at the City of Saratoga, Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070.
1) City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga General Plan and EIR, May 1983.
2) City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga Housing Element and Initial Study/Negative Declaration,
2007.
3) City of Saratoga, City of Saratoga Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the
Saratoga General Plan and Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, June 2007.
4) City of Saratoga, Municipal Code, Continuously Updated.
5) 2015-2023 Housing Element Update, May 2014.
6) San Jose Water Company 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, April 2011.
7) State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2014, with 2010 Benchmark, Sacramento, California, May
2014.
74
- 60 - Consultant Recommendation
4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
City of Saratoga (Lead Agency)
Department of Community Development 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Metropolitan Planning Group (Environmental Analysis)
579 Clyde Avenue, Suite 340
Mountain View, CA 94043
Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner
Lilly Bianco, Assistant Planner
5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study and Environmental
Checklist, we recommend that the City of Saratoga prepare a Negative Declaration for the Project. We
find that the proposed Housing Element Update would not have a significant effect on the
environmental issues detailed in Section 4.0. We recommend the first category be selected for the
City’s determination; refer to Section 6.0, Lead Agency Determination.
Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner Date
75
- 61 - Lead Agency Determination
6.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that, although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described in Section 5.0 have been incorporated. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
“potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigation
incorporated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
City of Saratoga Lead Agency Signature Date
X
76
DRAFT
June 2014
2015-2023
Housing Element
This element established goals,
policies, and implementation
measures to assist the City of
Saratoga in planning for the housing
needs of the community.
77
Prepared for:
City of Saratoga Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Prepared by:
Metropolitan Planning Group
579 Clyde Ave, Suite 340
Mountain View, CA 94043
CITY OF SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT 2015-2023
78
Draft June 2014 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-1
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1
B. Purpose And Content ................................................................................................ 1-1
C. Housing Element Update Process ............................................................................ 1-1
D. State Law And Local Planning .................................................................................. 1-2
E. Housing Element Organization ................................................................................. 1-4
F. Citizen Participation ................................................................................................... 1-6
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis ............................................................................................. 2-1
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2-1
B. Community Profile ...................................................................................................... 2-1
1. Population Trends And Characteristics ................................................................ 2-1
2. Employment Trends ................................................................................................ 2-5
3. Household Characteristics ...................................................................................2-10
4. Housing Inventory And Market Conditions .........................................................2-15
B. Housing Needs ...........................................................................................................2-27
1. Households Overpaying For Housing ..................................................................2-28
2. Overcrowding .......................................................................................................2-29
3. Units At-Risk Of Conversion ...................................................................................2-29
4. 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .................................................2-30
5. Special Needs Groups ..........................................................................................2-30
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints And Resources ......................................................................... 3-1
A. Governmental Constraints And Resources ............................................................. 3-1
1. Land Use Controls .................................................................................................. 3-1
2. Density Bonus Ordinance .....................................................................................3-17
3. Institutional Facilities And Nursing Homes ...........................................................3-18
4. Emergency Shelters, Transitional And Supportive Housing, And Single-Room
Occupancy Units ......................................................................................................3-19
5. Adequate Sites For Emergency Shelters/Transitional/Supportive Housing .....3-20
6. Second Dwelling Units ..........................................................................................3-21
7. Housing For Persons With Disabilities ....................................................................3-22
8. Building Codes And Enforcement .......................................................................3-23
79
Draft June 2014 ii
9. On And Off-Site Improvements ...........................................................................3-24
10. Development Fees ..............................................................................................3-25
11. Local Processing And Permit Procedures .........................................................3-31
12. Measure G ...........................................................................................................3-35
13. Environmental And Infrastructure Constraints ..................................................3-36
B. Non-Governmental Constraints ...............................................................................3-41
1. Vacant And Underutilized Land ..........................................................................3-41
2. Land Prices .............................................................................................................3-41
3. Construction Costs ................................................................................................3-41
4. Mortgage And Rehabilitation Financing ............................................................3-42
C. Resources ...................................................................................................................3-43
1. Community Development Block Grant Program ..............................................3-43
2. Community Services Grant ..................................................................................3-44
3. Energy Conservation ............................................................................................3-45
Chapter 4: Policy Program ............................................................................................................ 4-1
A. Policy Action Areas ..................................................................................................... 4-1
B. Policy Actions ............................................................................................................... 4-1
Appendix A: Community Outreach ............................................................................................. A-1
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources .................................................................................... B-1
A. Sites To Accommodate The 2014-2022 Rhna .......................................................... B-1
1. Projects In Process .................................................................................................. B-2
2. Sites Capacity To Meet Regional Share Goals ................................................... B-3
3. Sites Summary ....................................................................................................... B-12
B. Assisted Units “At-Risk” Of Conversion ..................................................................... B-13
1. Inventory Of At-Risk Units ..................................................................................... B-14
2. Preservation And Replacement Costs ............................................................... B-14
3. Resources For Preservation ................................................................................. B-16
Appendix C: Past Performance .................................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D: Glossary Of Terms .................................................................................................... D-1
80
Draft June 2014 iii
Table of Exhibits
Table 1-1. State Housing Element Requirements .................................................................... 1-2
Table 2-1. Regional Population Trends 2000-2010 .................................................................. 2-2
Table 2-2. Population Growth 1990-2010 ................................................................................. 2-2
Table 2-3. Age Distribution 2000, 2010, and 2012 ................................................................... 2-4
Table 2-4. Racial and Ethnic Distribution 2000-2010 ............................................................... 2-5
Table 2-5. Jobs in Saratoga by Industry 2007-2011 ................................................................. 2-6
Table 2-6. Major Employers in Saratoga, 2013 ........................................................................ 2-7
Table 2-7. Occupations of Residents by Industry 2000-2011.................................................. 2-8
Table 2-8. Labor Trends in Saratoga ......................................................................................... 2-9
Table 2-9. Job Projections ....................................................................................................... 2-10
Table 2- 10. Total Households .................................................................................................. 2-11
Table 2-11. Household Tenure in Saratoga ............................................................................ 2-11
Table 2-12. Persons per Household ......................................................................................... 2-11
Table 2-13. Household Size Distribution .................................................................................. 2-12
Table 2-14. Household Income Distribution ........................................................................... 2-12
Table 2-15. Income Limits by Category ................................................................................. 2-13
Table 2-16. Household Income Level by Tenure ................................................................... 2-13
Table 2-17. Countywide Median Household Income in 2011 ............................................. 2-14
Table 2-18. Bay Area Wages for Select Occupations - 2013 ............................................... 2-15
Table 2-19. Number of Housing Units in Saratoga and Santa Clara County ..................... 2-16
Table 2-20. RHNA Housing Achievements ............................................................................. 2-16
Table 2-21. Unit Size by Tenure ................................................................................................ 2-17
Table 2-22. Housing Inventory by Unit Type ........................................................................... 2-18
Table 2-23. Unit Type by Tenure .............................................................................................. 2-18
Table 2-24. Occupied Units by Tenure ................................................................................... 2-19
Table 2-25. Vacancy Rates ..................................................................................................... 2-19
Table 2-26. Age of Housing Stock ........................................................................................... 2-20
Table 2-27. Units Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities .................................... 2-21
Table 2-28. Median Housing Value ........................................................................................ 2-21
Table 2-29. Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units .......................................................... 2-22
Table 2-30. Median Sales Price ............................................................................................... 2-22
Table 2-31. Saratoga Home and Condominium Sales Price Jan. – Dec. 2013 ................. 2-23
Table 2-32. 2013 Maximum Affordable Housing Cost (Moderate Income), Santa Clara
County ....................................................................................................................................... 2-25
Table 2-33. Saratoga 2014 Rental Survey .............................................................................. 2-26
Table 2- 34. Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income ........................................ 2-26
Table 2- 35. 2013 Maximum Affordable Rents, Santa Clara County .................................. 2-27
Table 2-36. Owner Household Overpayment by Household Income Level ...................... 2-28
81
Draft June 2014 iv
Table 2-37. Renter Household Overpayment by Household Income Level ...................... 2-29
Table 2-38. Overcrowded Households .................................................................................. 2-29
Table 2-39. Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................................... 2-30
Table 2-40. Senior Households by Age Group and Tenure .................................................. 2-31
Table 2-41. Senior Income Distribution (Householder Over 65) ........................................... 2-31
Table 2-42. Poverty Rates among Senior Age Groups ......................................................... 2-32
Table 2-43. Residents 65 and Over with at Least One Disability ......................................... 2-33
Table 2-44. Large Households by Tenure ............................................................................... 2-34
Table 2-45. Units by Number of Bedrooms ............................................................................. 2-35
Table 2-46. Female-Headed Households .............................................................................. 2-35
Table 2-47. Female Headed Households below Poverty Level ........................................... 2-36
Table 2-48. Persons with at Least One Disability ................................................................... 2-37
Table 2-49. Persons Ages 18-64 with Disabilities by Type ...................................................... 2-37
Table 2-50. Persons with Developmental Disabilities in Saratoga ....................................... 2-37
Table 2-51. Living Situation of Persons with a Developmental Disability in Santa Clara
County ....................................................................................................................................... 2-38
Table 2-52. Low Income Households ...................................................................................... 2-40
Table 2-53. Renter Housing Problems by Income Level ....................................................... 2-41
Table 2- 54. Owner Housing Problems by Income Level ...................................................... 2-42
Figure 2- 1. Population Growth ................................................................................................. 2-3
Table 3-1. General Plan Residential Land Use Designations ................................................. 3-2
Table 3-2. Residential uses – Permitted & Conditionally Permitted....................................... 3-6
Table 3-3. Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements ...................................................... 3-8
Table 3-4. Summary of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Requirements ......................... 3-14
Table 3-5. Summary of Mixed-Use Development Standards ............................................... 3-15
Table 3-6. Residential Parking Requirements ........................................................................ 3-16
Table 3-7. Homeless Facilities near Saratoga ........................................................................ 3-20
Table 3-8. Street Widths ........................................................................................................... 3-24
Table 3-9. Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014 ....................................... 3-26
Table 3-10. Typical Development Fees Comparison Single-Family and Multiple-Family . 3-31
Table 3-11. Local Development Processing Time ................................................................. 3-32
Table 3-12. Typical Development Processing Timelines by Development Type ............... 3-35
Table 3-13. Construction Cost Estimates ................................................................................ 3-41
Table 3-14. Home Purchase and Improvement Loans - 2012 ............................................. 3-42
Table 3-15. Santa Clara County CDBG and HOME Funded Programs .............................. 3-44
Figure 3-1. Mortgage Rates -2013........................................................................................... 3-43
Table 4-1. Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2015-2023 ............................................ 4-12
82
Draft June 2014 v
Appendices Exhibits and Tables
Exhibit B-1. Housing Opportunity Sites ...................................................................................... B-6
Table B-1. Approved Units ......................................................................................................... B-2
Table B-2. Approved Subdivisions ............................................................................................. B-3
Table B-3. Vacant Land Inventory ............................................................................................ B-4
Table B-4. Prospect Road Candidate C-N(RHD) Sites............................................................ B-5
Table B-5. Village Sites Inventory .............................................................................................. B-8
Table B-6. Gateway Sites Inventory ........................................................................................ B-10
Table B-7. Fellowship Plaza Retirement Community ............................................................. B-11
Table B-8. Sites Summary ......................................................................................................... B-13
Table B-9. Publicly Assisted Rental Housing ........................................................................... B-14
Table B-10. Annual Rent Subsidies Required to Preserve At-risk units ................................. B-15
Table B-11. Replacement Costs of At-Risk Units .................................................................... B-16
Table C-1. Evaluation of 2007-2014 Housing Element Past Performance ........................... C-1
Table C-2. Progress in Achieving Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2007-2014 .... C-12
83
Draft June 2014 vi
This page intentionally left blank
84
Draft June 2014 1-1
Chapter 1: Introduction
A. Introduction
The Housing Element of the General Plan identifies and analyzes existing and projected
housing needs and contains the official policies for the preservation, conservation,
rehabilitation, and production of housing in the City of Saratoga. This Housing Element
covers the Planning Period from January 2015 through June 2023.
B. Purpose and Content
The Housing Element addresses housing
opportunities for current and future
Saratoga residents through 2023 and
provides the primary policy guidance for
local decision making related to housing.
The Housing Element is the only General
Plan Element that requires review and
certification by the State of California.
The Housing Element provides a detailed
analysis of the City’s demographic,
economic, and housing characteristics as required by State law. The Housing Element
also evaluates the City’s progress in implementing the 2007-2014 policy program and
actions related to housing production, preservation, conservation, and rehabilitation.
Based on community housing needs, available resources, housing
constraints/opportunities, and analysis of past performance, the Housing Element
identifies goals, objectives, and action programs that address existing and projected
housing needs in Saratoga.
C. Housing Element Update Process
The California State legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and
suitable living environment for every Californian as a State-wide goal. Local planning
programs play a critical part in achieving this goal. Therefore, the Legislature mandates
that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of their comprehensive
General Plans.
85
Draft June 2014 1-2
D. State Law and Local Planning
1. Consistency with State Law
The Housing Element is one of the seven Elements of the General Plan required by State
law (Sections 65580 to 65589.89 of the California Government Code). Each jurisdiction’s
Housing Element must contain “identification and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled
program actions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.” The
Housing Element plans for the provision of housing for all segments of the City’s population.
Section 65583 of the Government Code sets forth specific requirements regarding the
scope and content of each Housing Element. Table 1-1 summarizes these requirements
and identifies the applicable sections of the Housing Element where these requirements
are addressed.
Table 1-1. State Housing Element Requirements
Table 1-1
State Housing Element Requirements
Required Housing Element Component Reference
A. Housing Needs Assessment
1. Analysis of population trends in Saratoga in relation to
countywide trends
Chapter 2
2. Analysis of employment trends in Saratoga in relation to
regional trends
Chapter 2
3. Projections and quantification of Saratoga’s existing and
projected housing needs for all income groups
Chapter 2
4. Analysis and documentation of Saratoga’s housing
characteristics, including:
Chapter 2
a. Overpayment Chapter 2
b. Overcrowding Chapter 2
c. Housing conditions Chapter 2
5. Analysis of land suitable for residential development Appendix B
6. Analysis of governmental constraints upon housing Chapter 3
7. Analysis of nongovernmental constraints upon housing Chapter 3
8. Analysis of special housing needs Chapter 2
9. Analysis of emergency shelters Chapter 3
11. Analysis of assisted housing developments that are eligible to
change from low-income housing during the next 10 years
Appendix B
86
Draft June 2014 1-3
Table 1-1
State Housing Element Requirements
Required Housing Element Component Reference
B. Goals and Policies
12. Identification of Saratoga’s goals, quantified objectives and
policies relative to the maintenance, improvement and
development of housing
Chapter 4
C. Implementation Program
13. Identification of adequate sites which will be made
available through appropriate action to accommodate a
variety of housing types for all income levels
Appendix B
14. Identification of programs to assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of low and
moderate-income households
Chapter 4
15. Identification of opportunities to remove governmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing
Chapter 4
16. Identification of opportunities to remove constraints and/or
provide reasonable accommodations for housing for
persons with disabilities
Chapter 4
17. Identification of opportunities to conserve and improve the
condition of the existing affordable housing stock
Chapter 4
18. Identification of programs to promote housing opportunities
for all persons
Chapter 4
19. Identification of programs to address the potential conversion
of assisted housing development to market-rate housing
Chapter 4
2. General Plan Consistency
The California Government Code (Section 65300.5) requires internal consistency among
each Element of the General Plan. The General Plan Elements shall provide an integrated,
internally consistent, and compatible statement of policy. The City of Saratoga has
reviewed the other Elements of the General Plan and determined that the Housing
Element is internally consistent.
3. Relationship to Other Plans and Programs
The Housing Element identifies goals, objectives, policies, and actions for the 2015-2023
Planning Period that directly addresses existing and future housing needs in Saratoga.
City plans and programs work to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Housing Element.
87
Draft June 2014 1-4
E. Housing Element Organization
The City of Saratoga’s Housing Element is organized into four parts:
x Introduction: Explains the purpose, process and content of the Housing Element.
x Housing Needs Analysis: Describes the demographic, economic and housing
characteristics of Saratoga as well as existing and future housing needs.
x Resources and Constraints Analysis: Analyzes the actual and potential
governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance,
preservation, conservation and development of housing.
x Housing Policy Program: Details specific policies and programs the City will carry
out over the Planning Period to address Saratoga’s housing goals.
Supporting background material is included in the following appendices:
x Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
x Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
x Appendix C: Review of the 2007-2014 Housing Element Performance
x Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
Acronyms used in this document include:
ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
ACS: American Community Survey
ADA: Americans with Disability Act
AMI: Area Median Income
APN: Assessor’s Parcel Number
BMPs: Best Management Practices
CalFHA: California Housing Finance Agency
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation
CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
CCRC: California Community Reinvestment Corporation
CDBG: Community Development Block Grant
CDD: Community Development Director
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CHAS: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
DIF: Development Impact Fee
DOF: Department of Finance for State of California
DU/AC: Dwelling Unit per Acre
DU/ac: Dwelling units per acre
DU: Dwelling Unit
EDD: California Employment Development Department
88
Draft June 2014 1-5
ELI: Extremely Low Income
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHA: Fair Housing Act of 1998
GMI: Gross Monthly Income
HCD: Department of Housing and Community Development
HH: Household
HMDA: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
HOA: Homeowners Association
HUD: Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit
MFI: Median Family Income
MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization
NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PG&E: Pacific Gas & Electric
RHNA: Regional Housing Need Allocation
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan
SARC: San Andreas Regional Center
SASCC: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council
SNF: Skilled Nursing Facility
SPA: Sectional Planning Area
SRO: Single Room Occupancy
STF: Summary Tape File (U.S. Census)
SVILC: Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
TSM: Transportation Systems Management
WCP: Water Conservation Plan
Zoning Acronyms Used
A: Agricultural
CFS: Community Facility
C-H: Commercial Historic
CH-1: Commercial Historic District 1
C-N(RHD): Commercial Neighborhood High Density Residential
CN: Commercial Neighborhood
CR: Commercial Retail
C-V: Commercial Visitor
M-10: Medium Density Residential
M-12.5: Medium Density Residential
89
Draft June 2014 1-6
M-15: Medium Density Residential
OS-H: Hillside Open Space
P-A: Professional and Administrative Office
R-1: Single-Family Residential
RLD: Low Density Residential
R-M: Multi-Family Residential
RVLD: Very Low Density Residential
F. Citizen Participation
The Housing Element was developed through the combined efforts of City staff and
consultants, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Citizen input was received
through public workshops and public hearings conducted by consultants, the Planning
Commission and the City Council. Notices for these workshops and hearings were
published on the City’s website and posted at City Hall and other public facilities. In
addition, housing stakeholder-organizations involved in the development of housing or
representing the interests of lower income and special needs households were contacted
directly to participate in public workshops.
1. Community Workshops and Public Study Sessions
The following community workshops were advertised and open to the general public:
x Study Session #1: January 21, 2014 – Planning Commission
x Workshop #1: February 25, 2014, Joan Pisani Community & Senior Center
x Workshop #2: March 11, 2014, Joan Pisani Community & Senior Center
x Study Session #2: March 25 – Planning Commission
x Workshop Study Session #3: June 24, 2014 – Joan Pisani Community & Senior
CenterPlanning Commission – Draft Housing Element Review
During the community workshops, participants were provided with an overview of the
Housing Element update process and content. Participants were then asked to identify
and discuss challenges, opportunities and resources related to housing in Saratoga.
Comments received through the outreach activities have been considered in the
development of the Housing Policy Program provided in Chapter 4 of this document. A
summary of the comments is provided in Appendix A of the Housing Element.
90
Draft June 2014 2-1
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
A. Introduction
When preparing the Housing Element, jurisdictions must evaluate both existing and future
housing needs for all segments of the population.
This section analyzes demographic,
economic and housing characteristics that
influence the demand for and availability of
housing. The analyses form a foundation for
developing programs and policies that seek
to address identified housing needs
according to income, tenure and special
needs groups.
Primary data sources utilized in this analysis
include the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, the California Department of Finance (DOF), the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). These data sources are the most reliable for assessing existing
conditions and provide a basis for consistent comparison with historical data and for
making forecasts.
B. Community Profile
1. Population Trends and Characteristics
Housing needs are generally influenced by population and employment trends. This
section provides a summary of the changes to the population size, age and racial
composition of the City.
a. Historical, Existing and Forecast Growth
The City of Saratoga is one of 15 cities in the County of Santa Clara. The 2010 Census
reports a population of 1,781,642 in Santa Clara County. Table 2-1 shows the population
of other Bay Area counties relative to Santa Clara. Santa Clara County experienced a
higher percent change in population growth compared to the cumulative regional
population growth rate in the Bay Area.
Single Family Residence
91
Draft June 2014 2-2
Table 2-1. Regional Population Trends 2000-2010
Total Population
Numerical
Change
Percent
Change
2000 2010 2000 to 2010 2000 to 2010
Santa Clara County 1,682,585 1,781,642 99,057 6%
Alameda County 1,443,741 1,510,271 66,530 5%
Contra Costa County 948,816 1,049,025 100,209 11%
Marin County 247,289 252,409 5,120 2%
Napa County 124,279 136,484 12,205 10%
City and County of San
Francisco 776,733 805,235 28,502 4%
San Mateo County 707,161 718,451 11,290 2%
Solano County 394,542 413,344 18,802 5%
Sonoma County 458,614 483,878 25,264 6%
Bay Area Total 6,783,760 7,150,739 366,979 5%
State of California 33,871,648 37,253,956 3,382,308 10%
Source: Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
According to the U.S. Census, Saratoga experienced a 7 percent population increase
between 1990 and 2000, and less than 1 percent increase between 2000 and 2010.
Table 2-2 compares Saratoga’s population growth trends with those of the County.
Despite a slower growth rate over the past decade, ABAG predicts that growth rates will
increase and the City will have nearly 3,000 more residents in 2040. In 2013, The California
Department of Finance estimated Saratoga’s population to be 30,706. Figure 2-1 shows
population growth projected by ABAG.
Table 2-2. Population Growth 1990-2010
Total Population 1990-2000 Growth 2000-2010 Growth
1990 2000 2010 Number Percent
Change Number Percent
Change
Saratoga 28,061 29,843 29,926 1,782 6% 83 <1%
Santa Clara
County Total 1,497,577 1,682,585 1,781,642 185,008 12% 99,057 6%
Source: Census 1990, via 2014-2009 Saratoga Housing Element; Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area
Housing Elements
92
Draft June 2014 2-3
Figure 2- 1. Population Growth
Source: ABAG
b. Age Composition
Between 2000 and 2010, Saratoga experienced a proportional decline in the younger and
prime working age population groups and a proportional growth in older age groups. The
number of residents of “Preschool” (0-4 years) and “School” (5-17 years) age decreased
over the decade. The majority of Saratoga’s working age population, “Prime Working”
(25-54 years) age, experienced a decrease from 41 percent of the population in 2000 to
37 percent in 2010. Saratoga’s “Retirement” (55-64 years) age and “Senior Citizen” (65+
years) age populations increased over the decade. In 2000 these age groups combined
to make up 29 percent of the population. In 2010 they had grown to 35 percent of the
population. The growing proportion of older residents and the decreasing proportion of
younger residents was reflected in the higher median age in 2010 (47.8 years) compared
with that of 2000 (43.2 years).
29,843 29,926
30,800
31,900
32,700
28,000
28,500
29,000
29,500
30,000
30,500
31,000
31,500
32,000
32,500
33,000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Population
93
Draft June 2014 2-4
Table 2-3. Age Distribution 2000, 2010, and 2012
2000 2010 2012
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Preschool
(0-4 years) 1,597 5% 977 3% 927 3.%
School
(5-17 years) 5901 20% 5803 19% 5855 20%
Young Adult
(18-24 years) 1454 5% 1783 6% 1636 5%
Prime Working (25-
54 years) 12,337 41% 10,976 37% 11,308 38%
Retirement
(55-64 years) 3,695 12% 4,300 14% 4,469 15%
Senior Citizen (65+
Years) 4,859 16% 6,087 20% 5,864 20%
Total 29,843 100% 29,926 100% 30,059 100%
Source: ACS 2008-2012; Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
c. Race and Ethnicity
Saratoga residents who identified themselves as non-Hispanic White represented a
majority in 2010. Their population had decreased since the 2000 Census while the Asian
and Pacific Islander population had grown. White residents represented 52 percent of
the population in 2010, down from 65 percent in 2000. The group experienced the largest
population decrease among various groups in terms of absolute numbers, with 4,003
fewer White residents reported in 2010 than in 2000. In contrast, the Asian and Pacific
Islander population experienced the largest growth in absolute numbers, gaining 3,668
during the same period. The Asian and Pacific Islander population increased from 29
percent of the population in 2000 to 41 percent in 2010. Table 2-4 shows the City’s racial
and ethnic distribution.
94
Draft June 2014 2-5
Table 2-4. Racial and Ethnic Distribution 2000-2010
2000 2010 2000-2010 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
White 19,434 65% 15,431 52% -4,003 -21%
Black 110 <1% 91 <1% -19 -17%
American Indian &
Alaskan Native 34 <1% 24 <1% -10 -29%
Asian* & Pacific
Islander 8,686 29% 12,354 <41% 3,668 42%
Other 37 <1% 56 <1% 19 51%
Two or More Races 606 2% 936 3% 330 55%
Hispanic 936 3% 1,034 4% 98 11%
Total 29,843 100% 29,926 100% 83 <1%
Source: Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Asian includes, but is not limited to: Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese
2. Employment Trends
Employment characteristics and trends can shed light on relationship between jobs and
housing in the City. Census data since 2000 shows a decreasing number of employed
residents, correlating to the increase in retired and senior residents. However, the number
of jobs in the City remained steady between 2007 and 2011 and the 12,500 employed
residents, shown in 2011 American Community Survey data, outnumbered the 7,609 job
opportunities in the City. Saratoga has limited opportunities for extensive commercial and
employment growth because there are few remaining vacant parcels in the City.
In Saratoga, the top five industries have remained the same between 2007 and 2011 but
their employment figures have changed. Educational services has remained the top
industry over the 5 year period and had a 12 percent increase in employment
opportunities. Health Care and Social Assistance, the second largest employer,
experienced a 13 percent increase in the number of employment opportunities.
Accommodation and Food Services grew by 42 percent to become the third largest
employer in 2011. Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (down 18%) and Other
Services (down 14%) had fewer opportunities in 2011 than in 2007 but remained within the
top five industries in the City.
95
Draft June 2014 2-6
Table 2-5. Jobs in Saratoga by Industry 2007-2011
2007 2011 2007-2011 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Educational Services 2,493 34% 2,790 37% 297 12%
Health Care and Social
Assistance 1,125 15% 1,268 17% 143 13%
Accommodation and
Food Services 517 7% 734 10% 217 42%
Other Services
(excluding Public
Administration) 726 10% 593 8% -133 -18%
Professional, Scientific,
and Technical Services 638 9% 547 7% -91 -14%
Real Estate and Rental
and Leasing 325 4% 305 4% -20 -6%
Retail Trade 422 6% 303 4% -119 -28%
Finance and Insurance 154 2% 191 3% 37 24%
Construction 217 3% 184 2% -33 -15%
Wholesale Trade 151 2% 183 2% 32 21%
Administration &
Support, Waste
Management and
Remediation 137 2% 154 2% 17 12%
Arts, Entertainment,
and Recreation 160 2% 137 2% -23 -14%
Public Administration 95 1% 100 1% 5 5%
Manufacturing 91 1% 51 1% -40 -44%
Information 89 1% 24 <1% -65 -73%
Transportation and
Warehousing 21 <1% 23 <1% 2 10%
2007 2011 2007-2011 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing and Hunting 2 <1% 16 <1% 14 700%
Utilities 8 <1% 6 <1% -2 -25%
Management of
Companies and
Enterprises 1 0% 0 0% -1 -100%
Mining, Quarrying, and
Oil and Gas Extraction 1 0% 0 0% -1 -100%
Total 7,373 100% 7,609 100% 236 3%
Source: U.S. Census OnTheMap 2007 & 2011
96
Draft June 2014 2-7
Several of the major employers were in the Education industry, which corresponds to data
showing that it has been the industry with the largest employment in Saratoga. The City
of Saratoga’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY2012-2013 listed the top 10
employers in 2013 shown in Table 2-6. The Education industry will likely continue to provide
large number of employment opportunities in the City.
Table 2-6. Major Employers in Saratoga, 2013
Employer Employees
West Valley Community College 765
Saratoga Retirement Community 260
Saratoga High School 132
Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital 120
Our Lady of Fatima 101
Prospect High School 100
Redwood Middle School 96
Gene's Fine Foods 80
Safeway 65
Villa Montalvo 60
Source: City of Saratoga, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY2012-2013
Overall employment among Saratoga residents had a slight decline between 2000 and
2011 but has grown since 2011. Saratoga had approximately 12,500 employed residents
according to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, eight hundred fewer than
reported in 2000. More residents were employed in Manufacturing than any other industry
between 2000 and 2011. Nearly four hundred fewer residents held jobs in this industry in
2011 than in 2000 (down 9 percent). The industry that employed the second largest
number of residents in 2000 – Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and
Waste Management services – experienced a 5 percent increase by 2011. Despite
moderate increases in this industry and other industries such as Whole Sale Trade and
Retail Trade, fewer residents were employed in other industries, which offset some of the
increases. By 2011, fewer residents were employed in Construction (-186); Finance,
Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing (-295); and Public Administration (-101).
Table 2-7 shows the breakdown of occupational data by industry for Saratoga and Santa
Clara County residents. The California Employment Development Department data,
shown in Table 2-8, indicates that employment has grown in Saratoga since 2011,
however occupational distribution is not shown. The Census and American Community
Survey best convey the occupational trends, though not as current as the EDD data.
97
Draft June 2014 2-8
Table 2-7. Occupations of Residents by Industry 2000-2011
2000 2011 2000-2011 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing and Hunting, and
Mining 18 <1% 18 <1% 0 0%
Construction 422 3% 236 2% -186 -44%
Manufacturing 4,253 32% 3,882 31% -371 -9%
Wholesale Trade 389 3% 478 4% 89 23%
Retail Trade 1,019 8% 1,078 9% 59 6%
Transportation and
Warehousing, and
Utilities 137 1% 140 1% 3 2%
Information 713 5% 632 5% -81 -11%
Finance, Insurance, Real
Estate, and Rental and
Leasing 941 7% 646 5% -295 -31%
Professional, Scientific,
Management,
Administrative, and
Waste Management
Services 2,514 19% 2,642 21% 128 5%
Educational, Health,
and Social Services 1,992 15% 1,911 15% -81 -4%
Arts, Entertainment,
Recreation,
Accommodation, and
Food Services 369 3% 297 2% -72 -20%
Other Services (except
Public Administration) 249 2% 313 3% 64 26%
Public Administration 328 3% 227 2% -101 -31%
Total 13,344 100% 12,500 100% -844 -6%
Source: Census 2000 and American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
As economic recovery brings improved job prospects to the Bay Area, employment among
Saratoga residents will continue to increase. The California Employment Development
Department reports that employment numbers were able to keep pace with growth in the
labor force, causing the unemployment rate to drop every year since 2010. Table 2-8 shows
labor trends between 2008 and 2013.
98
Draft June 2014 2-9
Table 2-8. Labor Trends in Saratoga
Labor Force Employment Unemployment
Number Number Number Rate
2008 13,400 13,000 400 3.0%
2009 13,200 12,400 700 5.5%
2010 13,200 12,500 700 5.6%
2011 13,500 12,800 700 5.0%
2012 13,900 13,300 600 4.2%
2013 14,300 13,800 400 3.1%
Source: California Employment Development Department
Most Saratoga residents worked with in Santa Clara County. According to U.S. Census
OnTheMap, only 5 percent of Saratoga residents worked in the City. About 63 percent
worked elsewhere in the County, with San Jose as a major employment center for more
than 23 percent of residents. Five percent of residents worked in San Mateo County. Four
percent worked in San Francisco. Six percent worked in the East Bay.
About 90 percent of Saratoga residents relied on automobile transportation for their
commute. According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 84 percent of
residents drove alone and 6 percent carpooled. One percent of residents walked and
less than one percent used public transportation or other means. Eight percent of
residents worked from home. The average commute among all residents was 25.5
minutes. Since 95 percent of residents worked outside of the City, driving has been the
predominant means of travel.
The Association of Bay Area Governments forecast predicts that job opportunities in
Saratoga will grow from 9,910 in 2000 to 11,640 in 2040, but a more conservative growth
scenario should be expected. Table 2-9 shows the ABAG projections for job growth in
Saratoga and Santa Clara County over the next 3 decades. The City believes that
employment figures may be lower than those generated by ABAG. U.S. Census
OnTheMap 2011 estimated an employment figure (7,373) that was lower than ABAG’s
2010 projection number (9,910). As a result, projections using the larger 2010 number may
be inflated. Further, the largely residential character of Saratoga does not provide
significant land area for commercial and employment growth. Job growth is more likely
to take place elsewhere in Santa Clara County, as illustrated by ABAG projections.
99
Draft June 2014 2-10
Table 2-9. Job Projections
Projections
2010 2020 2030 2040
Saratoga 9,910 10,840 11,170 11,640
Santa Clara County 926,270 1,091,270 1,147,020 1,229,520
Numerical Change
2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040
Saratoga 930 330 470
Santa Clara County 165,000 55,750 82,500
Percent Change
2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040
Saratoga 9% 3% 4%
Santa Clara County 18% 5% 7%
Source: ABAG Projections 2013
3. Household Characteristics
This section describes Saratoga’s household characteristics. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines a “household” as all persons living in a single housing unit, whether or not they
are related. One person living alone is considered a household, as is a group of
unrelated people living in a single housing unit. The U.S. Census Bureau defines “family”
as related persons living within a single housing unit.
a. Household Formation and Composition
In 2013, the Department of Finance reported 10,778 households in Saratoga, which
marked less than a 1 percent increase from 10,734 households in 2010. As a point of
reference, the rate of growth over the previous decade (from 2000 to 2010) was 3
percent. In Santa Clara County, the total number of households increased 1 percent
between 2010 and 2013. Between 2000 and 2010, the population increased 7 percent.
The number of households corresponds to the number of occupied housing units.
The increase in renter households contributed to Saratoga’s overall household growth.
Between 2000 and 2010, renter households grew 41 percent, from 1,044 to 1,476
households. During the same period, owner households decreased by 2 percent. Despite
the growth in renter households, owner households still accounted for 86 percent of
households in 2010. Table 2-10 shows household growth over the past decade, and Table
2-11 shows the change in owner and renter households.
100
Draft June 2014 2-11
Table 2- 10. Total Households
2000 2010 2013 2000-2010 Change 2010-2013 Change
Number Number Number Number Percent Number Percent
Saratoga 10,450 10,734 10,778 284 3% 44 <1%
Santa Clara
County 565,863 604,204 611,426 38,341 7% 7,222 1%
Source: Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
Table 2-11. Household Tenure in Saratoga
2000 2010 2000-2010 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Owner 9,406 90% 9,258 86% -148 -2%
Renter 1,044 10% 1,476 14% 432 41%
Total 10,450 100.0% 10,734 100% 284 3%
Source: Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
The average number of persons per household in Saratoga was 2.8 in 2010. Household
sizes remained about the same in the City and County between 2000 and 2010. As shown
in Table 2-12, the average number of persons per household in Saratoga continued to be
lower than the County average.
Table 2-12. Persons per Household
2000 2010
Saratoga 2.8 2.8
Santa Clara County 2.9 2.9
Source: Department of Finance E8 2000, Table 1 and 2; Department of Finance E5 2010, Table 1 and 2
Owner households comprised 86 percent of households in Saratoga, and total household
size distributions in the City closely followed the owner household distribution. Two-person
households made up 37 percent of owner households. Four-person households accounted
for 22 percent of owner households, while three-person households accounted for 19
percent of owners. Total household distributions similarly followed this pattern because of
the overwhelming number of owners compared to renters. For instance, more than one-
third renters were single-person households. The small proportion of renters to owners did
little to affect the total household distribution pattern. Table 2-13 shows household sizes by
tenure.
101
Draft June 2014 2-12
Table 2-13. Household Size Distribution
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1-Person 1,189 13% 551 37% 1,740 16%
2-Person 3,409 37% 351 24% 3,760 35%
3-Person 1,738 19% 193 13% 1,931 18%
4-Person 2,019 22% 251 17% 2,270 21%
5-Person 615 7% 96 7% 711 7%
6-Person 221 2% 28 2% 249 2%
7-Person or more 67 1% 6 <1% 73 1%
Total 9258 100% 1,476 100% 10,734 100%
Source: Census 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
b. Household Income
Saratoga’s overall median income was $155,182 in 2011. There was a large difference in
median incomes between owner and renter households. Owner households in 2011 had a
median income of $166,602. The median income of renters was $77,932, less than half of
the owner median income. Nearly 70 percent of all households had incomes of $100,000
or more, the majority of which were owners. Income distribution of Saratoga’s households
is shown in Table 2-14. The large number of owner households, which typically have higher
incomes, hides the disparity in median incomes between owner and renter households.
Table 2-14. Household Income Distribution
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent of
Total HH Number Percent of
Total HH Number Percent of
Total HH
Less than $5,000 88 1% 78 1% 166 2%
$5,000 to $9,999 17 <1% 45 <1% 62 1%
$10,000 to $14,999 55 1% 149 1% 204 2%
$15,000 to $19,999 64 1% 93 1% 157 2%
$20,000 to $24,999 143 1% 60 1% 203 2%
$25,000 to $34,999 294 3% 112 1% 406 4%
$35,000 to $49,999 297 3% 104 1% 401 4%
$50,000 to $74,999 707 7% 134 1% 841 8%
$75,000 to $99,999 655 6% 193 2% 848 8%
$100,000 to $149,999 1,733 16% 232 2% 1,965 18%
$150,000 or more 5,069 47% 390 4% 5,459 51%
Total Households 9,122 85% 1,590 15% 10,712 100%
Median Income $166,602 $77,926 $155,182
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011
102
Draft June 2014 2-13
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) calculates
an annual median family income (MFI), with reference to the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), for the purpose of determining program eligibility. The
State of California uses five income categories to determine housing affordability based
on the MFI. Table 2-15 shows the income ranges for each income category based on the
2013 State Income Limits for Santa Clara County.
Table 2-15. Income Limits by Category
Percent of
County
Median
Income
Income Limits
for Number of Persons in a Household
1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person
Extremely Low
Income ≤ 30% $22,300 $25,500 $28,650 $31,850 $34,400
Very Low
Income 31% - 50% $37,150 $42,450 $47,750 $53,050 $57,300
Low
Income 51% - 80% $59,400 $67,900 $76,400 $84,900 $91,650
Moderate
Income 81% - 120% $88,600 $101,300 $113,950 $126,600 $136,750
Above Moderate
Income > 120% >$88,600 >$101,300 >$113,950 >$126,600 >$136,750
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, State Income Limits 2013
According to the 2006-2010 CHAS database developed by HUD, nearly three-quarters of
households in Saratoga earned above moderate incomes but some disparity existed
between owner and renter households. Nearly 80 percent of owner households had
above moderate incomes. Less than half of renter households had above moderate
incomes. Owner households also had a much smaller proportion in the very low income
classification (10%) compared to renter households (34%). Table 2-16 shows the
proportion of households in each income level by tenure.
Table 2-16. Household Income Level by Tenure
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Occupied Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Very Low Income
≤50% of AMI 870 10% 545 34% 1,415 14%
Low Income
50- 80% 304 3% 90 6% 394 4%
Moderate
80 to 120% 740 8% 235 15% 975 9%
Above Moderate
120%+ 6,940 78% 730 46% 7,670 73%
Total Occupied 8,854 100% 1,600 100% 10,454 100%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 (CHAS based on ACS), via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
103
Draft June 2014 2-14
In 2011, Saratoga had the third highest median household income in the County , as
shown in Table 2-17. At $155,182, Saratoga’s median household income was nearly twice
the countywide median household income.
Table 2-17. Countywide Median Household Income in 2011
Median Household Income
Los Altos Hills $218,077
Monte Sereno $181,719
Saratoga $155,182
Los Altos $151,856
Cupertino $124,825
Los Gatos $122,875
Palo Alto $122,532
Milpitas $94,589
Morgan Hill $94,301
Sunnyvale $93,292
Mountain View $91,446
Santa Clara $89,004
Campbell $82,687
San Jose $80,764
Gilroy $75,483
Santa Clara County Total $89,064
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
The annual incomes of many that serve the community fell well below Saratoga’s median
income. The 2013 California Occupational Employment Statistics, compiled by the
California Employment Development Department, lists the average salaries by
occupations. The salaries of vital service occupations, such as home health aides,
elementary school teachers and firefighters, were below the county-wide median
income level. More options for affordable workforce housing would be needed for those
employed in Saratoga that cannot afford to live in the community they serve. With the
average rent of a 1-bedroom apartment at nearly $2,000 and a 2-bedroom apartment
at nearly $3,200 in 2014 (craigslist.com rental survey 2/18/2014 and 3/14/2014), workers in
lower income occupations may encounter difficulty in finding affordable rental units.
Table 2-18 shows the occupational salaries in the San Jose, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara
metropolitan statistical area.
104
Draft June 2014 2-15
Table 2-18. Bay Area Wages for Select Occupations - 2013
Very Low Income
(<$45,250 - 2 person household)
Hourly
Wage
Annual
Income
Max. Monthly
Affordable
Housing Cost
Waiters and Waitresses $10.88 $22,637 $566
Home Health Aide $11.20 $23,297 $582
Restaurant Cooks $12.68 $26,370 $659
Retail Salespersons $12.82 $26,660 $667
Security Guards $15.98 $33,249 $831
Nursing Assistants $17.13 $35,635 $891
Low Income
($45,251 - $67,900 - 2 person household)
Hourly
Wage
Annual
Income
Max. Monthly
Affordable
Housing Cost
Pharmacy Technicians $23.44 $48,752 $1,219
Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians $26.28 $54,662 $1,367
Tax Preparers $26.77 $55,690 $1,392
Architectural and Civil Drafters $30.04 $62,483 $1,562
Executive Secretaries and Admin. Assistants $31.46 $65,439 $1,636
Paralegals and Legal Assistants $31.69 $65,904 $1,648
Moderate Income
($67,900 - $101,300 - 2 person household)
Hourly
Wage
Annual
Income
Max. Monthly
Affordable
Housing Cost
Elementary School Teachers $69,192 $1,730
Real Estate Agents $38.10 $79,238 $1,981
Accountants and Auditors $41.78 $86,903 $2,173
Fire Fighters $42.19 $87,757 $2,194
Physical Therapists $45.75 $95,159 $2,379
Computer Programmers $47.47 $98,734 $2,468
Source: 2013 California Occupational Employment Statistics –San Jose - Sunnyvale - Santa Clara MSA (County: Santa
Clara)
*Income categories based on two person household with single wage earner
*Maximum affordable housing cost based on standard of 30% of income on housing, including rent/mortgage, utilities,
taxes, insurance, HOA fees
4. Housing Inventory and Market Conditions
This section describes the housing stock and market conditions in the City of Saratoga. By
analyzing past and current housing trends, future housing needs can be projected.
105
Draft June 2014 2-16
a. Housing Stock Profile
According to the 2000 U.S. Census and the State Department of Finance, 2 percent of all
housing units in Santa Clara County are within Saratoga’s boundaries. The City had
10,667 housing units in 2000. The housing stock grew to 11,123 units in 2010. Table 2-19
summarizes the number of housing units from 2000-2010.
Table 2-19. Number of Housing Units in Saratoga and Santa Clara County
Saratoga Santa Clara County
Saratoga as a Percent of
County Units
2000 10,667 579,329 2%
2010 11,123 631,920 2%
Source: Census 2000 and DOF 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
Thirty-eight units were approved between 2007 and 2013: 20 units were in the above-
moderate income level, 5 were moderate income and 13 were low income. Fourteen
additional units were anticipated to be approved by June 30, 2014: 10 in the above
moderate income level, 2 moderate income and 2 low income.
Table 2-20. RHNA Housing Achievements
Income Levels 2007-
2014
RHNA
Goal
New Residential Structure
Building Permits Issued in:
Total RHNA
Achievements
2007-2013 Est. 2014
through June
30, 2014
Extremely Low*
(0-30% AMI)
45 0 0 0
Very Low*
(31-50% AMI)
45 0 0 0
Low
(51-80% AMI)
68 13 2 15
Moderate
(81-120% AMI)
77 5 2 7
Above Moderate
(>120% AMI)
57 20 10 30
Totals 292 38 14 52
Source: City of Saratoga
During the 2007-2014 period, eighteen new second units were constructed. Thirteen of
these units were deed restricted and available for Low Income households. The other five
second units were non-deed restricted and available to Moderate Income households.
During the first half of 2014 the city has estimated that an additional two deed restricted
units will be permitted and another two non-deed restricted units will be permitted.
106
Draft June 2014 2-17
A survey (Craigslist May 9, 2014 & May 20, 2014) of second unit rentals in Saratoga and
surrounding cities showed rents ranging from $850 to $2,000. The median rent for a 1-
bedroom unit was $1,600 and the median rent for a studio was $1,360. These rents are in
the range of Very Low to Moderate affordability for Santa Clara County.
Based on feedback from owners of second units, city staff understands that a large
percentage of second units are occupied rent free by family members or domestic
workers. While the city does not maintain records on rents for second units other than
deed restricted units, surveys done in San Mateo County for the cities of Woodside,
Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills and Hillsborough indicate that between 62 and 74 percent
of all second units are available to very low or extremely low income households. These
cities are demographically similar to Saratoga.
In Saratoga, the majority of recently constructed second units have utilized the floor area
and site coverage bonus provisions which require s that the unit be deed restricted for
rent to below market rate households. Since 2001 the city estimates that there were 41
second dwelling units constructed, of those units 20 were deed restricted.
Most building permits in the city were issued for remodels and additions to existing single-
family dwellings. During the 2007-2014 planning period, 127 new homes were built
including replacements of existing homes. An additional, 22 second dwelling units were
built during the planning period. This represents 51 percent of the total 292 housing units
planned for during the 2007-2014 Housing Element cycle.
i. Unit Size
In 2011, the most common type of renter-occupied units were 1-bedroom units. The
most common types of owner-occupied units were 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom units.
These were also the most common types of housing units overall. Table 2-21
summarizes the distribution of unit size by tenure in 2011.
Table 2-21. Unit Size by Tenure
Owner Renter Total Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Studio 0 0% 120 8% 120 1%
1 bedroom 9 <1% 447 28% 456 4%
2 bedrooms 338 4% 271 17% 609 6%
3 bedrooms 2606 29% 389 25% 2,995 28%
4 bedrooms 4424 49% 156 10% 4,580 43%
5 or more bedrooms 1,745 19% 207 13% 1,952 18%
Total 9,122 100% 1590 100% 10,712 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
107
Draft June 2014 2-18
ii. Unit Type
Single-family homes constitute the majority of the City’s housing stock. In both 2000 and
2010, the combined total of single-family attached and detached units made up more
than 90 percent of the housing stock in Saratoga. Table 2-22 presents the proportional
distribution of the housing stock. One notable change between 2000 and 2010 was the
increasing number of multiple family dwellings that were constructed.
Table 2-22. Housing Inventory by Unit Type
2000 2010
Number Percent Number Percent
SF detached 9,551 90% 9,356 84%
SF attached 561 5% 760 7%
2-4 units 197 2% 355 3%
5+ units 351 3% 652 6%
Mobile Homes 0 0% 0 0%
Other 7 <1% 0 0%
Total Housing Units 10,667 100% 11,123 100%
Source: Census 2000 and DOF 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
As the predominant housing type in Saratoga, single-family units comprised the majority of
owner-occupied units and a significant proportion of renter-occupied units. Owner-occupied
housing units are predominately single-family detached, comprising 93 percent of all
owner- occupied units. Single-family detached units also made up the majority of renter-
occupied units (38 percent). The largest proportion of renter-occupied housing units were
multifamily complexes with 5 or more units, which comprised 43 percent of renter-occupied
units.
Table 2-23. Unit Type by Tenure
Percent of
Owner Units
Percent of
Renter Units
Percent of
Total Units
Single-family, detached 93% 38% 85%
Single-family, attached 5% 10% 6%
Multi-family (2-4 units) 1% 9% 3%
Multi-family (5+ units) 1% 43% 7%
Mobile home of other 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011
b. Tenure
Approximately 86 percent of Saratoga’s housing units were owner-occupied and 14
108
Draft June 2014 2-19
percent were renter-occupied in 2010. As shown in Table 2-24, the percentage of owner-
occupied units in Saratoga was comparatively higher than Santa Clara County and
California.
Table 2-24. Occupied Units by Tenure
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Saratoga 9,258 86% 1,476 14% 10,734 100%
Santa Clara County 348,298 58% 255,906 42% 604,204 100%
Source: Census 2010
c. Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates are an indicator of housing supply and demand. Low vacancy rates
influence greater upward price pressures; a higher vacancy rate indicates downward
price pressure. A vacancy rate of five percent for rental housing and two percent for
owner housing is generally considered healthy in regards to the balance between
supply and demand. In 2010, the citywide residential vacancy rate in Saratoga was
3.5 percent. The renter vacancy rate was 4.3 percent, and the homeowner vacancy rate
was 0.7 percent. Both rates have increased since 2000 but are still lower than the
benchmark for healthy vacancy rates. These lower vacancy rates suggest that
competition for units may place upward pressure on rents and for-sale housing prices.
Table 2-25 summarizes vacancy rates in Saratoga from 2000 to 2010.
Table 2-25. Vacancy Rates
Owner Rental Citywide Total
2000 0.3 3.4 1.9
2010 0.7 4.3 3.5
Source: Census 2000 and 2010; Dept. of Finance E8 2000, Table 2; Dept. of Finance E5 2010, Table 2
d. Age of Housing Stock
The age of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions. In general, housing
that is 30 years or older may exhibit need for repairs based on the useful life of materials.
Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely to exhibit a need for
major repairs. The U.S. Census provided data on the age of the housing stock through
the 2007-2011 American Community Survey. In Saratoga, 81 percent of housing units
were built before 1980 and 32 percent were built before 1960. Table 2-26 provides a
summary of housing stock age.
109
Draft June 2014 2-20
Table 2-26. Age of Housing Stock
Number Percent
2000 - 2009 835 8%
1990 - 1999 617 6%
1980 - 1989 771 7%
1970 - 1979 2,334 21%
1960 - 1969 3,074 28%
1950 - 1959 2,737 25%
1940 - 1949 333 3%
1939 or earlier 455 4%
Total 11,156 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
e. Housing Conditions
Housing is considered substandard when conditions are found to be below the minimum
standard of living conditions defined in the California Health and Safety Code.
Households living in substandard conditions are considered to be in need of housing
assistance, even if they are not seeking alternative housing arrangements, due to the
threat to health and safety.
In addition to structural deficiencies and standards, the lack of infrastructure and utilities
often serves as an indicator for substandard conditions. According to the 2007-2011
American Community Survey 74 units in Saratoga lacked complete plumbing facilities
and 140 units lacked complete kitchen facilities. It should be noted that there may be
some overlap in the number of substandard housing units, as some units may lack both
complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. Table 2-27 summarizes the number of units
lacking plumbing or complete kitchen facilities.
The age of the City’s housing stock can be a valuable indicator of housing conditions. In
Saratoga, approximately 80 percent of the housing units were built prior to 1980 and 32
percent prior to 1960. It is expected that housing older than 30 years may require basic
repairs and housing older than 50 years is considered “aged” and likely to require more
extensive repairs. A spike in home construction occurred in the 1960s when 3,074 homes
were built, which translates to 28 percent of the present housing stock. Assessor data
indicates that there are 4,.124 residences that were built over 50 years ago and have not
had a significant remodel. Given the historically high values of homes in Saratoga the vast
majority of older homes are maintained in good condition. The City estimates that less
than one percent, or approximately 20, of those homes older than 50 years will need some
form of rehabilitation during the planning period. The City will continue to utilize code
enforcement practices to identify housing in need of rehabilitation and work with property
owners to rectify sub-standards housing.
110
Draft June 2014 2-21
Table 2-27. Units Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities
Number Percent
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 74 1%
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 140 1%
Total Housing Units 11,156 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
f. Housing Costs and Rents
This section evaluates housing cost trends in Saratoga. The analysis covers the
affordability gap, home price trends, ownership affordability, rental prices and rental
affordability.
i. Home Price Trends
In 2013, the median value for all owner-occupied units in Saratoga was $1,600,000,
according to Census and real estate market data. Home values have increased 27
percent since 2000, as shown in Table 2-28. Table 2-29, shows that 84 percent of owner-
occupied housing units were valued at $1,000,000 or more. An additional 12 percent
were valued at between $500,000 and $999,999.
Table 2-28. Median Housing Value
2000
(2000 dollars)
2000
(2013 dollars)*
2013
(2013 dollars)
Percent Change
2000-2013
(2013 dollars)
Saratoga $927,100 $1,260,856 $1,600,000 27%
Santa Clara
County Total $475,600 $646,816 $645,000 -1%
Source: Census 2000 SF3 QT-H6; Dataquick 2013; ABAG Bay Area Consumer Price Index 2013
*Value adjusted to 2013 dollars. According to ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements, CPI in 2000 was 180.2, CPI in
2013 was 245, and as a result CPI percent change was 36%
111
Draft June 2014 2-22
Table 2-29. Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Number Percent
Less than $100,000 29 <1%
$100,000 to $124,999 64 1%
$125,000 to $149,999 14 <1%
$150,000 to $174,999 65 1%
$175,000 to $199,999 11 <1%
$200,000 to $249,999 27 <1%
$250,000 to $299,999 67 1%
$300,000 to $399,999 28 <1%
$400,000 to $499,999 81 1%
$500,000 to $749,999 284 3%
$750,000 to $999,999 796 9%
$1,000,000 or more 7,656 84%
Total 9,122 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011
As shown in Table 2-30, the median sales price for new and resale homes in Saratoga was
$1,600,000 for 2013. This represents a 5 percent increase from the median sales price in
2012. The 2013 median sales price in Saratoga was more than double the County median.
Table 2-30. Median Sales Price
County/City/Area Number Sold 2013 Median Price 2012 Median Price Change
Saratoga 448 $1,600,000 $1,527,500 5%
Alviso 13 $415,000 $370,000 12%
Campbell 554 $701,000 $625,000 12%
Cupertino 512 $1,200,000 $1,045,750 15%
Gilroy 755 $495,000 $415,000 19%
Los Gatos 694 $1,257,500 $1,065,000 18%
Milpitas 800 $580,000 $435,000 33%
Morgan Hill 738 $625,000 $500,000 25%
Mount Hamilton 3 $1,180,000 $918,000 29%
Mountain View 759 $800,000 $769,250 4%
Palo Alto 670 $1,720,000 $1,495,000 15%
San Jose 11,050 $570,000 $438,000 30%
San Martin 52 $650,000 $580,000 12%
Santa Clara 1,214 $635,000 $540,000 18%
Stanford 3 $3,450,000 $2,530,000 36%
Sunnyvale 1,326 $767,500 $645,000 19%
Santa Clara County 20,700 $645,000 $525,000 23%
Source: Dataquick DQ News San Francisco Bay Area Home Sales Activity for 2013
112
Draft June 2014 2-23
Housing prices vary by housing type and the number of bedrooms in a unit. Overall, the
median price of a single-family home was more than twice the value of a townhouse or
condominium in Saratoga. The median price difference is significant even between
single-family homes and condominiums with comparable sizes and the same number of
bedrooms.
Table 2-31. Saratoga Home and Condominium Sales Price Jan. – Dec. 2013
# Bdrms Units
Sold Price Range Median
Price
Avg. Unit
Size
Avg. Parcel
Size
Avg. Year
Built
Single-Family Homes
2* 21 $400,000 -
$4,250,000 $1,265,000 1,450 sf 30,500 1948
3 118 $163,000 -
$3,550,000 $1,400,000 2,100 sf 20,030 1960
4 147 $188,500 -
$4,850,000 $1,840,000 2,850 sf 23,680 1968
5+** 69 $170,000 -
$12,300,000 $2,097,500 3,510 sf 30,190 1973
Total 355 $163,000 -
$12,300,000 $1,750,000 2,749 sf 24,130 1965
Condominiums
1 5 $378,000 -
$419,000 $410,000 700 sf -- 1975
2 34 $312,500 -
$1,215,000 $600,000 1,340 sf 1971
3 19 $202,000 -
$1,350,000 $850,000 2,000 sf 1980
Total 58 $202,000 -
$1,350,000 $631,000 1,500 sf -- 1974
Source: Dataquick Online Real Estate Database
ii. Ownership Affordability
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conducts annual household
income surveys nationwide, including Santa Clara County, to determine the maximum
affordable payments of households and their eligibility for federal housing assistance. The
2013 median income limit for a four-person household in Santa Clara County was
$105,500. Table 2-23 presents affordable home purchase prices for moderate income
households.
113
Draft June 2014 2-24
The median sales price for homes in 2013
generally exceeded the affordability range for
moderate income households, however
condominiums were a more affordable
alternative to single-family homes. The
affordability gap between the maximum
affordable purchase price of a moderate
income 4-person household and the median
single-family home purchase price is $870,000.
This gap is more than two times the difference
between the affordable price and the median
condominium purchase price ($320,000).
Although the gap in affordability is still significant for condominiums, it is a more viable
option than single family homes, which are out of reach for moderate income
households.
Existing development at Saratoga Village
Center
114
Draft June 2014 2-25
Table 2-32. 2013 Maximum Affordable Housing Cost (Moderate Income), Santa Clara County
Moderate Income 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Affordable Housing Cost (2 persons) (3 persons) (4 persons) (5 persons)
Moderate Income Threshold $92,840 $104,500 $116,050 $125,290 (110% County Median)
Max. Income Towards Housing @
35% Income $32,500 $36,580 $40,620 $43,850
Max. Monthly Housing Cost $2,710 $3,050 $3,385 $3,655
Less Ongoing Monthly
Expenses:
Utilities ($127) ($139) ($188) ($217)
Property Taxes (1.1%
affordable hsg housing
price)
($387) ($440) ($485) ($523)
Insurance ($85) ($100) ($115) ($130)
HOA Fees & Other ($180) ($180) ($180) ($180)
Monthly Income Available for
Mortgage $1,931 $2,191 $2,417 $2,605
Supportable Mortgage @ 4.5%
interest $381,000 $432,000 $477,000 $514,000
Homebuyer DownpaymentDown
payment (10%) $42,000 $48,000 $53,000 $57,000
Maximum Affordable Purchase
Price $423,000 $480,000 $530,000 $571,000
Saratoga Median Single-Family
Price -- $1,265,000 $1,400,000 $1,840,000
Saratoga Median Condominium
Price $410,000 $600,000 $850,000 --
Source: Karen Warner Associates.
Utility costs based on 2013 Santa Clara County Housing Authority utility allowance schedule for attached units (assumes
gas heating, cooking and water heating).
iii. Rental Prices
As a city where 85 percent of the housing stock consists of single-family detached homes,
small affordable apartment rentals are difficult to find. Table 2-33 shows that the number
of homes available for rent outnumbered apartments for rent in 2014. This leaves renters
with fewer options for affordable apartment rentals. Rents for single-family homes were
upwards of $5,000 per month. The average rent for a 3-bedroom home was $4,510, and
the rent for a 4-bedroom home was $5,460. In comparison, the average price of a 1
bedroom rental unit was $1,960. A small stock of multifamily units gives renters few choices.
Second units offer an affordable alternative to apartment and home rentals. These
independent housing units, also known as secondary dwelling units, are located on the
same property as a larger primary dwelling unit. A survey of second units in Saratoga and
115
Draft June 2014 2-26
surrounding cities shows rents ranging from $850 to $2,000 and a median rent of $1,500.
Table 2-33 highlights the lower rents of second units compared to other rental units.
Table 2-33. Saratoga 2014 Rental Survey
Availability Rental Range Median Average
Apartments and Condominiums
1-bedroom 4 $1,850 - $2,300 $1,850 $1,960
2/3-bedroom 5 $2,700 - $2,500 $3,400 $3,170
Single Family Homes
3-bedroom 10 $3,800 - $5,950 $4,540 $4,510
4-bedroom 12 $4,200 - $8,500 $4,980 $5,460
5-bedroom 8 $5,500 - $9,250 $8,000 $7,520
Second Unit Dwelling
Second Unit 12 $850 - $2,000 $1,500 $1,440
Source: Craigslist February 18, 2014 and March 14, 2014, Craigslist May 9, 2014 (second units-includes
neighboring jurisdictions)
According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 37 percent of renter
households in Saratoga spent 30 percent or more of their household income on rent
in 2011. Twenty percent of households spent 50 percent or more of their household
income on rent. Table 2-34 shows the number of households by percentage of household
income spent on rent.
Table 2- 34. Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income
Number of Households Percent of Households
Less than 10.0 percent 230 15%
10.0 to 14.9 percent 100 6%
15.0 to 19.9 percent 239 15%
20.0 to 24.9 percent 80 5%
25.0 to 29.9 percent 224 14%
30.0 to 34.9 percent 75 5%
35.0 to 39.9 percent 47 3%
40.0 to 49.9 percent 143 9%
50.0 percent or more 325 20%
Not computed 127 8%
Total 1,590 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011
iv. Rental Affordability
As shown in Table 2-35, the median rents for 1-bedroom apartments were affordable to
moderate income households but not low income households. A 1-bedroom unit was
affordable to a 2-person moderate-income household, which could pay up to $2,435,
116
Draft June 2014 2-27
after utilities, without exceeding the affordability limit defined as 30 percent of income.
With an affordable limit of $1,600, low income renter households would have to spend
more than 30 percent for their income. Although the affordability gap for low income
renters was $150 for a 1-bedroom apartment, the gap greatly widens for units with 2-
bedrooms or more. The difference between the median rent for a 2-bedroom unit and
affordable rent for a low-income household was $1,600. In addition to the low supply of
1-bedroom units, households face the challenge of finding affordable rental units. Units
that have more than one bedroom would no longer be affordable to low income or
moderate income households.
Rental prices for larger units, namely single-family homes, exceeded affordable levels for
moderate income households. Single-family homes make up a large supply of 3-bedroom
rental units. The median rent for a 3-bedroom home was $4,540, but a 4-person moderate
income household could only spend up to $3,037 on housing until housing was no longer
considered affordable. This affordability gap between the median price and an
affordable rental price was $1,500. To rent a median priced 3-bedroom home in
Saratoga, moderate income households would have to spend more than 30 percent of
their income on rent.
Table 2- 35. 2013 Maximum Affordable Rents, Santa Clara County
Income Level1
Maximum Affordable Rent After Utilities Allowance2
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
(2 person) (3 person) (4 person)
Very Low Income $964 $1,085 $1,198
Low Income $1,600 $1,801 $1,995
Moderate Income $2,435 $2,739 $3,037
Saratoga Median Rents $1,850 $3,400 $4,540
Source: Source: Karen Warner Associates
1 Income levels based on State HCD published Income Limits for 2013.
2 Utility costs based on 2013 Santa Clara County Housing Authority utility allowance schedule for low-rise multi-family
units (gas heating, cooking and water heating; assumes monthly refuse service included in rent): $83 for studios, $97 for
1 bedrooms, $109 for 2 bedrooms, and $128 for 3 bedrooms.
B. Housing Needs
This section provides an overview of existing housing needs in Saratoga. It focuses on the
following categories:
x Household overpayment;
x Overcrowding;
117
Draft June 2014 2-28
x Estimated new construction;
x Replacement of units lost; and
x Special needs groups.
1. Households Overpaying for Housing
Overpayment is defined as households paying more than 30 percent of their gross
income on housing related expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities.
High housing costs can cause households to spend a disproportionate percentage
of their income on housing. This may result in repayment problems, deferred
maintenance or overcrowding.
Overpayment is an issue affecting owners and renters. Thirty-two percent of all
households were owners that overpaid for housing. As shown in Table 2-36, housing
overpayment not only affected lower income households but had a noticeable impact
on above moderate income households as well. With median home values and market
prices exceeding $1 million, housing payments presented a burden for many households.
Table 2-37 shows overpayment among renter households. About 5 percent of all
households were renters who overpaid for housing. Renter households represent a small
proportion of all households in Saratoga, so overpayment is a more significant issue than
is represented by the data.
Table 2-36. Owner Household Overpayment by Household Income Level
Owner Households
HH Paying 30-50% HH Paying > 50%
Number
Percent of
Total HH* Number
Percent of
Total HH*
Very Low Income ≤50% of HAMFI 85 1% 445 4%
Low Income 50- 80% of HAMFI 39 <1% 105 1%
Moderate 80 to 120% of HAMFI 125 1% 160 2%
Above Moderate 120%+ of HAMFI 1,740 17% 655 6%
Total Overpayment 1,989 19% 1,365 13%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 (CHAS based on ACS), via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Total Household count is 10,470 from CHAS 2006-2010, via ABAG data for Bay Area Housing Elements
118
Draft June 2014 2-29
Table 2-37. Renter Household Overpayment by Household Income Level
Renter Household
HH Paying 30-50% HH Paying > 50%
Number
Percent
of Total
HH* Number
Percent
of Total
HH*
Very Low Income ≤50% of HAMFI 130 1% 225 2%
Low Income 50- 80% of HAMFI 10 <1% 0 0%
Moderate 80 to 120% of HAMFI 85 1% 15 <1%
Above Moderate 120%+ of HAMFI 90 1% 10 <1%
Total Overpayment 315 3% 250 2%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 (CHAS based on ACS), via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Total Household count is 10,470 from CHAS 2006-2010, via ABAG data for Bay Area Housing Elements
2. Overcrowding
An Overcrowded Housing Unit is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as a housing unit
occupied by more than one person but less than 1.5 persons per room (excluding
bathrooms, kitchen, hallway and closet space). A Severely Overcrowded unit is defined
as a unit occupied by more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding can affect public
facilities and services, reduce the quality of the physical environment and create
conditions that contribute to deterioration. Overcrowding is not a significant issue in
Saratoga. Table 2-38 summarizes overcrowding in Saratoga. According to CHAS 2006-
2010 data, the only overcrowding recorded was for 15 severely overcrowded renter units.
Table 2-38. Overcrowded Households
Owner Renter
Number
Percent
of Total
Occupied
Units Number
Percent
of Total
Occupied
Units
Overcrowded
(greater than 1.0 but less than or
equal to 1.5 persons per room) 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Severely Overcrowded
(greater than 1.5 persons per room) 0 0.0% 15 0.1%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 (CHAS based on ACS), via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Total Occupied Units is 10,470 according to CHAS 2006-2010
3. Units At-Risk of Conversion
The State Housing Element law requires local governments to prepare an inventory of all
assisted multi-family rental housing complexes that are eligible to be converted from low
income to market-rate units. Assisted housing units are multifamily units that have
119
Draft June 2014 2-30
received government assistance (any combination of rental assistance, mortgage
insurance, interest reductions, and/or direct loan programs). The conversion may be
triggered by termination of a rent subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiration
of use restrictions. The inventory must cover a ten-year evaluation period following the
statutory due date of the Housing Element.
Saratoga has two rent-restricted properties totaling 170 units. These include Fellowship
Plaza with 150 units and Saratoga Court with 20 units. Both properties provide affordable
housing for seniors and are owned and managed by non-profit housing providers and
are thus considered at low risk of conversion to market rate. Analysis of at-risk unit
conversions is covered in Appendix B.
4. 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for allocating housing
needs to each jurisdiction in its region, including Saratoga. A local jurisdiction’s “fair
share” of regional housing need is the number of additional housing units needed to
accommodate the forecasted growth in the number of households, to replace
expected demolitions and conversion of housing units to non-housing uses, and to
achieve a future vacancy rate that allows for healthy functioning of the housing market.
The allocation is divided into five income categories: Extremely-Low, Very-Low, Low,
Moderate, and Above-Moderate. The allocation is further adjusted to avoid an over-
concentration of lower-income households in any one jurisdiction.
Table 2-39. Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Extremely
Low Income
0-30%*
Very
Low
31-50%
Low
51-80%
Moderate
81-120%
Above
Moderate
120%+ Total
Saratoga 74 73 95 104 93 439
Source: ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*It is assumed that 50 percent of the RHNA Very Low Income allocation qualifies as Extremely Low Income.
5. Special Needs Groups
Certain segments of the population have more difficulty finding decent, affordable
housing due to special needs. This section identifies the needs for elderly persons, large
households, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, homeless persons and
farmworkers.
In addition to the data from the 2010 U.S. Census, this section uses data from the 2006-
2010 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) published by HUD. The CHAS
provides information related to households with housing problems, including
overpayment, overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen facilities. The CHAS data
are based on Census data files and mostly comprise a variety of housing need variables
split by HUD-defined income limits and HUD- specified housing types.
120
Draft June 2014 2-31
a. Elderly Persons
Elderly persons are considered a special needs group because they are more likely to
have fixed incomes. Elderly persons often have special needs related to housing
location and construction. Because of limited mobility, elderly persons typically need
access to public facilities (i.e. medical and shopping) and public transit. In terms of
housing construction, elderly persons may need ramps, handrails, elevators, lower
cabinets and counters, and special security devices to allow for greater self-protection.
The U.S. Census reports the characteristics of Saratoga’s senior population and
households. Nearly 6,100 residents, or 20 percent of the population, were age 65 or older.
Senior households, which are headed by a senior resident, made up 32 percent of
Saratoga’s households. The tenure of senior households, shown in Table 2-40, consists of
15 percent renters and 85 percent owners.
Table 2-40. Senior Households by Age Group and Tenure
Owner Renter Total
Number
Percent of
Senior HH Number
Percent of
Senior HH Number
Percent of
Senior HH
65 to 74 years 1,491 43% 117 3% 1,608 47%
75 to 84 years 1,023 30% 219 6% 1,242 36%
85+ years 417 12% 186 5% 603 17%
Total 2,931 85% 522 15% 3,453 100%
Source: Census 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
The HCD Area Median Income for Santa Clara County was $105,500 in 2013. Based
on the 2007-2011 American Community Survey data shown in Table 2-41, 21 percent of
senior households earned less than $30,000, and therefore fell within the Extremely Low
Income category. Within the Very-Low and Low Income categories Twenty-six percent
earned $30,000 to $74,999. The 2007-2011 American Community Survey also reports that
35 percent of senior households were living alone, which may present additional
challenges of housing affordability for those with low and fixed incomes.
Table 2-41. Senior Income Distribution (Householder Over 65)
Income
Approximate
Income Level Number Percent
Income under $30,000 Extremely Low 682 21%
$30,000 to $49,999 Very Low 312 10%
$50,000 to $74,999 Low 529 16%
$75,000 to $99,999 Low to Moderate 440 13%
More than $100,000 Moderate and Above 1,321 40%
Total 3,284 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
121
Draft June 2014 2-32
The senior poverty rate as a whole was comparable to the poverty of the City’s entire
population. However, poverty rates for seniors under 75 and seniors over 75 were very
different. About 1 percent of seniors between ages 65 and 74 fell below the poverty level,
which was less than half of the poverty rate for the City’s entire population. However,
more than 6 percent of seniors age 75 and over fell below the poverty level, which was
nearly double the rate for the City’s population as a whole. Poverty rates are summarized
in Table 2-42. Supportive housing policies and affordable housing options can address
some of the difficulties that aging seniors face, including housing maintenance needs,
physical disabilities and living on fixed incomes.
Table 2-42. Poverty Rates among Senior Age Groups
Poverty Rate within
Age Groups
65 to 74 1.3%
75+ 6.4%
All Seniors 3.8%
Total Population 3.4%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
Affordable housing for seniors continues to be a need in Saratoga. Maintaining a supply
of affordable units is crucial in meetings the needs of low income seniors.
The U.S. Census Bureau provides information on the number of persons with disabilities of
varying types and degrees. The types of disabilities included in the Census are:
x Sensory: Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment.
x Physical: A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical
activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying.
x Mental: A condition lasting 6 months or more that made it difficult to perform
certain activities including learning, remembering, or concentrating.
x Self-care: A condition lasting 6 months or more that made it difficult to perform
certain activities including dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home.
x Go-outside-home: Only asked for population 16 and older; a condition lasting 6
months or more that made it difficult to perform certain activities including going
outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office.
x Employment: Only asked for the population aged 16 to 64; a condition lasting 6
months or more that made it difficult to perform certain activities including working
at a job or business.
In 2011, about 15 percent of the elderly population had one type of disability. As shown
in Table 2-43, at least 14 percent had two or more types of disability. With disabilities
becoming a greater concern as senior residents age, supportive services and housing
environments will be in greater demand.
122
Draft June 2014 2-33
Table 2-43. Residents 65 and Over with at Least One Disability
Number
Percent of Persons 65
Years and Over*
With One Type of Disability 862 15%
With Two or More Types of Disability 822 14%
Total with a Disability 1684 29%
Source: American Community Survey 2009-2011
*Total population 65 and over is 5,884, or 3089 (65 to 74 years) plus 2795 (75+ years) according to ACS 2009-2011 figures.
A number of City and Countywide resources serve senior residents in Saratoga. The
Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) serves the needs of seniors in
Saratoga and sponsors two key programs: the Saratoga Senior Center and the Adult
Care Center. The Saratoga Senior Center hosts a variety of programs and activities
including education, art, physical fitness, entertainment and social events. In addition,
the Saratoga Senior Center provides services in health, finance, legal assistance and
library lending. The Adult Care Center provides structured activity programs for seniors
ages 60 and older with physical and cognitive limitations who are unable to use the
services of the Saratoga Senior Center.
Seniors in Saratoga have access to several residential care facilities. As of April 2014, the
Community Care Licensing Division of the California Department of Social Services listed
five providers of residential care facilities for seniors in Saratoga. The Saratoga Home for
the Elderly, April Garden Villa of Saratoga and Bon Homie Saratoga each have the
capacity for 5-6 persons. Our Lady of Fatima Villa serves up to 74 persons. The largest
facility is the Saratoga Retirement Community (Fellowship Plaza), which can
accommodate 418 persons. Dementia care is available at Saratoga Retirement
Community and at Cedar Creek Alzheimer’s and Dementia Care Center in nearby Los
Gatos.
Health care services are available within and around Saratoga. In addition to a number
of physicians, dentists, optometrists and chiropractors working in Saratoga, El Camino
Hospital of Los Gatos offers a comprehensive set of health services. Saratoga Walk-In
Clinic offers urgent care and provides family practice care.
In-home care is available to seniors through several organizations with offices near
Saratoga. Through in-home care, seniors have an opportunity to remain at home with the
assistance of caregivers who help with daily activities. The Home Instead Senior Care
office in Campbell and the Visiting Angels Senior Homecare office in San Jose are local
options that connect seniors with caregivers.
The charitable foundation Health Trust has operated various programs and provided
services to Santa Clara County residents. The local Meals on Wheels program is one of
the programs operated under Health Trust that serves Santa Clara County residents who
are physically limited and homebound, including seniors and persons with disabilities.
Heath Trust programs offer access to high quality, affordable health services for seniors
through their Healthy Aging Initiative.
123
Draft June 2014 2-34
b. Large Households
State housing law defines large households as households having five or more persons
living within the same household. Large households are considered a special needs
group because they require homes with more bedrooms. In 2010, there were 1,033
households in Saratoga with at least five persons, representing 10 percent of the total
households in the City. Large owner households represented 8 percent of all households
and large renter households represented 1 percent of all households.
One of the unique facets of Saratoga’s population that is not clearly reflected in the
available data, is the number of multi-generational households. Anecdotally, this appears
to be most true of new residents among the growing Asian population. Table 2-44 shows
the number of large owner and renter households.
Table 2-44. Large Households by Tenure
Owner Renter Total
Number
Percent of
Total HH* Number
Percent of
Total HH* Number
Percent of
Total HH*
5 Persons 615 6% 96 1% 711 7%
6 Persons 221 2% 28 <1% 249 2%
7 Persons 67 1% 6 <1% 73 1%
Total Large
Households 903 8% 130 1% 1033 10%
Source: Census 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Total Households is 10,734 according to the 2010 Census.
Overcrowding should not be a
significant problem for most
households due to the large supply of 4
or more bedroom housing units in
Saratoga. An “Overcrowded” unit is
one occupied by 1.01 persons or more
per room and a “Severely
Overcrowded” unit is one occupied by
more than 1.5 persons per room, as
stated by HCD. The 2007-2011
American Community Survey showed
no “Overcrowded” households and 20
“Severely Overcrowded” households in
Saratoga. The number of units with 3 or more bedrooms, and even those with 5 or more
bedrooms, is much greater than the number of large households, as shown in Table 2-45.
Hillside Residence
124
Draft June 2014 2-35
Table 2-45. Units by Number of Bedrooms
Owner Renter Total
3 or More Bedrooms
Number of Units 8,775 752 9,527
Large Households
(5 or more persons) 903 130 1,033
Ratio of Units to Large Households 9.7 5.8 9.2
5 or More Bedrooms
Number of Units 1,745 207 1,952
Large Households
(5 or more persons) 903 130 1,033
Ratio of Units to Large Households 1.9 1.6 1.9
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011 via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
c. Female-Headed Households
Female-headed households are a special needs group due to the comparatively low
rates of homeownership, lower incomes and high poverty rates they experience. With
limited resources available, many female-headed families have a need for affordable
housing in close proximity to services such as schools, day care and recreation programs.
According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, female-headed family
households represented 5.2 percent of all households in Saratoga. Female-headed families
with children accounted for 2.8 percent of all households. Table 2-46 shows the change in
female-headed households between 2000 and 2011.
Table 2-46. Female-Headed Households
2000 2011
2000-2011
Difference
Number
Percent of
Total HH Number
Percent of
Total HH
Number
Change
Percent
Change
Female Householder Living
Alone 975 9% 1,167 11% 192 20%
Female Householder Not
Living Alone 165 2% 99 1% -66 -40%
Female-Headed Family
With Children Under 18 257 3% 262 2% 5 2%
Female-Headed Family
With No Children Under 18 260 3% 302 3% 42 16%
Total
Female Households 1,657 16% 1,830 17% 173 10%
Total Households 10,450 100% 10,712 100% 262 3%
Source: Census 2000 and American Community Survey 2007-2011
125
Draft June 2014 2-36
As shown in Table 2-47, 7.8 percent of female-headed households in Saratoga were
below poverty level in 2011. Of female-headed households with children, 14.3 percent
were below the poverty level.
Table 2-47. Female Headed Households below Poverty Level
Percent
Families Below Poverty Level 2.1%
Female Headed Households Below Poverty Level 7.8%
Female Headed Households with Children under 18 Below Poverty Level 14.3%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
In times of need, emergency shelters and transitional housing can provide one source of
support for women facing heavy financial burden, domestic abuse or other instabilities in their
lives. During their stay, they are given opportunities to regain physical and emotional health.
Financial burden may also be reduced during the stay, which allows them to more easily
transition back to financial and housing stability. Although there are no shelters for women in
Saratoga, ten shelters that provide a variety of services to women are located within 10 miles
of Saratoga, according to the Women’s Shelters California directory
(www.womanshelters.org).
d. Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities often spend a disproportionate amount of income to obtain housing.
Access and affordability are the primary challenges for persons with disabilities. Access,
both within the home and to/from home, is important for persons with disabilities. This
group often requires specially designed housing units. Persons with disabilities may require
residential care facilities or be located near specialized services. Housing locations near public
facilities and public transit are important for this special needs group.
The U.S. Census Bureau provides information on the number of persons with disabilities of
varying types and degrees. Table 2-48 shows the number of Saratoga residents over the age
of 5 with disabilities in 2011. According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 8 percent
of Saratoga residents reported having at least one type of disability. A more detailed
description of disability types among persons with disabilities is shown in Table 2-49.
126
Draft June 2014 2-37
Table 2-48. Persons with at Least One Disability
Number
Percent of Total
Population
Persons 5 -17 with at Least One Disability 63 <1%
Persons 18-64 with at least One Disability 460 2%
Person 65 and Older with at Least One Disability 1684 6%
Total Persons with at Least One Disability 2,207 8%
Total Persons without a Disability 26,733 92%
Total Population 28,940 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2009-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
Table 2-49. Persons Ages 18-64 with Disabilities by Type
Employed Unemployed
Not in Labor
Force Total
With A Disability* 143 19 298 460
With A Hearing Difficulty 123 0 59 182
With A Vision Difficulty 0 0 67 67
With A Cognitive Difficulty 0 19 125 144
With An Ambulatory Difficulty 20 19 155 194
With A Self-Care Difficulty 4 0 91 95
With An Indep. Living Difficulty 0 0 157 157
No Disability 11,505 1,019 4,088 16,612
Total 11,648 1,038 4,386 17,072
Source: American Community Survey 2009-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Person may have more than one type of disability
Persons with developmental disabilities have special housing needs. The State defines
developmental disability as one that originates before an individual becomes 18 years
old, or can be expected to continue indefinitely, and presents a substantial disability for
that individual. Conditions include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and
autism. Table 2-50 shows developmental disabilities among Saratoga residents as
surveyed in 2013.
Table 2-50. Persons with Developmental Disabilities in Saratoga
Mental
Retardation Autism
Cerebral
Palsy Epilepsy Other
Age 0 to 3 34 43 11 9 4
Age 3 to 17 88 26 28 22 14
Age 18 to 59 6 6 1 0 3
Age 60 + 4 0 2 2 2
Total 132 75 42 33 23
Source: San Andreas Regional Center 2013
*Note: A person may have more than one disability
127
Draft June 2014 2-38
In Santa Clara County, nearly 74 percent of persons with developmental disabilities lived
with a parent or guardian. Almost 16 percent lived in a community care facility.
Table 2-51 shows living arrangements for persons with developmental disabilities in Santa
Clara County.
The lack of financial resources is an obstacle to independent living for persons with
developmental disabilities. Living in an integrated community setting is crucial in
promoting long-term health and stability. About 7 percent of persons with development
disabilities lived independently in Santa Clara County. The provision of safe, affordable
housing with access to supported living services can improve the viability of independent
living.
Table 2-51. Living Situation of Persons with a Developmental Disability in Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County
Number Percent
At home with Parent or Guardian 6,422 74%
Community Care Facility 1,379 16%
Independent Living 640 7%
Intermediate Care Facility 176 2%
SNF 24 <1%
Other 72 1%
Total 8,713 100%
Source: State of California, Department of Developmental Services, "Quarterly Consumer Characteristics Report Index by
County of Physical Presence for the end of June 2013", via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements.
Residential facilities and services for persons with disabilities are largely provided at the
county- and regional level. The Community Care Licensing Division of the California
Department of Social Services has recorded no providers of residential care facilities for
persons with disabilities in Saratoga. However, residential care facilities are available
throughout the Santa Clara County. Rental subsidies are also available through the
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County. The Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
(SVILC) serves Santa Clara County residents who have disabilities. The nonprofit
organization provides services related to information, referrals, peer support,
independent living skills training, housing and assistive technology. SVILC maintains a
database of accessible and subsidized housing to help its clients find affordable housing
in the County. Resources for persons with disabilities are provided at the regional level.
e. Homeless Population
Enumeration of the homeless population is difficult because of the transient nature of this
population and the existence of “hidden homeless” or persons that move among
temporary housing situations.
The 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey identified 35 homeless
individuals in Saratoga. The 2013 Census and Survey comprised a point-in-time count of
128
Draft June 2014 2-39
homeless and a series of one-on-one interviews with about 850 homeless individuals.
Thirty-five unsheltered homeless and no sheltered homeless residing in Saratoga were
reported in 2013. In comparison, 7 unsheltered homeless and no sheltered homeless were
reported in 2011. The increase of homeless persons suggests that there may be a growing
need for supportive programs to prevent homelessness and help individuals find
permanent housing.
Emergency shelters, transitional housing and permanent housing are needed to address
the countywide need of available shelters for the large number of unsheltered homeless.
The 2013 Homeless Census found that 74 percent of homeless in the County were
unsheltered. A total of 7,631 homeless individuals were identified in the survey, of which
5,674 individuals were unsheltered. Of the 26 percent who were sheltered, 12 percent
stayed at emergency shelters, 13 percent occupied transitional housing and less than 1
percent were in the Safe Haven program. Shelter stay was not guaranteed to homeless
individuals. The 2013 Homeless Census reported that 27 percent of respondents had been
turned away from an emergency shelter within the prior 30-day period and two-thirds of
those individuals were turned away due to a lack of beds. Although Saratoga’s entire
homeless population in 2013 was unsheltered, the number of homeless residing within the
City was a small proportion of the County’s unsheltered homeless population.
There are no permanent shelters located in Saratoga; however, two local churches
participate in the Faith In Action Rotating Shelter Program which provides emergency
shelter, food and other services. A number of regional resources are also available to
homeless individuals. Saratoga is a supporting partner of the West Valley Community
Services program which assists homeless individuals and families with referral and
placement services. InnVision Shelter Network operates a number of transitional housing
programs in Santa Clara County. The programs include job search assistance and
training on the management of household finances.
In the 2013 Homeless Census, 40 percent of respondents indicated that job loss was the
primary factor leading to their homelessness. Programs related to job training help
reintegrate individuals into the workforce and access to transitional housing provides
temporary shelter during the process. The Housing Authority of Santa Clara County offers
rental assistance and supportive services to homeless persons with long-term disabilities
through providers in the Shelter Plus Care Program. Home First (formerly EHC Lifebuilders)
connects individuals with emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent
housing opportunities, along with supportive services, throughout the Santa Clara
County. Homeless individuals in are referred to regional resources and organizations. A
list of homeless service facilities is provided in Chapter 3 (Table 3-7).
The 2013 Homeless Survey revealed that one-third of the homeless population were
chronically homeless. Chronic homelessness is characterized as being homeless for one
or more years or experiencing 4 or more episodes of homelessness in the past 3 years.
Nine percent of the homeless population were veterans, more than two-thirds of which
experienced one or more conditions including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression,
129
Draft June 2014 2-40
mental illness and physical disabilities. Fourteen percent of the homeless population were
families. Programs provided to homeless individuals in Saratoga and Santa Clara County
should consider unique circumstances and housing needs among different homeless
subgroups.
f. Farm Workers
Farm workers are defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through
seasonal agricultural work. According to the USDA Census of Agriculture, Santa Clara
County had 4,237 farmworkers in 2012. However, Saratoga is not an agricultural
community. Eighteen persons at most, less than 1 percent of Saratoga’s labor force,
were employed in agriculture, according to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey.
It is assumed that only a small percentage of persons employed in this industry are
involved in active agricultural production and harvest. Therefore, there is no apparent or
recognized need for farmworker housing.
g. Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely Low-Income households are defined as households earning 30 percent or less
of the Median Family Income. In accordance with Chapter 891, Statutes of 2006 (AB
2634), cities must quantify the number of existing and projected Extremely Low-Income
households and analyze their needs. According to the CHAS 2006-2010 dataset from
HUD, 7.4 percent of total households in the City were Extremely Low-Income households.
Saratoga will have 2,354 Extremely Low-Income Household in 2040 assuming a population
of 32,700 by 2040 (2013 ABAG projections) and applying the same proportional distribution
of income levels. The City will need to be prepared to meet the specific housing needs of
Extremely Low-Income households, which may include housing with supportive services,
single-room occupancy housing, shared housing, or rent subsidy vouchers. Table 2-52
shows Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low- Income household distributions.
Table 2-52. Low Income Households
Owner Renter Total
Number
Percent
of Total
HH Number
Percent
of Total
HH Number
Percent
of Total
HH
Extremely Low Income
(≤30% of MFIAMI) 350 3.3% 430 4.1% 780 7.4%
Very Low Income
(31 to 50% MFIAMI) 520 5.0% 115 1.1% 635 6.1%
Low Income
(51 to 80% MFIAMI) 310 3.0% 85 0.8% 395 3.8%
Total Households 8,865 84.7% 1,605 15.3% 10,470 100%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 *AMI: Area Median Income
130
Draft June 2014 2-41
Housing problems can significantly impact Extremely Low-Income households, who may
have limited means to improve their housing conditions. The CHAS 2006-2010 database
identifies households at various income levels that are affected by at least one of four
housing problems: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1
person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%. Housing problems affected 285 renter
and 190 owner households in the Extremely Low-Income category. Tables 2-53 and 2-54
show that housing problems affect the majority of Extremely Low-Income and Very Low
Income Households, regardless of tenurewhether they own or rent.
Table 2-53. Renter Housing Problems by Income Level
Income by Housing
Problems (Renters only)
Household
has 1 of 4
Housing
Problems*
Household
has none of 4
Housing
Problems
Cost
Burden not
available Total
Household Income
≤30% HAMFIAMI 285 105 45 430
Household Income >30%
to ≤50% HAMFIAMI 70 50 0 115
Household Income >50%
to ≤80% HAMFIAMI 10 80 0 85
Household Income >80%
to ≤100% HAMFIAMI 55 65 0 120
Household Income >100%
HAMFIAMI 165 680 0 845
Total 580 980 45 1,605
Source: CHAS 2006-2010
*The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per
room, and cost burden greater than 30%.
131
Draft June 2014 2-42
Table 2- 54. Owner Housing Problems by Income Level
Income by Housing
Problems (Owners only)
Household
has 1 of 4
Housing
Problems*
Household
has none of 4
Housing
Problems
Cost
Burden not
available Total
Household Income ≤30%
HAMFIAMI 190 35 125 350
Household Income >30%
to ≤50% HAMFIAMI 340 185 0 520
Household Income >50%
to ≤80% HAMFIAMI 140 170 0 310
Household Income >80%
to ≤100% HAMFIAMI 145 230 0 375
Household Income >100%
HAMFIAMI 2,525 4,780 0 7,310
Total 3,345 5,395 125 8,865
Source: CHAS 2006-2010
*The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room,
and cost burden greater than 30%.
132
Draft June 2014 3-1
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints and Resources
Constraints to housing include both governmental and environmental. Saratoga is bounded
to the south and west by the Santa Cruz Mountain Range, and to the north and east by the
communities of Los Gatos, Campbell, San Jose and Cupertino. The low-lying, relatively flat
portions of the City are almost exclusively built out with single-family development. Highway
85 and Highway 9 bisect the City and bring commuter traffic through to the high tech jobs
in the nearby cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View. These factors, as well as
the high cost of land, and limited public transportation outside of the main thoroughfares,
are viewed as constraints to affordable housing by the residents of the City.
A. Governmental Constraints and Resources
Governmental constraints are policies, standards, requirements and actions regulated by
various levels of government upon land and housing ownership and development. These
regulations may include various building codes, land use controls, growth management
measures, development fees, processing and permit procedures, and site improvement
requirements. While state and federal agencies play a role in imposing constraints on the
development and provision of housing, they are beyond the influence of local
government and are, therefore, not addressed in this analysis. Governmental resources
include programs that provide funds for housing-related activities, as well as, incentives
provided by the local jurisdiction for the provision of housing.
1. Land Use Controls
Land use controls include General Plan policies, zoning designations (and the resulting
allowed uses, development standards, and permit processing requirements), and
development fees.
a. General Plan
As required by state law, every city in California must have a General Plan, which
establishes policy guidelines for all development within the city. The General Plan is the
foundation of all land use controls in a jurisdiction. The Land Use Element of the General
Plan identifies the location, distribution, and density of the land uses within the City.
The Saratoga General Plan land use densities are expressed per net area, which is
generally defined as the remaining portion of the gross site area after deducting portions
within the right-of-way of existing or future public or private streets, easements, quarries,
or areas that are classified by the City Geologist as "M" or "Ms." Residential densities are
expressed in dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) and are limited by the maximum intensity
of building and impervious site coverage.
133
Draft June 2014 3-2
The City of Saratoga General Plan identifies six residential land use designations and two
open space designations that permit residential uses. In addition, mixed use
developments that include residential uses are allowed by conditional use permit in
commercial districts within the City. Table 3-1 summarizes Saratoga’s residential land use
designations by total acre, permitted density ranges, and maximum intensity of building
and impervious surface coverage.
Table 3-1. General Plan Residential Land Use Designations
Table 3-1
General Plan
Residential Land Use Designations
Designation
Description
Existing
Acreage
Permitted
Density
Maximum Intensity of
Building and Impervious
Surface Coverage
Residential
Hillside
Conservation
Single-family dwellings,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with single-
family dwellings.
1,926.5 0.5 du/ac 15,000 square feet or 25
percent of the site area,
whichever is less
Residential
Very Low
Density
Single-family dwellings,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with single-
family dwellings.
1,920 1.09 du/ac 35 percent of the site area
Residential
Low Density
Single-family dwellings,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with single-
family dwellings.
343 2.18 du/ac 45 percent of the site area
Medium
Density
M-10
M-12.5
M-15
Single-family dwellings,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with single-
family dwellings.
2,093
4.35 du/ac
3.48 du/ac
2.90 du/ac
60 percent
55 percent
50 percent
134
Draft June 2014 3-3
Table 3-1
General Plan
Residential Land Use Designations
Designation
Description
Existing
Acreage
Permitted
Density
Maximum Intensity of
Building and Impervious
Surface Coverage
Residential
Multi-Family
Detached and attached
single-family dwellings,
such as condominiums,
duplexes, and
apartments, as well as,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with
residential use.
83 14.5 du/ac 40 percent of the site area
Planned
Development
Residential
Mix of single-family and
multi-family densities and
housing types.
4 4.35 -
12.45
du/ac
25 - 35 percent of the site
area
Managed
Resource
Production
Orchard lands, water
reservoirs, and lands
under Williamson Act
Contracts. Only single-
family dwellings or
structures directly
associated with
agricultural use.
167.3 1 du/4 acres No requirements
Hillside Open
Space
Covers all areas outside
the City limits and within
Saratoga's Sphere of
Influence (SOI) that are
not designated as park
or Open Space Outdoor
Recreation. Agricultural
use, mineral extraction,
parks and low intensity
recreational facilities,
land in its natural state,
wildlife refuges, and very
low intensity residential
development and
support uses of those
listed above.
99 1 du/20
acres to
1du/160
acres
(based on
a slope
density
formula
subject to
stringent
criteria)
25 percent or 12,000 square
feet, whichever is less
135
Draft June 2014 3-4
Table 3-1
General Plan
Residential Land Use Designations
Designation
Description
Existing
Acreage
Permitted
Density
Maximum Intensity of
Building and Impervious
Surface Coverage
Commercial
Retail
Commercial
uses/centers serving
community and/or
neighborhood; not
regional in orientation.
Mixed use developments
allowed by conditional
use permit.
80 20 du/acre
Note: In the
CN-RHD
zoning
district there
is no
minimum
density
The Planning Commission is
required to make special
findings when the residential
floor area exceeds 50
percent of the total floor
area of a project. Total site
coverage may also increase
by 10 percent for a project
containing below market-
rate housing.
Professional
and
Administrative
Office
Professional offices;
serves as a transition
zone between
commercial and
residential areas.
Mixed use developments
allowed by conditional
use permit.
34 20 du/acre The Planning Commission is
required to make special
findings when the residential
floor area exceeds 50
percent of the total floor
area of a project. Total site
coverage may also increase
by 10 percent for a project
containing below market-
rate housing.
Source: City of Saratoga General Plan
As of January 2013, the State Department of Finance (DOF) reports that 11,169 dwelling
units exist in Saratoga. Depending on land costs, certain densities are needed to make a
housing project economically feasible for people at various income levels. According to
the State of California, the densities identified below are generally sufficient to
accommodate construction affordable to specific income levels.
x Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income: 20 dwelling units per acre minimum
x Moderate-Income: 11-20 dwelling units per acre minimum
x Above Moderate-Income: Up to 11 dwelling units per acre
In addition to the generally accepted densities, California Government Code Section
65583.2 establishes “default” density standards. If a local government has adopted
density standards consistent with the established population criteria, sites with those
density standards are accepted as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s
share of regional housing need for lower-income households. Pursuant to Government
136
Draft June 2014 3-5
Code Section 65583.2, Saratoga is considered a “suburban” jurisdiction with a “default”
density of 20 dwelling units per acre.
b. Zoning Code
The Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan. Its purpose is to
protect and promote public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, it serves to promote
quality design and quality of life. The City of Saratoga’s residential zoning designations
control both the use and development standards of each residential parcel, thereby
influencing the development of housing.
Table 3-2 summarizes permitted residential uses in agricultural, residential, professional
and administrative office, and commercial districts. Single-family residential zoning
includes eight districts: A, R-1-40,000, R-1-20,000, R-1-15,000, R-1-12,500, R-1- 10,000, HR,
and R-OS. Single-family units are permitted as a matter of right in all single-family
residential districts. Multi-family residential zoning consists of the R-M-5,000, R-M- 4,000, and
the R-M-3,000 districts. Multi-family and single-family dwellings are permitted by right in the
R-M districts. Mixed residential/commercial uses are permitted in the Professional and
Administrative Office (P-A) and Commercial (C-N, C-V, CH-1, CH-2) districts subject to
conformance with the mixed-use development standards specified in Article 15-58 of the
zoning code and approval of a conditional use permit. Mixed residential/commercial
uses are permitted by right in the Commercial C-N(RHD) district.
137
Draft June 2014 3-6
Table 3-2. Residential uses – Permitted & Conditionally Permitted
Table 3-2
Residential Uses – Permitted &
Conditionally Permitted
Zone
Single-Family
Dwelling
Multi-Family
Dwelling
Second Dwelling
Units
A P -- P
R-1-40,000 P -- P
R-1-20,000 P -- P
R-1-15,000 P -- P
R-1-12,500 P -- P
R-1-10,000 P -- P
HR P -- P
R-OS P -- --
R-M-5,000 P P --
R-M-4,000 P P --
R-M-3,000 P P --
P-A C* C* --
C-N C* C* --
C-N(RHD) P* P*
C-V C* C* --
CH-1 C* C* --
CH-2 C* C* --
P=Permitted by Right C= Conditional Use Permit Required *Mixed Use Development
Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations Chapter 15
Table 3-3 summarizes the single-family residential zoning designations and their
requirements. Table 3-4 summarizes the multi-family residential designations and
requirements. Table 3-5 summarizes the requirements for mixed-use development. Based
on residential construction in compliance with these standards, the City has determined
that minimum and maximum lot coverage, maximum building height standards and
setback standards do not unreasonably impact the cost and supply of housing nor the
ability of projects to achieve maximum densities.
The City of Saratoga is predominantly comprised of single-family residential units; as such
there are not a significant number of multi-family housing projects to provide an analysis
of the impacts of these development standards on multi-family development. However,
138
Draft June 2014 3-7
to address any impacts in the future, the City will ensure that development standards in
the C-N(RHD) zoning district (refer to Appendix B, Table B-5) will not be a constraint to the
development of multi-family housing.
The cCity has recently approved two small
mixed use developments in the historic
Saratoga Village on Big Basin Way (CH
District) since the previous Housing
Element update. These projects include; a
two-unit townhouse project with 6,785
square feet of ground floor commercial
space at a density of 5.2 dwelling units per
acre, and a four-unit townhouse project
with 1,246 square feet of ground floor
commercial at a density of 6.6 dwelling
units per acre. In addition, the City has
approved severala history of approving
horizontal mixed use developments along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with commercial
uses fronting the road and small lot single family units on the rear of the sites. For example
a 12 unit mixed-use is being developed on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at a density of 12
dwelling units per acre, with 1,835 square feet of commercial space fronting the road and
the townhouses in the back Based on the history of mixed use development in Saratoga,
the City has determined that lot coverage, pedestrian open space (requirement in the
CH District), private open space, height and setback standards do not unreasonably
impact the cost and supply of housing nor the ability of projects to achieve maximum
densities.
As a new policy action for the next planning period, the City will amend the C-N(RHD)
district to increase density from a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre to a minimum of
30 units per acre and increase the maximum height limit from 30 feet to 35 feet to reduce
constraints to development on these sites.
Mixed-use development under construction in Saratoga
Village
139
Draft June 2014 3-8
Table 3-3. Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
A
10% or
Less
Slope
5.00
Acres
25% or
15,000 sq.
ft.,
whichever
is less
26 feet
(two
stories)
30 feet or
20% of the
lot depth,
whichever
is greater
20 feet or
ten
percent of
the lot
width,
whichever
is greater
50 feet for
single-
story
structures;
60 feet for
multi-story
structures,
or 25% of
the lot
depth,
whichever
is greater
11% 5.20
Acres
12% 5.40
Acres
13% 5.60
Acres
14% 5.80
Acres
15% 6.00
Acres
16% 6.40
Acres
17% 6.80
Acres
18% 7.20
Acres
19% 7.60
Acres
20% 8.00
Acres
21% 8.60
Acres
22% 9.20
Acres
23% 9.80
Acres
24% 10.40
Acres
25% 11.00
Acres
26% 11.80
Acres
27% 12.60
140
Draft June 2014 3-9
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
A Acres
28% 13.40
Acres
29% 14.20
Acres
30% 15.00
Acres
31% 16.00
Acres
32% 17.00
Acres
33% 18.00
Acres
34% 19.00
Acres
35% or
more
20.00
Acres
R-1-
40,000
40,000 sq. ft. interior
lot;
48,000 sq. ft. corner
lot;
40,000 sq. ft. flag lot;
40,000 sq. ft. hillside
lot
35%2 26 feet
(two
stories)1
30 ft. Interior
lots:3
20 ft. (1st
floor);
25 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
50 ft. (1st
floor);
60 ft. (2nd
floor)
Corner lots:
20 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
interior (1st
floor); 30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
Corner
lots:
20 ft.
141
Draft June 2014 3-10
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
R-1-
20,000
20,000 sq. ft. interior
lot; 24,000 sq. ft.
corner lot; 20,000 sq.
ft. flag lot; 40,000 sq.
ft. hillside lot
45%2 26 feet
(two
stories)1
30 ft. Interior lots:
15 ft. (1st
floor);
20 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
35 ft. (1st
floor);
45 ft. (2nd
floor)
Corner lots:
15 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
20 ft.
interior (2nd
floor);
30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
Corner
lots:
15 ft.
R-1-
15,000
15,000 sq. ft. interior
lot; 18,000 sq. ft.
corner lot; 20,000 sq.
ft. flag lot; 40,000 sq.
ft. hillside lot
50%2 26 feet
(two
stories)
25 ft. Interior lots:
12 ft. (1st
floor);
17 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
30 ft. (1st
floor);
40 ft. (2nd
floor)
Corner lots:
12 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
17 ft.
interior (2nd
Corner
lots:
12 ft.
142
Draft June 2014 3-11
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
R-1-
15,000
floor);
30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
R-1-
12,500
12,500 sq. ft. interior
lot; 15,000 sq. ft.
corner lot; 20,000 sq.
ft. flag lot; 40,000 sq.
ft. hillside lot
55%2 26 ft.
(two
stories)1
25 ft. Interior lots:
10 ft. (1st
floor);
15 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
25 ft. (1st
floor);
35 ft. (2nd
floor)
Corner lots:
10 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
15 ft.
interior (2nd
floor);
30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
Corner
lots:
10 ft.
R-1-
10,000
10,000 sq. ft. interior
lot; 12,000 sq. ft.
corner lot; 20,000 sq.
ft. flag lot; 40,000 sq.
ft. hillside lot
60%2 26 ft.
(two
stories)1
25 ft. Interior lots:
10 ft. (1st
floor);
15 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
25 ft. (1st
floor);
35 ft. (2nd
floor)
143
Draft June 2014 3-12
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
R-1-
10,000
Corner lots:
10 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
15 ft.
interior (2nd
floor);
30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
Corner
lots:
10 ft.
HR 2 acres for 0% or less
average slope;
10 acres for 50%
average slope4
25% or
15,000 sq.
ft. ,
whichever
is less
26 ft.
(two
stories)7
30 ft.5 or
30 ft. or
20% of lot
depth,
whichever
is greater6
20 ft. 5;
20 ft.
interior and
25 ft.
exterior or
10% of lot
width,
whichever
is greater6
50 ft.
(single-
story
structure);
60 ft.
(multi-story
structure);
or 25% of
lot depth,
whichever
is greater6
144
Draft June 2014 3-13
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
R-OS 20 acres for 10% or
less average slope;
180 acres 50% or
more average
slope8
25% or
12,000 sq.
ft.,
whichever
is less
26 ft.
(two
stories)7,9
50 ft.
single-
story;
70 ft. two-
story
40 ft.
interior
(one-story);
50 ft.
exterior
(one-story);
60 ft.
interior
(two-story);
70 ft.
exterior
(two-story)
100 ft.
(single-
story); 120
ft. (two-
story)
Notes
1Exceptions may be granted in accordance with Article 15-55 of the Zoning Code for parcels exceeding 20.000 sq. ft.
2For any non-conforming site, the requirements provided in Section 15-65.160 of the Zoning Code applies to the site.
3Setback areas for flag lots are determined according to Section 15-06.430(a) of the Zoning Code.
4Minimum net site area depends on average slope, as identified in Section 15-13-060 of the Zoning Code.
5Excluding vacant lots and lots created after May 15, 1992.
6Vacant lots and lots created after May 15, 1992.
7No structure shall extend to an elevation within eight feet from the top of the nearest adjacent major ridge that does not
have dense tree cover. No structure shall extend to an elevation more than 12 feet above the nearest adjacent minor
ridge that does not have dense tree cover. City Code Section 15-20.100 (a), (b)
8Minimum net site area depends on average slope, as identified in Section 15-20-060 of the Zoning Code.
9A structure not limited by the provisions of note 7 above, shall not exce ed 22 feet; however, the Planning
Commission may grant up to four feet of additional height. Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter
15, Article 15-12
145
Draft June 2014 3-14
Table 3-4. Summary of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Requirements
Notes:
1Does not apply to a structure located within the Village which is found by the approving authority to be compatible with
existing structures and the natural environment.
2For any non-conforming site, the requirements of Section 15.65.160 applies to the site.
3A side setback area of more than 25 feet shall not be required, and a side setback area of less than ten feet from the
applicable side lot line shall not be permitted, subject to the following exceptions: (1) the exterior side setback area of a corner
lot shall not be less than 15 feet from the exterior side lot line
(2) one foot shall be added to an interior side setback area for each two feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion
of a structure within 30 of the side lot lone for such setback area exceeds 14 feet in height provided that an interior side
setback area of more than 25 feet from the interior side lot line shall not be required.
Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 15-17
Table 3-4
Summary of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone
Min Lot Area
(Sq. Ft.) Max Lot
Coverage
Max Building
Height
Min Front
Yard
Setback2
Min Side
Yard
Setback2
Min
Rear
Yard Interior Lot Corner Lot
R-M-5,000
10,000
11,000
40 percent 30 feet or
two stories1
25 feet
10% of
site width3
25 feet
R-M-4,000 12,000 14,000 40 percent 30 feet or
two stories1 25 feet 10% of
site width3 25 feet
R-M-3,000 12,000 14,000 40 percent 30 feet or
two stories1 25 feet 10% of
site width3 25 feet
146
Draft June 2014 3-15
Table 3-5. Summary of Mixed-Use Development Standards
Notes:
*Currently within the C-N District density may be determined by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis if
special findings are made. Within the C-N(RHD) District, the minimum density is 20 dwelling units per acre, projects
may be approved at more than 20 du/ac with approval by the Planning Commission if special findings are made.
Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 15-
58
c. Parking Requirements
Table 3-6 summarizes the residential parking requirements in Saratoga. Parking requirements
do not constrain the development of housing directly. However, parking requirements may
reduce the amount of available lot areas for residential development.
Table 3-5
Summary of
Mixed-Use
Max Density
Location of
Dwelling
Floor Area Max Lot Coverage Max Building
Height
20
dwelling
units per
net
acre*
Either on
the second
floor or at
the rear of
the parcel.
Dwelling units shall not
comprise more than 50
percent of the total floor
area of all buildings on
the site. The total floor
area may be increased
with approval by the
Planning Commission with
special findings. The
maximum overall site
coverage area may be
increased by ten percent
for projects providing
below market rate
housing.
Overall site coverage
may be increased up to
ten percent for projects
containing deed
restricted below market
rate housing units.
As stated for
the underlying
zoning district.
147
Draft June 2014 3-16
Table 3-6. Residential Parking Requirements
Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 15-35
Table 3-6
Residential Parking Requirements
Type of Residential Development Required Parking Spaces (off street)
Single Family Dwelling (excluding
second dwelling units) Two covered spaces within a garage.
Second Dwelling Unit One covered space with a garage, except as
otherwise provided in Article 15-56 of the Zoning
Code.
Multi-Family Dwellings One covered space within a garage for each
dwelling unit, plus one and one-half additional
spaces on the site for each dwelling unit; provided,
however, for dwelling units containing no more than
one bedroom and for housing developments
occupied exclusively by seniors and students, the
required parking shall be one covered space within a
garage for each dwelling unit plus one-half
additional space on the site for each dwelling unit.
148
Draft June 2014 3-17
d. Planned Combined District
The purpose of the Planned Combined District (P-C) is to provide the City the authority
to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning district so as to achieve the
following objectives:
(a) To provide a means of guiding development or redevelopment of properties in areas
of the City that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns
and standards.
(b) To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides
a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of
the zoning regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings
that exceed the City's green building standards, provides community facilities that
are open to the public, or allows for innovative in-fill design.
(c) To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more
specific goals and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be
attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations.
In certain instances, the objectives of the zoning ordinance may be achieved by the
development of a residential community primarily for a common green development or
for persons desiring smaller residences or dwelling units than economically feasible under
existing zoning districts, and which combines a number of uses in order to develop a living
environment in conformity with the General Plan. The P-C District may include a
combination of single or multiple dwelling uses together with ancillary uses of recreational
centers, social halls, restaurants, medical centers and other related facilities.
The P-C district allows single-family, two-family, or three-family dwellings or a combination
thereof, together with all other permitted uses in either an R-1 district or an R-M district,
depending on which underlying district it is combined with (R-1 or R-M). The dwelling units
shall be single-story unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. In addition,
community centers, private recreational centers, social halls, lodges, clubs, restaurants,
and medical centers to be used by the residents and their guests are allowed.
Standards for site area and dimensions, site coverage, density of dwelling units, setback
areas, types of structures, etc. shall in the aggregate be at least equivalent to the
standards prescribed by the regulations of the district that the Planned Community District
is combined with. Any P-C area shall contain a common green unless specifically waived
by the Planning Commission.
2. Density Bonus Ordinance
In order to encourage the construction of affordable housing developments for Very Low-
and Low- Income households, and in accordance with Chapter 4.3 Section 65915 et. seq.
149
Draft June 2014 3-18
of the California Government Code, the City of Saratoga has adopted a Density Bonus
Ordinance (Article 15-81 of the Zoning Code). Upon receipt from the applicant, the City
reviews an application requesting a density bonus or incentive or concession. The
Community Development Director has 90 days from receipt of the application to notify
the applicant in writing regarding the status of the application. The application and all
associated project approvals shall be considered by the Planning Commission which shall
make a recommendation to the City Council. Prior to the issuance of a building permit
for any dwelling unit in a development that a density bonus has been awarded for, the
applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the City for the duration of the
affordability.
a. Density Bonus for Affordable Units in Mixed-Use Projects
The City allows the total site coverage to be increased by 10 percent over the underlying
zoning district maximum for mixed-use projects containing deed restricted below market-
rate housing units.
b. Density Bonus for Second Dwelling Units
A one-time 10 percent increase in site coverage and allowable floor area may be
granted by the Community Development Director if a new second dwelling unit is deed
restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate (very-low, low, and
moderate income) households.
c.b. Reduced Parking Standards
The garage requirement for a second dwelling unit may be waived if the second
dwelling unit is deed restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate (very-
low, low, and moderate income) households. An on-site open parking space must be
provided in lieu of a garage.
3. Institutional Facilities and Nursing Homes
The City's Zoning Code defines an “Institutional facility” as a place, structure, or area
operated by a public or private organization or agency, used for and providing
educational, residential, or health care services to the community at large. The term
includes residential developments and health care facilities operated by non-profit
organizations and both public and private schools or colleges. The City’s Zoning Code
defines a “Nursing home” as a residential structure in which nursing, dietary, and other
personal services are rendered to six or more convalescents, invalids, or elderly persons
residing at the facility, an and in which surgery or other medical treatment customarily
given in hospitals is not performed.
The City deems a convalescent home or rest home as a nursing home. Institutional
facilities and nursing homes are permitted in all residential districts, except for the
Residential Open Space District, as well as in the Professional and Administrative Office
150
Draft June 2014 3-19
(P-A) district, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Institutional facilities are also
permitted in the Commercial district, subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
4. Emergency Shelters, Transitional and Supportive Housing, and Single-Room
Occupancy Units
a. Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing
State Housing Law (Government Code Section §65583) requires that cities identify sites
that are adequately zoned for emergency shelters and transitional and supportive
housing. Additionally, cities must not unduly discourage or deter these uses. The City of
Saratoga permits emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, and Single-
Room Occupancy Units in the C-N(RHD) District by right. Article 15-19.035 of the City
Zoning Code includes regulations and development standards regarding Single-Room
Occupancy Units. This Housing Element update includes Policy Action 4-4.3 in Chapter 4
to amend the Zoning Code to permit transitional and supportive housing as a residential
use in all residential zones in compliance with State Housing Law.
Santa Clara County has approximately 23 emergency shelters, providing close to 800
beds year-round, with an additional 300 beds available during the winter months
(November through March). There are also over 1,100 transitional housing beds
throughout the County that offer a combination of stable housing and intensive, targeted
support services for the mentally ill, those with chronic substance abuse, developmental
disabilities, and other factors that prevent the homeless from returning to permanent
housing situations. Transitional housing includes both single site and "scattered site"
programs. Table 3-7 provides a summary of emergency shelters and transitional housing
near the City of Saratoga.
151
Draft June 2014 3-20
Table 3-7. Homeless Facilities near Saratoga
Table 3-7
Homeless Facilities near Saratoga
Facility Beds Target Population Location
Emergency Shelter
Asian Americans for
Community Involvement
12 Women with children San Jose
City Team Rescue Mission 52 Single men San Jose
Hospitality House, Salvation
Army
24 Single men San Jose
Our House Youth Services
(HomeFirst)
10 Homeless and run-away youth San Jose
San Jose Family Shelter 143 Families San Jose
Support Network for
Battered Women
18 Domestic violence shelter – Women
and children
San Jose
Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing
InnVision—Commercial
Streets Inns, Community Inns,
Julian Street Inn, and
Montgomery Street Inns
178 Working men, women & children,
mentally ill men & women
San Jose
James Boccardo Reception
Center (HomeFirst)
370 Families and single adults San Jose
Transitional Housing
Next Door—Women with
Children
19 Women and children—victims of
domestic violence
San Jose
St. Joseph’s Cathedral,
Social Ministry Office
45 Worker housing—men, women and
children
San Jose
YWCA—Villa Nueva 126 Women and children San Jose
Source: Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan 2010-2015
5. Adequate Sites for Emergency Shelters/Transitional/Supportive Housing
According to the 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Survey, 35 unsheltered individuals
were identified within Saratoga, representing an increase of 28 individuals from the 2011
Homeless Survey. In April 2010, the City of Saratoga amended its Zoning Code to permit
emergency shelters/transitional/supportive housing in the C-N(RHD) District by right.
Presently, one six acre area in the City has this designation. The area is located at
Prospect Road and Lawrence Expressway. However, development standards for shelters
152
Draft June 2014 3-21
were not defined in the City Code at that time. As permitted under the provisions of
Government Code 65583, the City will establish written, objective development
standards for emergency shelters such as number of beds, security, and location from
other emergency shelter facilities. This will assist potential emergency shelter facility
providers and the city alike when processing a proposal.
The City has also adopted provisions in its Code for transitional and supportive housing
within the C-N(RHD) zone district. However, further direction since that time by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) clarifies that SB 2 requires
these uses be permitted in all zone districts where residential uses are permitted. To
address this deficiency, the City will amend the Code to identify transitional and
supportive housing as a permitted use in all residential and mixed use zones subject to
the same development standards as similar housing in these zones.
a. Single Room Occupancy Units
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residences are small, one-room units occupied by a
single individual, and may either have a shared or private kitchen and bathroom
facilities. SROs are rented on a monthly basis typically without rental deposit, and can
provide an entry point into the housing market for Extremely Low-Income individuals,
formerly homeless, and disabled persons.
Single-room occupancy units are defined and included in the City’s Municipal Code to
be permitted in C-N(RHD) Districts. Development standards and regulations are
included in Article 15-19.035.
6. Second Dwelling Units
Second dwelling units provide additional opportunities to provide housing for people of
all ages and economic levels, while preserving the integrity and character of single-
family residential neighborhoods. The City of Saratoga permits second units in the A, R-1,
and HR zones, provided certain requirements are met, such as minimum net site area,
minimum floor area, minimum parking requirements, number of bedrooms, and site
access.
Second Dwelling Units have been a successful
means of providing affordable housing in
Saratoga. The City should seek ways to reduce
constraints for the development of additional
Second Dwelling Units.
As a Policy Action for the next Planning period,
the City will amend the Second Dwelling Unit
standards to eliminate the minimum square
footage requirements and reduce the
minimum lot size for Second Dwelling Units to
90% or more of the standard lot size for the underlying zoning district. In addition, the City
Historic home with second dwelling unit
153
Draft June 2014 3-22
shall create an informational brochure regarding Second Dwelling Units to disseminate
to the public.
a. Density Bonus for Second Dwelling Units
A one-time 10 percent increase in site coverage and allowable floor area may be
granted by the Community Development Director if a new second dwelling unit is deed
restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate (very-low, low, and
moderate income) households.
7. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The U.S. Census Bureau defines persons with disabilities as those with a long-lasting
physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person
to perform activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or
remembering. This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the
home alone or to be employed.
As a matter of State Law (Government Code §65583), cities are required to analyze
potential and actual constraints upon the development, maintenance and improvement
of housing for persons with disabilities, and demonstrate local efforts to remove
governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting the need for housing for
persons with disabilities. Cities are required to include programs that remove constraints
and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with
disabilities. The City of Saratoga includes reasonable accommodation procedures within
the Municipal Code (Article 15-80.025) to address the requirements of State Law.
a. Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations
The ways in which the City of Saratoga facilitates housing for persons with disabilities
through its regulatory and permitting procedures include:
x The City of Saratoga allows “institutional facilities” that provide “residential health
care services to the community at large” in all residential districts as well as in the
Professional and Administrative Office (P-A) and Commercial (C) districts, subject
to approval of a conditional use permit.
x The City of Saratoga allows “nursing homes” for six or more “convalescents, invalids,
or elderly persons” in all residential districts as well as in the Professional and
Administrative Office (P-A) district, subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
x The City defines family as “an individual or two or more persons occupying a
dwelling unit and living together as a single housekeeping unit in which each
occupant has access to all parts of the dwelling unit. A family shall be deemed to
include necessary household help. The term shall not include a group of persons
154
Draft June 2014 3-23
occupying a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast establishment, nursing home, or
institution of any kind.” This definition does not pose a constraint of the development
of housing for persons with disabilities.
x With the City’s Reasonable Accommodations provisions, the City allows some
variation from the application of its parking standards to allow the Community
Development Director to determine parking requirements for housing for persons
with disabilities, based upon the requirements for comparable use and upon the
particular characteristics of the use.
x The Planning Commission may grant a use permit as applied for or in modified form
if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Commission
makes all of the following findings:
o That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
o That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity.
8. Building Codes and Enforcement
The intent of building and safety codes is to preserve public health and safety, and ensure
the construction of safe and decent housing. These codes and standards also have the
potential to increase the cost of housing construction or maintenance.
a. Building Codes
The City of Saratoga has adopted the 2013 California Building Code, which is based on
the 2013 California Building Code and establishes construction standards for all residential
buildings. The City amends the Code as needed to further define requirements based on
the unique local conditions. The Code is designed to protect the public health, safety
and welfare of Saratoga’s residents. Code enforcement in the City is performed
proactively and on a complaint basis.
b. Federal Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act
The federal Fair Housing Act of 1998 (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
are federal laws intended to assist in providing safe and accessible housing. ADA
provisions include requirements for a minimum percentage of units in new developments
to be fully accessible for persons with physical disabilities. Compliance with these
regulations may increase the cost of housing construction as well as the cost of
rehabilitating older units, which may be required to comply with current codes.
155
Draft June 2014 3-24
However, the enforcement of ADA requirements is not at the discretion of the City, but is
mandated under federal law.
9. On and Off-Site Improvements
On and off-site improvements may be required in conjunction with development based
on the location of the project and existing infrastructure. Dedication and construction of
streets, alleys and other public easements and improvements may be required to
maintain public safety and convenience.
The City’s standards and requirements for streets, sidewalks, and other site improvements
are found in the Municipal Code. Table 3-8 summarizes the City’s standards for roadway
and right-of-way widths.
Table 3-8. Street Widths
Table 3-8
Street Widths
Type of Street
Right-of-Way Width (in feet)
Pavement
6-Lane Through-fare 120 104 (including 16-
foot median strip)
4-Lane Divided Thorough-fare 100 80 (including 16-
foot median strip)
4-Lane Undivided Thorough-fare 90 64
2-Lane Thorough-fare 60; 842 40; 64
Frontage Road 30 (including 5-foot separator between
main line right-of-way and nearest
frontage road curb face)
24
Collector 60 40
Hillside 50 (plus slope easements where
necessary)
26
Local Street (RM-3,000; RM-4,000;
RM-5,000)
56 36
Local Street (R-1-10,000; R-
1- 12,500)
50 36
Local Street (R-1-15,000) 50 33
Local Street (R-1-40,000) 50 26
Hillside Local Street 40 (plus slope easements where
necessary)
26
156
Draft June 2014 3-25
Table 3-8
Street Widths
Type of Street
Right-of-Way Width
(in feet)
Pavement Width (in feet)1
Cul-de-Sac 50 33
Cul-de-Sac serving 12 lots or less 40 30
Cul-de-Sac, turnaround 42 (radius) 32 (radius)
Minimum Access Street 20 18
Notes:
1Total width between exterior curb faces or shoulder edges
2Required on 2-lane thoroughfares in or adjacent to commercial or PA zoning districts to provide channelization for
turning movements
Source: City of Saratoga Municipal Code Article 14-10.320 Table 1, definition for “Subdivision”
The on- and off-site improvements required by the City are necessary to adequately
provide the infrastructure and public facilities that support housing development. These
requirements ensure public safety and health; and, are not jeopardized by increased
development and do not unduly hinder housing development.
10. Development Fees
The Community Development Department of the City of Saratoga is self-funded. Various
development and permit fees are charged by the City and other agencies to cover
administrative processing costs associated with development. These fees ensure quality
development and the provision of adequate services. Often times, development fees
are passed through to renters and homeowners in the price/rent of housing, thus
affecting the affordability of housing. Table 3-9 compares the development fees in
Saratoga with development fees of neighboring cities.
Table 3-10 summarizes the typical development fees for single-family and multi-family
developments. Based on the residential projects constructed in Saratoga, the City has
not found the development and permit fees to hinder the supply of housing.
157
Draft June 2014 3-26
Table 3-9. Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
Planning
Negative
Declaration
Cost of consultant plus 35%. Major1 - $4,174 Minor2 -
$2,086
$2,175 ($5,000
deposit for Initial
Study)
EIR Processing Cost of consultant plus 35%. $27,134 Consultant's fee,
plus review fee -
$10,942 and 10%
EIR Cost
Categorical
Exemption
-- $243 No fee
General Plan
Amendment
$3,500 initial deposit
$139/hour Actual
cost/$5,000
deposit
Zone Change $3,500 initial deposit $139/hour Actual
cost/$5,000
deposit
Tentative Map Less Than 10 Lots -
$5,000 initial deposit;
10 or More Lots -
$5,000 initial deposit plus
$150 for each lot over 10;
Subdivision Final Map -
$2,500 for 1st lot plus $500 each
additional lot.
$15,509 Four lots or less -
$6,944; Five lots or
more - $11,010
Site Plan Review Administrative Design Review
-$3,400;
Planning Commission Design
Review - $5,200
Design Review
Committee - $3,504
Planning Commission -
$7,244
Development
Review
Committee
Approval - Varies
from
$7.011 to $1,751;
Planning
Commission
Approval - Varies
from$8,458 to
$1,751
Conditional Use
Permits and
Variances
Use Permit – Application
Review: (Admin Review)
$3,400; (Planning Commission
Review) $4,400;
Variance – Application
Review- $2,700
Major Use Permit -
$15,509;
Minor Use Permit -
$7,244; Variance -
$2,731
Varies: $824 to
$5,862; Variance
- $3,648.
158
Draft June 2014 3-27
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
Building
Building Permit $78 minimum up to $7,010 for
the first $1,000,000 plus
$4.56 each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof
Varies from $2,693
(2,500 sq. ft. tract
home) + $46.24 for
each 100 sq. ft. to
$2,919 (2,500 sq. ft.
custom home in
hillside) + $46.24 for
each 100 sq. ft.
Varies from
$23.50 for up to
$500 to
$5,608.75 for the
first $1,000,000
plus
$3.15 for each
additional
$1,000 or fraction
thereof
Plan Check 65% of the building permit fee Varies from $1,354
(2,500 sq. ft. tract
home) + $1 for each
100 sq. ft. to $4,954
(2,500 sq. ft. custom
home in hillside) + $40
for each 100 sq. ft.
65% of building
permit fee
Electrical $.10 / sq. ft. (minimum $78) $47 - permit $69 - permit;
plan review fee
25% of electrical
permit fee;
$.11/sq. ft. new
construction only
Mechanical $.10 / sq. ft. (minimum $78) $47 - permit $69 - permit;
plan review fee
- 25% of
Mechanical
Permit fee;
$.11/sq. ft. new
construction only
Plumbing $.10 / sq. ft. (minimum $78) $47 - permit $69 - permit;
plan review fee
- 25% of
Plumbing Permit
fee;
$.11/sq. ft. new
construction only
SMIP (Strong
Motion
Instrumentation
Program)
Building valuation x 0.0010
(minimum 50 cents)
-- For residential
construction of
three stories and
less, the permit
159
Draft June 2014 3-28
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
fee is $4.00 per
$100,000.
Energy Addition to Residential Building
- $200
New Residential Structure -
$300/unit
-- 15% of Building
Permit
Permit Issuance See “Building Permit” fee See “Building Permit”
fee
$69
Engineering and Subdivision
Final Map Tentative Subdivision Map -
Actual cost charge plus 25%
surcharge for City’s indirect
cost plus $2,500 for the first lot
and $500 for each additional
lot
One to four lots -
$4,130; Greater than
four lots - $8,574
Map check
done by Town's
consultant
- Consultant Cost
plus 25%
surcharge for
reports, reviews,
and processes.
Storm
Drain/Water
Quality
-- Single Family: $3,152/DU
to $4,280/acre; Multi-
family: $3,072/acre plus
$232/DU (20DU max per
acre.
Varies – Single
Family: $3,797/ac
to: Multi-family
$3,797/ac and
$143 for each
additional unit
(not to exceed
$4,622/ac)
Street
Improvement
First $50,000 Estimated
Construction Cost - $5,000
minimum charge
Over $50,000 Estimated
Construction Cost - $5,000 plus
5% of Estimated Construction
Cost over
$50,0003
-- Sidewalks - $16
per linear foot;
Curb and Gutter
-
$61 per linear
foot
Sewer
Improvement
First $50,000 Estimated
Construction Cost - $5,000
minimum charge
Over $50,000 Estimated
Construction Cost - $5,000 plus
5% of Estimated Construction
Cost over
$50,000
-- --
Grading Less than 100 Cubic Yards -
$500; Over 100 Cubic Yards
$500 for the first 100 cubic
Greater of $2542
minimum or 6% of cost
$289; first
$50,000 of value
10% of estimated
160
Draft June 2014 3-29
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
yards
plus $125 for each additional
100 cubic yards or fraction
thereof;
Plan Check Fee $530
of improvement cost of
improvements
next $50,000 of
value - 8% of
estimated cost
of improvements.
Capital Facilities and Connections
Water $500 $6,894 for single family
and townhouses; $2,280
for multi-family
--
Sewer $500 $77.50 $34
Traffic/Road
Fees
$.77 per $100 of project
valuation
$16 single permit;
additional utility
company $90;
additional engineering
investigation/coordina-
tion - $60/hr
New residential -
$.15/sq. ft.
In-Lieu Park
Facilities Fee
$20,700 Varies: $8,100/DU multi-
family to $15,750/DU
Single family
Based on $0.04
for each square
foot of building
addition or
alteration, which
increases floor
area of an
existing building.
161
Draft June 2014 3-30
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
Sewer $500 $77.50 $34
In-lieu Housing
Mitigation
-- Projects one to six units:
$2.93/sq. ft. of floor
area.
-- As an option
for project with
5-10 DU, In-lieu
fees can be
paid into the
Town’s
Affordable
Housing Fund
and are
calculated as 6
percent of
building permit
valuation as
determined by
the
Building Official.
Notes:
1Eight or more residential units.
2 Less than eight residential units.
3The Estimated Construction Cost shall be determined by the Public Works Director and shall be exclusive of the
cost to construct public utility facilities where another public utility agency is collecting similar fees for such
facilities.
-- Not listed in Fee Schedule
Sources: City of Saratoga User Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2013/2014; City of Cupertino Summary of User Fees,
Resolution 13-030, Fees effective July 1, 2013; Town of Los Gatos Comprehensive Fee Schedule FY 2013/2014.
2010-2015 Consolidated Plan, City of Cupertino
162
Draft June 2014 3-31
Table 3-10. Typical Development Fees Comparison Single-Family and Multiple-Family
Table 3-10
Typical Development Fees
Comparison Single-Family and Multi-
Family
Development Fee New Single-Family1 New Multi-Family2
Design Review $5,200 $5,200
Engineering Review $1,000 $1,000
Geotechnical Review (for
Basement) $3,500 N/A
Arborist Review $2,500 $3,500
Environmental Review N/A $60,000 (estimate)
Total $12,200 $69,700 ($13,940 per unit)
Notes:
1One single-family unit
2Based on an apartment development with 5units
Source: City of Saratoga
11. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
Delays in development and building permit processing can be associated with
considerable holding costs that may affect the price of housing. Table 3-11 summarizes
the approximate processing time for development applications. Because the City
processes permits concurrently, projects that require a conditional use permit can be
approved in approximately the same timeframe as projects that do not require
discretionary approvals.
The Planning Commission may grant a conditional use permit as applied for or in modified
form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Commission
makes all of the following findings:
x That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located;
x That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions
under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity; and
x That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code.
x That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or
anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely
affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.
163
Draft June 2014 3-32
Table 3-11. Local Development Processing Time
Table 3-11
Local Development Processing Time
Item Standard Projects
Zoning Entitlements including Conditional
Use Permit or Variance 2-3 months
Reclassification (rezoning) 3-4 months
Plan Check 3-4 weeks
General Plan Amendment 3-4 months
Environmental Documentation 3-4 months
Source: City of Saratoga, Community Development Department
Table 3-11 summarizes the estimated processing timelines for planning application by
development type. Processing timelines often occur concurrently. Based on recent
residential projects constructed in Saratoga, the City has not found the local
development processing timeline to hinder the development of housing.
The following describes each process and corresponding decision-making body:
Design Review
x The Community Development Director grants design review approval when
an application is found in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code.
x If the Community Development Director intends to approve the application,
a "Notice of Intent to Approve" will be mailed to all property owners within two
hundred fifty feet of the subject property and to others as deemed
appropriate. All interested parties will have fifteen calendar days from the
date of the "Notice of Intent to Approve" in which to review the application
and provide written comments to the Community Development Director. The
Community Development Director approves or denies the application within
fifteen days of the close of the review period and mails notices of the decision
to the applicant and to any party that has requested a copy. The Community
Development Director's decision can be appealed to the Planning
Commission within fifteen calendar days of the Director's decision to approve
the application. The Planning Commission at a public hearing will review any
appeal.
x In reviewing applications for design review approval under, the Planning
Commission is guided by the following criteria:
1. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes
grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints.
164
Draft June 2014 3-33
2. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50
(Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of
protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal
shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak
trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080.
3. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its
architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts
to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds.
4. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural
elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the
neighborhood.
5. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area
and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood
streetscape.
6. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of
adjoining properties to utilize solar energy.
7. The design of the structure and the site development plan is
consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section
15-45.055.
8. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid
unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features,
community viewsheds, and is are in compliance with Section 15-
13.100.
General Plan Amendment
x The Community Development Department reviews the application and
prepares a report, which shall be submitted to the Planning Commission.
x The Planning Commission holds at least one public hearing on the
proposed amendment.
x Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
determines whether the proposed amendment should be adopted. The
Commission transmits its recommendation to the City Council , in writing,
together with a copy of the application, if any, and the documents submitted,
the report to the Commission from the Community Development Director, the
minutes of proceedings conducted by the Commission and the resolution and
findings, if any, adopted by the Commission with respect to the proposed
amendment.
165
Draft June 2014 3-34
x Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City
Council conducts a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
x The City Council may approve, modify or reject the recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
Tentative Subdivision Map
x Applications for tentative subdivision map approval are filed with the
Community Development Director who examines the application and the
documents submitted. The time of filing the application is the date on which
the application is accepted by the Community Development Director as
being complete.
Variance
x The Planning Commission is designated as the approving authority to grant
variances from the regulations prescribed in the Municipal Code.
x The Community Development Department reviews the application and
prepares a report, which shall be considered in determining whether to
approve or deny the variance.
x The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing on the application for a
variance.
x Any determination or decision by the Planning Commission can be appealed
to the City Council.
Conditional Use Permit
x The Community Development Department reviews the application and
prepares a report, which shall be considered in determining whether to
approve or deny the conditional use permit.
x Except for those uses identified in Section 15-55.065 of the Municipal Code, the
Planning Commission considers all applications for conditional use permits and
conducts a public hearing.
x Any determination or decision by the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Council.
Final Map
x Prior to the expiration of a tentative map approval or extension, the owner
has the property accurately surveyed and a final map prepared substantially
in accordance with the tentative map as approved. The applicant files three
copies of the final map, with any and all alterations and changes required ,
with the City Engineer for approval.
x Once the final map is filed with City Clerk, at the next available regular
166
Draft June 2014 3-35
meeting, the map shall be either approved or disapproved by the City
Council.
x The applicant, or any interested person, may appeal to the City Council any
determination or decision made by filing with the City Clerk a notice of
appeal that clearly identifying identifies the determination or decision from
which the appeal is taken and stating states the grounds for the appeal.
Arborist Review
x The City arborist conducts a field survey of the property and notes tree
locations, assigns tree numbers, draws outlines of tree canopies and
locations for tree protective fencing, and proposes alternate locations for
trenching, lighting, or irrigation lines, and any other pertinent information
deemed necessary.
Table 3-12. Typical Development Processing Timelines by Development Type
Table 3-12
Typical Development Processing Timelines by Development
Type
Process Single-Family Multi-Family
Design Review (Administrative) 1-2 months 1-2 months
Design Review (Planning Commission) 2-3 months 2-3 months
Environmental Assessment 2-3 months 2-3 months
General Plan Amendment 4-6 months 4-6 months
Tentative Subdivision Map 2-3 months 2-3 months
Variance 2-3 months 2-3 months
Conditional Use Permit 2-3 months 2-3 months
Annexation 6-9 months 6-9 months
Final Map 3 months 3 months
Source: City of Saratoga, Community Development Department
12. Measure G
The voters of Saratoga approved Measure G in March 1996, which reaffirmed and
readopted, until December 31, 2025, the provisions of the Land Use Element of the
City’s 1983 General Plan with amendments through August 7, 1995. Certain
amendments to the Land Use Element, including changing certain designations on the
General Plan Land Use map, may only be made by a vote of the people. The initiative
does not affect the City's existing regulations that authorize the creation of second
dwelling units, nor does it interfere with the City's obligation , under State law, to revise
the Housing Element.
167
Draft June 2014 3-36
13. Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
a. Environmental Constraints
Environmental hazards affecting housing
units include geologic and seismic
conditions, flooding, fire hazards, toxic and
hazardous wastes, and noise. The following
hazards may impact future development of
residential units in the city. Most identified
sites in Appendix B: Land Resources, do not
contain environmental constraints to the
development of housing. Where
environmental constraints exist, the City of
Saratoga has identified measures for
mitigation.
i. Seismic Hazards
The topography of Saratoga generally consists of the low-lying, relatively flat valley floor
and the northwestern foothills. Outside the City limits, but within the City's Sphere of
Influence, are the Castle Rock portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains. These mountains are
very rugged, comprised of steep canyons and sharp rounded ridge tops.
The dominant geologic feature within Saratoga's Sphere of Influence is the San Andreas
Fault zone, which bisects the mountainous portion of the terrain. The fault zone determines
the geology and topography of the area by separating two different rock assemblages
and their associated erosion characteristics. A complex system of fault traces and
fractured rock compose the fault zone. The location of the San Andreas Fault, along the
ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains, subjects the hillside region of the City to potentially
severe lateral displacement and ground shaking should an earthquake occur. However,
a major portion of the City is underlain by the relatively flat valley floor that is considered
a geologic stability zone.
There are two "potentially active" faults within the City limits. The Berrocal Ffault belongs
to the Sargent Fault zone, a complex system of interconnecting faults extending
northwest between San Andreas and the Calaveras Ffaults. The fault trace crosses
Congress Springs Road and continues into the southeastern portion of the Sphere of
Influence. The Shannon fFault, part of the Monte Vista fault system, closely parallels the
Highway 85 corridor from Regnart Creek in Cupertino to the north, crossing crosses
Saratoga Avenue, and continues to Almaden Expressway in the southeast portion of San
Jose. Although there is a remote chance that ground rupture could occur on either one
of these fault traces, it is more likely to occur on the San Andreas Fault. However, little rural
residential development has occurred within the San Andreas fault zone in Saratoga's
Sphere of Influence, so the present risk of structural damage due to fault rupture is
minimal.
Residential development in the Saratoga foothills
168
Draft June 2014 3-37
The San Andreas Fault zone is the only area within the City and its Sphere of Influence that
the State has designated as a Special Studies Zone. Special Studies Zones are areas along
faults considered to be active or potentially active as established by the California
Division of Mines and Geology in compliance with the Alquist Priolo Geologic Hazard
Zones Act. When development for human occupancy is proposed within these zones,
special studies relating to seismic hazards are required and must be submitted to the City
or County Geologist for review.
As required by the State of California, the Saratoga General Plan contains policies
regarding land instability and seismic hazards within the Safety Element (updated in
2013). In addition, the General Plan identifies the general location of the areas of
potential seismic hazards, as well as potentially active faults, 100-year flood areas, and
hazardous fire areas in the Safety Element.
The goal of the geologic and seismic policies is to protect residents from injuries and
minimize property damage resulting from land stability , and geologic and seismic
hazards. To that end, the General Plan identifies specific policies that prohibit
development without site-specific geotechnical investigations; prohibit development of
structures for human habitation in areas proven to be unsafe (to the maximum extent
permitted by law); and, enforce strict earthquake construction and soil engineering
standards in order to select the most stable building sites, and to compensate for soil
instabilities through the use of approved engineering and construction techniques. In
addition, zoning regulations for residential development in hillside areas identify specific
mandatory development criteria including the preparation of a site development plan
and geologic and soils report; specific procedures for grading and siting structures; and,
could require additional studies (soil and foundation engineering investigation, slope
stability studies, investigations addressing seismic hazards of nearby fault traces) as
necessary.
ii. Landslides
The hillside region of the City contains some rock formations conducive to landslides.
These areas primarily lie west of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, pass through a portion of the
Northwestern Hillsides Residential District, and continue pas ts Big Basin Way. The zone is
also present within the Sphere of Influence, along the City's northwestern boundary and
crossing across Bohlman Road. Landslides and unstable slopes may occur in this area,
and can create hazards within the City lLimits as the slide debris and rock moves down
the incline toward the City's valley floor.
Landslides and slope instability are the major non-seismic geologic hazards in Saratoga.
Although most of the hillside areas experience these hazards to some degree, the most
severe risks are found in the vicinity of the Congress Springs area and the upper
Calabazas Creek watershed. As noted above, the General Plan includes specific policies
to protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage resulting from land
stability, and geologic and seismic hazards. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance includes
169
Draft June 2014 3-38
specific regulations for residential development in the hillsides designed to protect human
life and property.
iii. Soil Creep and Expansive Soils
Soil creep and expansive soils are most prevalent in the western hillside regions of the city.
Soil creep is the slow, down slope movement of near surface materials. The rate of soil
creep is a function of slope angle and soil thickness and texture. It can be regarded as a
continuous process, and may cause retaining walls, foundations, and paved roads to fail
over a period of time. Expansive soils contain high proportions of clay and alternatively
absorb and release large amounts of water during wet and dry cycles.
Structures built on expansive soils can experience rising foundations during the wet
season, resulting in cracked foundations, distorted frameworks, and warped windows and
doors. To address adverse effects associated with soil creep and expansive soils, the City
requires geotechnical investigations and soil reports in areas where soil creep and
expansive soils exists. The presence of soil creep should not have a prohibitive effect on
land use, but should alert the City to require appropriate geotechnical investigations to
evaluate conditions and to impose engineering solutions to mitigate problems.
iv. Flooding
Three major drainage basins lie within the City, the San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga, and
Calabaza Creeks. Several tributaries of the San Tomas and Calabaza Creeks are located
within the City, as well. These include Wildcat, Vasona, and Sobey Creeks , (tributaries of
San Tomas Creek), and Prospect and Rodeo Creeks, (tributaries of Calabaza Creek).
Areas adjacent to the San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga, and Calabaza Creeks are located
in within the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the Wildcat and Vasona Creeks are also
subject to the 100-year flood hazard.
Saratoga participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The City adopts
and enforces certain floodplain management ordinances and, in return, residents can
purchase Federally-backed flood insurance. In addition, the City has an extensive review
procedure in conjunction with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which addresses
flooding potential and the impact on development.
v. Toxic and Hazardous Wastes
Existing regulations in Saratoga severely limit uses involving hazardous materials. Thus, no
major chemical handlers are located within the City. The storage, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials is limited to gas stations. The hazardous materials generated typically
consist of anti-freeze, brake fluid, motor oil, and gasoline.
Saratoga has a Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance (Chapter 8 of the Municipal
Code) to protect "health, life, resources, property through prevention and control of
unauthorized discharges of hazardous materials." The ordinance includes regulations
170
Draft June 2014 3-39
governing administration and enforcement of the code, which is performed by the
County; the list of specific materials covered; containment standards; and, preparation
of hazardous materials management plans.
vi. Fire Hazards
The Saratoga Fire Protection District and the Central Fire District of Santa Clara County
serves the City of Saratoga. All area fire departments cooperate in mutual aid
agreements, which loosen the strict adherence to district boundaries when adjacent
communities are in need.
The City's Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code) requires a peakload
water supply of 1,000 gallons of water per minute for two hours for all housing
developments. However, areas with higher site elevations decrease the 35-pound
minimum pressure needed to provide 1,000 gallons per minute, which has caused a
severe problem with providing adequate fire protection in the Northwestern Hillsides
Residential District, where several of the homes currently do not meet the City
requirement.
Hazardous fire areas within the City are located within the Northwestern Hillsides area and
extend to the Lower Hillsides in the southwestern portion of the City. Special building
regulations exist for the hazardous fire areas, including the requirement for fire retardant
roofs and the installation of an electronic fire detection system (Early Warning Fire Alarm
System).
The Early Warning Fire Alarm System, which is not only required for homes in fire hazard
areas, but in all new homes or existing homes expanded by more that 50 percent, consists
of heat and smoke detectors, which when activated, will transmit a signal directly to a
receiver panel in the Saratoga Fire District Station. The fire district will then receive the
earliest possible warning of fires, decreasing response time to remote areas and thus
reducing the possibility of death, injury, and property damage.
The City also requires anti-fire buffer areas and sufficient clearance around each house
in the Northwestern Hillsides area. The minimum setbacks in this area are 30 feet in the
front yard, 20 feet in the side yards, and a minimum of 50 feet in the rear. Finally, the City
has a Weed Abatement Ordinance that requires property owners to remove weeds and
other combustible materials that become a fire menace.
vii. Noise
Traffic is the primary source of noise in Saratoga. In addition, commercial activities,
recreation complexes, and other sites of outdoor public assembly such as churches and
school sites, have been identified as periodic sources of noise complaints. The City’s
Planning Department currently considers noise in the project review process and works
with the applicant to use site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise
impacts.
171
Draft June 2014 3-40
b. Infrastructure Constraints
The following presents the analysis of existing and future water and sewer capacity in
Saratoga. The City has found that based on population projections and housing growth
needs, there is adequate water and sewer capacity.
i. Water
The City of Saratoga receives its water supply from the San Jose Water Company. San
Jose Water Company obtains water from three major sources: groundwater, imported
surface water, and local mountain surface water. Groundwater is pumped from over 100
wells that draw water from the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin. Groundwater accounts
for approximately 40 percent of supply. Imported surface water is provided by Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the wholesale supplier. Surface water imported from
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water
district accounts for approximately 50 percent of supply. A majority of this water originates
as Sierra snowmelt, and travels through the State and Federal water projects before
treatment at SCVWD's three water treatment plants. A smaller portion is impounded in
local reservoirs in Santa Clara County. Local mountain surface water is collected in the
Santa Cruz Mountains, and treated at San Jose Water Company's two water treatment
plants. Local surface water accounts for approximately 10 percent of supply. These
sources are often blended together in the distribution system. Consequently, different
sources are dispersed to Saratoga from day to day as customer usage changes.
Saratoga will continue to meet its future demands with imported water, groundwater,
and local mountain surface water supplies.
Portions of the higher elevations of the Santa Cruz Mountains within the City’s Sphere of
Influence provide water runoff into local streams and recharge wells that provide a
portion of the City’s water supply. These areas should be protected from significant
urbanization in order to maximize continued production of the local water supply.
ii. Sewer
The City of Saratoga is served by two sanitation districts: the Cupertino Sanitary District
and the West Valley Sanitation District.
The Cupertino Sanitary District covers an area of approximately 15 square miles,
serving a population of over 50,000 people. The District owns and manages over 1
million feet of sewer mains, 500,000 feet of sewer laterals, and 15 pump stations. The
District has been maintained with a proactive capital improvement program aimed at
extending the reliability and life of the system beyond 100 years. Currently, the District
discharges 4.6 million gallons per day, and has rights to discharge over 8.6 million gallons
per day. The District anticipates being able to accommodate expected growth within
areas served.
172
Draft June 2014 3-41
The West Valley Sanitation District covers over 30 square miles , serving a population of
over 120,000 people. The District facilities include over 400 miles of sewer mains and over
250 miles of sewer laterals. The District has a fixed capacity allocation of 13.05 million
gallons per day. Based on population growth projections for 2030, the District would not
exceed the current fixed capacity allocation.
B. Non-Governmental Constraints
1. Vacant and Underutilized Land
A thorough analysis of vacant and underutilized land within the City of Saratoga is
provided in Appendix B.
2. Land Prices
Land costs increases have a significant influence on the cost of housing and the
availability of affordable housing. A number of factors determine land prices, the most
important of which are land availability and permitted development density. As land
becomes less available, the price of land increases. Based on review of a few multi-family
property sales in Saratoga over the past several years, land costs average $100 per
square foot.
3. Construction Costs
Construction costs are primarily determined by the costs of materials and labor. They are
also influenced by market demands and market-based changes in the cost of materials.
Construction costs depend on the type of unit being built and the quality of the product
being produced. Table 3-13 summarizes the estimated construction costs based on type
of development in Saratoga.
Table 3-13. Construction Cost Estimates
Table 3-13 Construction
Cost Estimates
Development Type Cost per Square Foot
Single-Family Residential $250
Townhomes/Condominiums $250
Multi-family- garden style apartments $250
Notes:
1 Based on the prevailing market conditions. Units assume garden-style apartments with on-site parking.
2. Based on average square foota reported by RealFacts.
3Assumes $150 per square foot construction costs and $100 per square foot multi-family land costs.
173
Draft June 2014 3-42
4. Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing
The availability of financing in a community depends on a number of factors, including
the type of lending institutions active in the community, lending practices, rates and fees
charged, laws and regulations governing financial institutions, and equal access to those
institutions. Through analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data on the
disposition of residential loan applications, an assessment can be made of the availability
of residential financing within a community.
Table 3-14 summarizes HMDA data for both Saratoga and Santa Clara County as a
whole, providing information on the approval status of all home purchase and home
improvement loan applications during 2012. Of the total of 521 applications for home
purchase loans in Saratoga, 79 percent were approved, 12 percent denied, and nine
percent (9%) withdrawn or incomplete.
In comparison to the County-wide average, mortgage loan approval rates were fairly
comparable in Saratoga (79%) and overall Santa Clara County (78%). In contrast,
approval rates for home improvement loans were higher in Saratoga than Santa Clara
County as a whole, at 75 percent compared to 70 percent County-wide. Review of loan
denial rates by census tract does not identify any areas in Saratoga where loan denials
differed markedly from the citywide average.
Table 3-14. Home Purchase and Improvement Loans - 2012
Table 3-14
Home Purchase and Improvement Loans – 2012
Loan Type
# Loan
Applications
in Saratoga
% Loans Approved % Loans Denied
% Loans
Withdrawn/
Incomplete
Saratoga
Santa
Clara
County
Saratoga
Santa
Clara
County
Saratoga
Santa
Clara
County
Home
Purchase 521 79% 78% 12% 12% 9% 10%
Home
Improvement 92 75% 70% 14% 20% 11% 10%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, 2012
Figure 3-1 shows the average interest rates in 2013. Interest rates are determined by
national policies and economic conditions and there is little that a local government can
do to affect these rates. However, in order to extend home buying opportunities to lower-
income households, jurisdictions can offer home buying assistance programs such as
interest rate write-downs and consider government insured loan programs that may be
available to reduce mortgage down payment requirements.
174
Draft June 2014 3-43
Figure 3- 1. Mortgage Rates -2013
Source: Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey
As a result of the recent recession, there have been changes in the qualifications and
lending standards for home loans. Nationally, because there was a large increase in the
number of delinquencies and foreclosures in the residential market ,; lenders have more
stringent qualifications for home loans; and lower-income households may find it more
difficult to qualify.
C. Resources
The ability of the City to achieve its housing goals and objectives will, to a large extent,
depend on the availability of financial resources for implementation. Two primary sources
of funds – Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Community Service Grants
– are currently used to support housing activities in Saratoga. Each of these is described in
the following section.
1. Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds are the largest sources of
Federal funding for housing and housing related activities in Saratoga. While Saratoga
does not have a large enough population to be a CDBG Entitlement City (minimum
population of 50,000), the City has joined with other smaller cities and Santa Clara County
to form an Urban County under the CDBG Program. The participating cities jointly
develop funding priorities and assist the County Board of Supervisors in determining CDBG
funding allocation across the Urban County. Table 3-15 lists the Urban County CDBG
funded activities approved for the 2015 fiscal year.
175
Draft June 2014 3-44
Table 3-15. Santa Clara County CDBG and HOME Funded Programs
Table 3-14
Santa Clara County CDBG and HOME Funded Programs
Applicant Project Funding
Source
1 Mid-Peninsula Housing The Farm HOME
2 Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley Home Repair & Modifications CDBG
3 Catholic Charities Long Term Care Ombudsman CDBG
4 Catholic Charities El Toro Youth Center CDBG
5 Community Service Agency of Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills & Mt. View
Senior Case Management CDBG
6 Community Solutions La Isla Pacifica Domestic Violence Shelter CDBG
7 Community Technology Alliance Tools for Ending Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara
County
CDBG
8 Emergency Housing Consortium Shelter and Support Services – Boccardo Center CDBG
9 Family Supportive Housing, Inc. Bridges AfterCare Program CDBG
10 Family Supportive Housing, Inc. San Jose Family Shelter CDBG
11 InnVision Shelter Network Julian Street Inn CDBG
12 InnVision Shelter Network Commercial Street Inn CDBG
13 InnVision Shelter Network Campbell Shelter CDBG
14 Live Oak Adult Day Services Adult Day Care CDBG
15 Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Assistance Project CDBG
16 Next Door Solutions to Domestic
Violence
Next Door Shelter & Support Services Program CDBG
17 Project Sentinel Tenant-Landlord & Mortgage Services CDBG
18 Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating
Council
Adult Day Care Program CDBG
19 Senior Adults Legal Assistance Legal Assistance to Elders in Campbell, Morgan Hill &
Saratoga
CDBG
20 Silicon Valley Independent Housing Program for Persons with Disabilities CDBG
21 West Valley Community Services Community Access to Resources and Education CDBG
22 YWCA Domestic Violence Services CDBG
2. Community Services Grant
Through Saratoga’s annual Community Service Grant Program funding application and
Ongoing Community Service Support Grants, the City allocates General Fund monies to
a variety of service organizations that support the City’sits commitment to the provision
of a social service safety net for the most vulnerable members of the community. In
2013/2014 the City Council allocated $22,825 in funds through its Grant Program and
$107,915 in funds through its Ongoing Grant program. Similar amounts were allocated in
prior years. The City utilizes its annual Community Service Grant Program aAllocations and
Ongoing Grant Program to fund a variety of agencies and services including:
x Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council’s (SASCC) Adult Day Care Program
x West Valley Community Services
176
Draft June 2014 3-45
x Catholic Charities Ombudsman Program
x SASCC Service and Supplemental Service Support
x United Way 211 Funding
x Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
3. Energy Conservation
Energy conservation remains a major priority in the City of Saratoga. The City requires
compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations on the use of energy
efficient appliances and insulation. Through compliance with Title 24, new residential
development has reduced energy demands.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), which provides electricity service in the City
of Saratoga, offers public information and technical assistance to homeowners regarding
energy conservation. PG&E also provides numerous incentives for energy efficiency in
new construction and home remodeling. Remodeling rebates exist for projects installing
three or more upgrades from a flexible menu of options that earn points towards
incentives and rebates. This program’s incentives range between $1,000 and $4,500.
The City of Saratoga requires the submittal of a Cal Green checklist with applications for
Design Review for single- and multi-family existing and new residential construction
projects. The Cal Green checklist is based on standards produced by the California
Building Standards Commission.
One of the more recent strategies in building energy-efficient homes is following the U.S.
Green Building Council’s guidelines for LEED Certification. LEED-certified buildings
demonstrate energy and water savings, reduced maintenance costs and improved
occupant satisfaction. The LEED for New Construction program has been applied to
numerous multi-family projects nationwide. The LEED for Homes program was launched in
2005 and includes standards for new single-family and multi-family home construction.
The LEED certification standards are one piece of a coordinated green building program.
A green building program considers a broad range of issues including community design,
energy efficiency, water conservation, resource-efficient material selection, indoor
environmental quality, construction management, and building maintenance. The end
result will be buildings that minimize the use of resources; are healthier for people; and
mitigate the effects of the environment.
The following presents a variety of ways in which Saratoga can promote energy
conservation:
x Provide information regarding rebate programs and energy audits
available through Pacific Gas and Electric;
x Refer residents and businesses to energy conservation programs such as Build It
177
Draft June 2014 3-46
Green and LEED for Homes;
x Develop incentives, such as expedited plan check, for developments that
are utilizing green building;
x Promote funding opportunities for green buildings, including available rebates
and funding through the California Energy Commission; and
x Provide resource materials regarding green building and conservation programs.
178
Draft June 2014 3-47
This page intentionally left blank
179
Draft June 2014 4-1
Chapter 4: Policy Program
This section describes the City of Saratoga’s Policy Program for the 2015-2023 Housing
Element. The Policy Program describes the specific policy actions necessary to address
present and future housing needs, meet the specific requirements of State law, and
consider the input by residents and stakeholders. In developing the Policy Program, the
City assessed its housing needs, evaluated the performance of existing programs, and
received input from the community through participation in housing workshops (see
Chapter 2 and Appendices A and C).
A. Policy Action Areas
The Policy Action Plan for the 2015-2023 Housing Element is organized into five areas:
x New Production
x Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
x Design and Livability
x Access to Housing Opportunities
x Coordinated Housing Efforts
B. Policy Actions
Policy Area 4-1: New Production
The City strives to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to meet future and
existing housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
Policy Action 4-1.1: Amend Commercial-Neighborhood (Residential High Density)
Standards
To further encourage mixed-use development, the City shall amend the C-N(RHD) district
standards from a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre to a minimum of 30 dwelling units
per acre, increase the allowable building height from 30 feet to 35 feet and from two to
three stories. The City will also modify the standards such that only developments proposed
at over 40 dwelling units per acre would require additional Planning Commission findings.
The modification to the height limit will require a corresponding General Plan Amendment.
In conjunction with the Zoning text amendments, the City will contact the property owners
of the six adjoining C-N(RHD) parcels concerning the increase in development potential,
and the City's support for redevelopment with higher density residential/mixed use.
180
Draft June 2014 4-2
Objective: Amend Commercial-Neighborhood (Residential High Density) C-N
(RHD)
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Amend Zoning C-N(RHD) and General Plan within one (1) year of
Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-1.2: Continue to Implement Density Bonus Ordinance
Under Government Code Section 65915-65918, for housing projects of at least five units ,
cities must grant density bonuses ranging from 5% to 35% (depending on the affordability
provided by the housing project) when requested by the project sponsor, and provide up
to three incentives or concessions unless specific findings can be made. The City of
Saratoga has adopted Density Bonus provisions within its Zoning Code consistent with State
law.
Objective: Continue Density Bonus Ordinance Implementation
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Action 4-1.3: Encourage Efficient Use of Energy Resources in Residential
Development
The City shall encourage housing developers to maximize energy conservation through
proactive site, building and building systems design, materials, and equipment. The City
encourages the development community to exceed the provisions of Title 24 of the
California Building Code. The City shall encourage the use of Energy Star®- rated
appliances, other energy-saving technologies and conservation. To enhance the efficient
use of energy resources, the City shall review the potential of offering incentives or other
strategies that encourage energy conservation. The City shall review and update its
website pertaining to dissemination of information for energy resources in residential
development to ensure that links are appropriate and functional.
Objective: Increased Energy Efficiency
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Investigate and develop, as appropriate, incentive strategies
within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption, ongoing
thereafter
181
Draft June 2014 4-3
Policy Action 4-1.4: Encourage Green Building Practices in Home Construction
The City understands the importance of sustainable use of limited resources and
encourages the use of “green building” practices in new and existing housing. The City’s
Design Review process requires that new and existing residential home construction
projects include a completed CalGreen checklist. The CalGreen checklist tracks
green features incorporated into the home. The checklist is produced by the California
Building Standards Commission.
In addition, the City provides public information on its website pages, “Go Green in
Saratoga” and offers low cost permits as an incentive to install solar panels.
Objective: Increased Green Building Practices
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Action 4-1.5: Encourage and Facilitate Lot Consolidation
The City will encourage and facilitate the consolidation of the identified candidate sites
(see Policy Action 4-1.1) through a variety of incentives, including but not limited to
:; financial incentives such as CDBG funds, land write-downs, assistance with on- or off-site
infrastructure costs, and other pre-development costs associated with the assemblage of
multiple parcels. Consolidation will provide the opportunity to develop these underutilized
lots to their fullest potential. The City will evaluate the appropriateness of a variety of
incentives and provide this information to the developers and other interested parties
through print material at City Hall.
Objective: Encourage and Facilitate Lot Consolidation in Identified
Candidate Sites
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Review within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Area 4-2: Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
Much of the housing stock in Saratoga has been identified to be in decent, suitable
condition. However, there is an anticipated need for ongoing maintenance and
rehabilitation. Maintenance and rehabilitation activities help ensure the quality of the
City’s housing stock and neighborhoods are preserved.
182
Draft June 2014 4-4
Policy Action 4-2.1: Housing Rehabilitation
The City has a high level of quality housing. In order to maintain the housing quality, the
City will provide information about rehabilitation programs on an individual basis, as
needed.
Objective: Provide information about rehabilitation programs on an
individual basis, as needed
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Action 4-2.2: Code Enforcement Program
The City will continue to use code enforcement measures where when required to ensure
that the existing housing stock in the City is maintained and preserved in a safe and sanitary
condition.
Objective: Maintain the existing housing stock.
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Action 4-2.3: Historic Preservation Program and Mills Act:
The City will FRQWLQXHWRimplement its historic preservation and Mills Act programs to offer
property tax relief as an incentive to preserve, rehabilitate and maintain historic resources
in Saratoga. The City's goal is to conserve the historically significant residential structures
identified in the City's Heritage Resource Inventory, and encourage additional property
owners to pursue listing as a qualified historic property and associated Mills Act incentives
for preservation. The City has processed an average of two Mills Act preservation
contracts per year over the past Housing Element cycle and expects to continue with an
average of two per year over the course of this cycle.
Objective: Preserve historic structures
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Area 4-3: Design and Livability
Saratoga has unique, long-established neighborhoods that contribute to community
character and guide development within the City. Community design is important in order
183
Draft June 2014 4-5
to ensure quality design of new developments and to enhance the aesthetic qualities of
the City.
Policy Action 4-3.1: Maintain Community Design
The City recognizes the importance of maintaining the character of Saratoga’s
neighborhoods. The City adopted updates to the Single Family Residential Design Review
Handbook in February 2014. In order to ensure quality design of new housing units and
modifications to existing housing units, the City will review and revise the General Plan or
Zoning Code and enforce the design guidelines and update as needed to provide
aesthetic direction for future residential development.
Objective: Maintain Community Character
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Action 4-3.2: Preserve the Saratoga Village
The City understands the importance of
conserving the community’s historic downtown
district, “Saratoga Village,” to preserve the City’s
commercial resources and provide opportunities
for mixed-use development. The City shall
continue to implement design criteria in the
Saratoga Village to preserve the area’s
character and to enhance the aesthetic qualities
of new residential and commercial
developments.
Objective: Continue Implementation of Saratoga Village Design
Guidelines
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Area 4-4: Access to Housing Opportunities
The City promotes the practice of providing equal housing opportunities for all persons.
Housing should be available for all persons regardless of income, family status, presence of
a disability, age, race, sex, national origin, or color. The City encourages the provision of
housing to meet needs of families with children, elderly households, persons with disabilities,
the homeless and all other segments of the community.
Rehabilitated Historic Home
184
Draft June 2014 4-6
Policy Action 4-4.1: Encourage Development of Second Dwelling Units
The City understands that second dwelling units provide a viable tool to enhance the
availability of affordable housing opportunities in Saratoga. The City currently provides
policies and procedures for the development of second dwelling units within the Saratoga
Municipal Code. To ensure the City’s existing policies and procedures for second dwelling
units are effective in providing additional affordable housing opportunities, the City shall
review the existing Second Unit Ordinance and amend the Second Dwelling Unit standards
to eliminate the minimum square footage requirements and reduce the minimum lot size
for Second Dwelling Units to 90% or more of the standard lot size for the underlying zoning
district. The City will consider additional incentives including: a fee reduction, and
exemption of a portion of second unit floor area from lot coverage requirements. In
addition, the City shall create an informational brochure regarding Second Dwelling Units
to disseminate to the public.
Objective: Review/Revise Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Review Ordinance within one (1) year of adoption of the
Housing Element, and disseminate informational brochure
Policy Action 4-4.2: Zoning Code Amendment for Special Needs Housing
In April 2010 and pursuant to SB 2, the City adopted provisions within its Code for transitional
and supportive housing within the C-N(RHD) zone district. However, further direction since
that time by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
clarifies that SB 2 requires these uses be permitted in all zone districts where residential uses
are permitted. To address this deficiency, the City will amend the Code to identify
transitional and supportive housing as a permitted use in all residential and mixed use zones
subject to the same development standards as similar housing in these zones.
As part of the SB 2 Zoning Code amendments, the City also adopted provisions to allow
emergency shelters by right within the C-N(RHD) zone. However, development standards
for shelters were not defined in the Code at that time. As permitted under the provisions of
Government Code 65583, the City will establish written, objective development standards
for emergency shelters to regulate the following:
x The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the
facility.
x Off-street parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards
do not require more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or
commercial uses within the same zone.
x The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake
areas.
185
Draft June 2014 4-7
x The provision of onsite management.
x The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are
not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
x The length of stay.
x Lighting.
x Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
Having these standards in place will facilitate the permitting process.
Objective: Facilitate Permitting Process for Emergency Shelters, Transitional
and Supportive Housing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-4.3: Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
To comply with State law (SB 520), the City adopted written Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures (Municipal Code Section 15-80.025). The City will continue to analyze existing
land use controls, building codes, and permit and processing procedures to determine
constraints they impose on the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing
for persons with disabilities. The City will prepare an informational brochure and include
information on the City’s website to inform residents of the Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures.
Objective: Implement and Promote Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-4.4: Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with Disabilities
San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) is a community-based, private nonprofit corporation
serving individuals and their families who reside within Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara,
and Santa Cruz Counties. The SARC reports that 78 percent of their clients with
developmental disabilities live with a parent or guardian. As these parents age and
become frailer, their adult disabled children will require alternative housing options. The
SARC has identified several community-based housing types appropriate for persons living
with a developmental disability including licensed community care facilities and group
homes; supervised apartment settings with support services; and rent subsidized affordable
housing for persons able to live more independently. The City will coordinate with SARC to
implement an outreach program informing Saratoga families of housing and services and
available for persons with developmental disabilities, including making information
available on the City’s website.
186
Draft June 2014 4-8
Objective: Coordinate with the San Andreas Regional Center to
implement an outreach program for Saratoga families and
Provide information on the City’s website
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-4.5: Development of Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households
The City understands the need to encourage and facilitate housing development for
households earning 30 percent or less of the median family income. The City will encourage
development of housing for extremely-low income households through a variety of
activities that may include:
x outreach to housing developers,
x identifying grant and funding opportunities,
x offering additional incentives beyond the density bonus provisions, and/or
x a one-time ten percent (10%) increase in site coverage and allowable floor area
for second dwelling units deed restricted for below market rate households.
Objective: Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Explore activities to encourage development of housing for
extremely low-income households within one (1) year of
Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-4.6: Housing Opportunities for Persons Employed in Saratoga
The City shall explore opportunities to provide additional local housing options for the City’s
workforce, including rental housing for families. These opportunities could include
increasing public awareness of the City’s housing assistance programs and partnering with
West Valley College to explore student and faculty housing development.
Objective: Explore Opportunities to Encourage Additional Local Workforce
Housing through Community Partnerships
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption
187
Draft June 2014 4-9
Policy Action 4-4.78: Monitoring and Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing
The City shall continue to maintain a data base to provide for the regular monitoring of
deed-restricted units that have the potential of converting to market- rate during the
period. Additionally, the City will review funding opportunities for owners of these units to
extend and/or renew deed restrictions and/or covenants.
To proactively address the conversion of affordable units to market-rate units concern, the
City will investigate strategies to preserve the affordable units. The City shall ensure
compliance with noticing requirements and provide for tenant education when a notice
of conversion is received.
Objective: Monitor and Preserve 170 “At-Risk” Units (Fellowship Plaza
and Saratoga Court)
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing/Annual report of units; Preservation strategy within two
(2) years of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4.4-89: Support Preparation of a Countywide Nexus Study of Affordable
Housing Impact Fees
The City of Saratoga will work collaboratively with other Santa Clara County cities
towards preparation of a joint nexus study for the purpose of establishing an affordable
housing impact fee.
Objective: Coordinate with other Santa Clara County cities to prepare a
joint nexus study to establish an affordable housing impact fee
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption.
Policy Area 4-5: Coordinated Housing Efforts
The City of Saratoga has limited local resources to provide for housing and housing-
related activities. Therefore, to maximize use of limited local resources, the City strives to
build partnerships and coordinate housing efforts with outside agencies and
organizations.
Policy Action 4-5.1: Promote Fair Housing Efforts
The City currently disseminates fair housing information packets about Fair Housing
Regulations and refers discrimination complaints to the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair
Housing or to the County of Santa Clara County Office of Consumer Affairs. The City will
188
Draft June 2014 4-10
continue to participate in the County’s mediation program and will continue to support
these organizations which provide fair housing assistance including landlord/tenant
counseling, homebuyer assistance, and amelioration or removal of identified impediments.
Objective: Continue Support of Fair Housing Efforts
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Action 4-5.2: Develop a Comprehensive Community Outreach Strategy for Housing
To ensure the Saratoga community is provided the highest level of access to housing
information, the City shall evaluate the effectiveness of existing outreach and community
education efforts and develop a comprehensive outreach strategy. The outreach strategy
will consider various methods of delivery, including print media, mailers, web-based
information and other methods that consider the economic and cultural considerations in
Saratoga.
Objective: Comprehensive Housing Outreach Strategy
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Evaluate existing outreach by December 2015 Implement
outreach within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-5.3: Partnerships with Development Community
The City supports cooperation in the development of affordable housing through working
with local housing trust and non-profit agencies. The City will continue to cooperate with
developers to provide housing opportunities for lower income households; prioritize efforts
and resources to the identified sites for rezoning to promote a variety of housing types,
such as rental units that are, affordable to lower income households. The City shall also
evaluate the effectiveness of its partnerships with housing developers and seek ways to
expand and foster its partnerships as appropriate.
Objective: Partnerships with Housing Developers
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Evaluate partnerships within one (1) year of Housing Element
adoption; aAnnually, thereafter
Policy Action 4-5.4: Healthy Community
The City supports residential development that promotes healthy life styles (i.e. recreational
activities, encourages pedestrian and bicycle use and continued support of the Farmer’s
189
Draft June 2014 4-11
Market). In September 2012, the City adopted bicycle parking requirements for retail and
financial institutions within commercial districts (eExcept C-H District). The City should
continue to evaluate ways to promote healthy life styles.
Objective: Promote Healthy Lifestyles
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: Grants General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
190
Draft June 2014 4-12
2015-2023 Quantified Objectives
While Saratoga cannot control the amount of housing built during any specific time period,
the City intends to make a good faith effort to achieve housing production at a level
consistent with its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). The Quantified Objectives for
new construction will be the same as the RHNA. The Quantified Objectives for Housing
Rehabilitation and Preservation of At-Risk Rental Housing will be based on available
resources and past trends. Table 4-1 Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2015-2023
shows Saratoga’s objectives for new construction, housing rehabilitation and preservation
of at risk housing.
Table 4-1. Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2015-2023
Program Quantified Objective
New Construction
Extremely Low-Income1 74
Very Low-Income 147
Low Income 95
Moderate Income 104
Above Moderate Income 93
Total 4392
Housing Rehabilitation
Very Low-Income 0
Low Income 0
Moderate Income Not Applicable
Above Moderate Income 20
Total 20
Preservation of At-Risk Rental Housing
Very Low-Income 170
Low Income
Moderate Income 0
Above Moderate Income Not Applicable
Total 170
Notes: 1
1Extremely Low-Income assumed to be 50 percent of Very Low-Income allocation.
2Total does not include Extremely Low-Income
Source: County of Santa Clara Department of Planning & Development
191
Draft June 2014 4-13
The City’s Quantified Objective for New Construction will be met through a combination
of strategies. The total capacity within the Very Low Income and Low Income categories
accommodates up to 276 units, where 242 units is the Quantified Objective. These will be
addressed through:
x Opportunity Sites providing 183 173 units (Prospect Road sites)
x The by-right zoning for the affordable senior housing at the Fellowship Plaza
Retirement Community for 75 units
x Second Units providing 18 units (50% of 36 35 units)
The total sites capacity within the Moderate Income category accommodates up to 106
104 units, where 104 unitswhichunits, which is the Quantified Objective. These will be
addressed through:
x Opportunity Sites providing 88 87 units (Gateway + Village site)
x Second Units providing 18 17 units (50% of 36 units)
The total sites capacity within the Above Moderate Income category accommodates up
to 122 110 units where 93 units is the Quantified Objective. These will be addressed
through:
x Approved Projects providing 45 33 units
x Opportunity Sites (vacant parcels) providing 77 units
192
Draft June 2014 A-1
Appendix A: Community Outreach
A. Introduction
During 2014, the City of Saratoga conducted community outreach activities to ensure
the Housing Element update reflected the issues and opportunities identified by the
community. The workshops were advertised through flyers and notices on the City’s
website. In addition, the City invited stakeholder groups such as affordable housing
developers, professional and community organizations, housing advocacy groups and
supportive service providers to participate.
The following community workshops were advertised and open to the general public:
x January 21, 2014, Planning Commission Study Session, City Hall Conference Room
x February 25, 2014, Community Workshop #1, Saratoga Community Center
x March 11, 2014, Community Workshop #2, Saratoga Community Center
x March 25, 2014, Planning Commission Study Session, City Hall Conference Room
During the first Planning Commission Study Session, the Planning Commission and
community members were given an overview of the Housing Element update process,
the City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation, and affordability categories.
During the first Community Workshop, participants were provided a more in depth
overview of Housing Element law. Participants identified and discussed challenges,
opportunities and resources related to housing in Saratoga.
At the second Community Workshop, participants discussed potential opportunity sites
and strategies for providing affordable housing in Saratoga. Several opportunity sites
were identified from all of the potential sites discussed, and strategies to encourage
second unit development were seen as a favorable way to provide affordable units.
At the second Planning Commission Study Session, participants discussed the pros and
cons of the opportunity sites identified at the previous Community Workshop. Based on
this discussion the Planning Commission chose the opportunity sites that were
determined to be the most suitable.
Any future revisions to the draft Housing Element, including any revisions made to
respond to HCD’s review comments will be provided to the public on the City’s website.
Prior to the City Council’s adoption of the Housing Element, the document will be made
available for formal public review for a period of at least 30 days.
The following notes were taken during the January 21, 2014 Study Session, February 25, 2014
and March 11, 2014 Community Workshop and March 25 Planning Commission Study
Session.
193
Draft June 2014 A-2
Summary of 1-21-14 Planning Commission Study Session
Staff presented the General Plan Housing Element update to the Planning Commission
and community members. Staff discussed:
• City’s progress toward meeting the goals of the 2007-20104 Housing Element.
• Overview of the City’s new Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the
2015-2023 Housing Element update.
• City’s deadline to update the Housing Element by January 31, 2015.
• Proposed community meeting dates and public hearings.
• How the RHNA allocation is determined by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG).
• How RHNA is broken down by income categories of Extremely Low Income, Very
Low Income, Low Income, Moderate Income and Above Moderate Income.
• City must address allocation in all income categories.
• Income limits for households and families of various sizes.
• How many The number of housing units that must be provided within each income
category.
• How the City demonstrates that there is capacity to meet the RHNA on specific
sites with appropriate zoning.
• City must adopt policies and programs to facilitate preservation, improvement
and development of affordable housing.
• Achievements that have already been made toward planning for the City’s
RHNA.
194
Draft June 2014 A-3
Summary of 2-25-14 Community Workshop
Questions from Participants
1. What is “Housing Need”?
2. Do all of the city’s Regional Housing Need Allocations need to be built during the
time period?
3. What are the impacts of SB 375 and SB 2 on the city’s RHNA?
4. What are the impacts of not completing the Housing Element?
5. What is the timeframe for completion of the Housing Element?
6. What is the percent of low income housing in Saratoga?
7. Would owners of commercial properties identified for housing opportunities be
forced to sell their properties?
8. What percentage of the city’s RHNA will be for low income people?
9. Why is this growth forced on cities?
10. What is the financial impact on the City for all this new housing?
11. Why was the Prospect center chosen as a site for residential development in the
current housing element?
12. Does Saratoga have Section 8 housing?
13. Is there state funding available for affordable housing development?
Comments
1. The city needs to take a creative approach to providing affordable housing in
Saratoga.
2. The city should encourage more homeowners to provide second units.
3. The city should annex Saratoga Springs Park where low income people are
already living.
4. The city should find a way to get credit toward the RHNA for the many households
that have multiple generations living under one roof.
195
Draft June 2014 A-4
Summary of 3-11-14 Community Workshop
Questions from Participants
1. What is and an affordable unit? How much would it rent for? How much would it
sell for? What income would a person earn to be considered low-income? What
does affordable mean? Can we mandate rental vs. for-sale units?
2. What is a mixed use development? How much residential vs. how much
commercial development would be built?
3. How is the RHNA count is allocated? How does Plan Bay Area and the Sustainable
Community Strategy figure into the Housing Element update? How does SB1 and
SB33 factor into Housing Element update?
4. Will the City rezone large lot residential neighborhoods for smaller lots? What is the
reality that any of the sites identified will be developed during the time frame of
the Housing Element?
Comments
Not enough people are present tonight to make a decision on what sites should be
selected to accommodate housing.
Why aren’t property owners of these sites here tonight?
How will development impacts be addressed?
What is the maximum height a fire truck ladder can reach?
Why did 75 units recently get approved at the Odd Fellows property?
Potential Sites Discussed
Village
Meaningful development in the Village is limited by small lot sizes
Can City parking lots be used for podium style housing development?
Argonaut Center
Why use Argonaut shopping center (Safeway) as a site when there are only 2 grocery
stores in Saratoga?
Why not build a shopping center like the Safeway in Los Gatos with parking below and
housing above?
Safeway site is not near transit and would create too much traffic.
Properties that are in good shape with newer/viable commercial are harder to make
feasible as housing sites.
General consensus that Safeway was not a good site.
Quito Center
Can we convert Roku buildings into housing units?
Roku is doing very well and actually needs room to expand. It wouldn’t be suitable to
convert these buildings to housing, ; but the site would be viable for redevelopment with
mixed use.
196
Draft June 2014 A-5
The nNeighborhood is very concerned about traffic issues with new development.
Residential development creates less traffic than office development
Prospect Sites
Why limit the height at Prospect to just 35 feet & 3 stories? Because this is the highest limit
of any zone in the City.
How do these sites compare to development in adjacent San Jose sites? San Jose
standard in the area is 55 dwelling units/acre for residential development.
Let’s look at the triangular site at the intersections of Hamilton and Campbell Ave in San
Jose as an example of affordable housing. 4 stories over podium parking.
Abrams Site
What are zoning and height limits at Abrams site? 20 units/acre and 2 story/30 foot height
limit.
Mr. Abrams is holding on to the property and wants the site to be used for office
development.
Second Units
How do we keep track of how many 2nd units we have? Can we institute an Amnesty
program to try and get all unpermitted 2nd units permitted?
Prioritization of Sites
22 units at Saratoga Village Center
58 at Southwest Gateway sites
108 at Abrams site
Increase height and density at Prospect site to accommodate an additional 96 units
197
Draft June 2014 A-6
Summary of 3-25-14 Planning Commission Study Session
All Planning Commissioners were present at the meeting; and approximately 25
community members were in attendance.
CDD James Lindsay began the meeting giving a recap of the information that has been
shared to date about the Housing Element Update. He then discussed proposed
changes to the Second Unit ordinance to encourage greater development of 2nd units,
including eliminating the minimum square footage requirement for 2 nd units and
reductions to the minimum lot size required for 2nd units. (See attached Meeting Poster
notes with proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment language).
Mr. Lindsay further discussed proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to require a
minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-N(RHD) zone and allow for a building
height of three stories up to a maximum of 35 feet, with a corresponding General Plan
amendment.
Consultant Geoff Bradley discussed why planning in an allowance of additional housing
units as a buffer is recommended for this cycle of Saratoga’s Housing Element Update.
Mr. Lindsay summarized the following housing candidate sites where no rezoning would
be necessary:
Housing Candidate Sites:
Saratoga Village Center 22 units (@20 du/ac)
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 65 units (@15 du/ac)
Saratoga Avenue @ Cox 81 units (@15 du/ac)
Several comments were submitted to the City since the last community workshop
regarding traffic impacts from development of the Saratoga Avenue @ Cox site. Mr.
Lindsay presented different peak hour traffic comparisons to illustrate the differences in
trip generation of office and residential uses.
Saratoga Avenue @ Cox - Conceptual Peak Hour Traffic Comparisons:
100% Office 118,000 SF (25% FAR) 180± Trips
50% Office 59,000 SF 90± Trips
50% Residential 81 units (15 du/ac) 60± Trips
Combined 150± Trips
20% Office 23,000 SF 35± Trips
80% Residential 130 units 90± Trips
Combined 125± Trips
100% Residential 163 units 115± Trips
198
Draft June 2014 A-7
Several community members asked questions of the Planning Staff and consultants. The
following summarizes those questions and responses where appropriate:
1. Can we designate the Bellicitti properties on Quito and Allendale for additional
housing? – No, although they are already zoned for residential, they are both tied
up in long term Williamson Act contracts for continued agricultural use.
2. Our prior RHNA was only around 230 units, why did it double? – It is a calculation
prepared by ABAG, based on our “fair share” of the regions housing needs.
3. Why does the City need to be in compliance with State Law? – Primary reason is to
avoid lawsuits.
4. What are deed restricted units?- Units that have restrictions recorded on the title
requiring that they be rented or sold to lower and moderate income people.
5. Are lost revenues from conversion of commercial property factored into selection
of these sites for housing? -Generally not, due to the fact that these sites are
underutilized and not generating significant revenue for the City. Additionally,
since these units will likely be condominiums or townhomes, they have a higher
turnover rate, andthey could potentially generate more property taxes revenues
than other office uses.
6. Why can’t the City designate the Prospect site for 40 to 50 units per acre to satisfy
all the RHNA? – The site is proposed at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre
and could potentially be developed higher, but the City still needs to
accommodate moderate income people and families at lower densities.
The Planning Commission began the conversation of which sites they think would be the
best to accommodate the City’s housing needs. The Saratoga Village Center was
accepted as a Candidate Site. Several concerns were raised about both of the other
sites including; traffic, impacts to schools, loss of commercial sites, and impacts to
neighboring residents. The Planning Commission then opened the discussion back up to
the community to hear the pros and cons for each of the sites.
199
Draft June 2014 A-8
Saratoga Avenue@ Cox Site
Pros Cons
1. Plan for the site now vs. face
development pressures in the future
1. If it’s developed for housing it could
never be used as a park
2. Professional Office is not a high
demand land use
2. Traffic is terrible on Saratoga Avenue
because it is near the Hwy 85
interchange
3. Development pressure currently
exists
3. Site might be used for future lightrail
parking
4. The site can accommodate more
units than the Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road site
4. Identifying site for housing limits future
development, such as for a Roku
office expansion
5. Would have significant impact on
Quito neighborhood
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
Pros Cons
1. Site is underutilized 1. Lot consolidation is required
2. Site is not surrounded by single
family uses
2. Traffic
3. Loss of Commercially zoned land
The Planning Commission then discussed the pros and cons. and Tthe majority of the
Commissioners directed staff to identify the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road site and the
Saratoga Village Center as the two housing opportunity sites for the Housing Element.
200
Draft June 2014 A-9
Summary of 6-24-14 Planning Commission Study Session – Draft Housing Element Review
All Planning Commissioners were present at the meeting; and approximately 5
community members were in attendance.
The Planning Commission Chair, Mary Lynn Bernald gave an overview of Housing Element
law and Consultant Heather Bradley presented the Draft Housing Element. Community
members had the following questions which were answered by City Staff and the
Consultants.
1. Will residential uses displace commercial properties?
2. Do students in existing housing count as student housing?
3. Vacancy rates on page 218 do not add up.
4. The age of housing stock not relevant to Saratoga when properties are worth so
much.
5. Why should the city have to provide affordable housing when people cannot afford
to live here – people could move somewhere else to buy a house?
6. The City Council should contact state to object RHNA.
7. There are not enough people attending this meeting to decide the fate of the entire
city of Saratoga.
8. Was the potential for student housing at West Valley College reviewed?
9. There is a water shortage and there is not enough water for all these new homes
that are to be built.
10. Is highlighting underutilized sites cost driven?
11. How much of the new housing will really be affordable?
12. When do the new policies take affect?
1.13. Are we lowering our standards in this City?
201
Draft June 2014 B-1
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
A. Sites to Accommodate the 2014-2022 RHNA
State law requires each jurisdiction in California to demonstrate the availability of
adequate sites through appropriate zoning and development standards and the
availability of public services and facilities. These available sites must provide the
necessary policy and regulatory guidance to accommodate a variety of housing types
at a variety income levels. The City must demonstrate through policies and regulations
that the estimated capacity of adequate sites will be able to accommodate the
projected housing need for the 2015-2023 Planning Period.
The State Department of Finance (DOF) is responsible for projecting the total State-wide
housing demand, with the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) apportioning this demand to each of the State’s regional governing bodies. This
demand represents the number of additional units needed to accommodate the
anticipated growth in the number of households, to replace expected demolitions and
conversions of housing units to non-housing units, and to achieve a future vacancy rate
that allows for healthy functioning of the housing market.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), for determining and allocating the region’s projected new housing
demand to municipalities within the MPO’s jurisdiction. The allocation of projected
housing demand is divided into four income categories:
x Very Low-Income: 0 percent to 50 percent of the area median income;
x Low-Income: 51 percent to 80 percent of the area median income;
x Moderate-Income: 81 percent to 120 percent of the area median income; and
x Above Moderate-Income: more than 120 percent of the median income.
Pursuant to AB 2634 (Statutes of 2006), the City of Saratoga must also address the
projected housing need for Extremely Low-Income (ELI) households. ELI households are
defined as households earning less than 30 percent of the area’s median income. The
projected Extremely Low-Income need can be assumed as 50 percent of the total need
for Very Low-Income households.
Through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process, regional-level housing
growth needs are allocated to individual cities and counties comprising the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO). The allocation takes into account factors such as market
demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and
public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and others. In
determining a jurisdiction’s share of new housing needs by income category, the
allocation is adjusted to avoid an over-concentration of lower income households in any
one jurisdiction.
202
Draft June 2014 B-2
The current RHNA prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) allocates
housing needs for the period from January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2022. The RHNA identifies
439 units as the City of Saratoga’s share of the region’s housing for the 2015-2023 planning
period. This section documents the availability of sites for future development and the
adequacy of these sites to address Saratoga's regional housing needs. The City plans to
fulfill its share of regional housing needs through:
x Residential projects in process with occupancy post January 1, 2014;
x Vacant and underutilized sites currently zoned for residential and mixed use
development; and
x Second units.
1. Projects in Process
a. Approved Units
Several residential projects with development entitlements will contribute towards
addressing Saratoga's housing needs. Projects range in size from several small 2 to 3 unit
projects to a 12 unit condominium development, and will provide a total of 23 new units.
As indicated in Table B-1, all of these units are market rate and would thus be suitable for
Above Moderate Income households.
Table B-1. Approved Units
Table B-1
Approved Units
APN Address Total Net
Parcels
Affordability Category
403-24-008 13686 Quito Road 3 Above Moderate
503-25-013 14639 Big Basin Way 2 Above Moderate
397-27-029 20440 Arbeleche Lane 3 Above Moderate
503-25-015 14651 Big Basin Way 3 Above Moderate
386-30-037 & -038 12250 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road 12 Above Moderate
Total 23
Source: City of Saratoga
b. Approved Subdivisions
In addition to the projects with entitlements described above, as of March 2014, the City
has approved 10 new single family residential parcels which remain to be developed.
Given current market demand, the City anticipates applications for these units to be
approved and the units to be constructed within the RHNA 2015-2023 Housing Element
planning period. Table B-2 shows the locations of these pending units. These units would be
affordable to Above Moderate income households.
203
Draft June 2014 B-3
Table B-2. Approved Subdivisions
Table B-2
Approved Subdivisions
APN Address Total Net
Units
Affordability Category
503-10-006 22700 Mount Eden Road 2 Above Moderate
503-82-006 Paramount Drive 6 Above Moderate
510-06-005 19370 Saratoga Los Gatos Road 2 Above Moderate
Total 10
Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department
2. Sites Capacity to Meet Regional Share Goals
To enable the City of Saratoga to meet RHNA goals, the City must evaluate its
capacity to provide available sites to meet projected future housing needs.
Subtracting the 33 units in approved projects and subdivisions described above,
the City has a remaining RHNA need of 406 units. The City must demonstrate it
has or will make available adequate sites with appropriate zoning and
development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the
remaining RHNA need.
As presented in the following section, the City has identified sufficient vacant
and underutilized sites to accommodate its regional growth needs, and will
adopt supplemental zoning and development standards to specifically
encourage and facilitate housing for lower income households.
a. Vacant Land
Most of the vacant land in the City of Saratoga is located in hillside areas. Table B-3
summarizes the vacant land in the City currently zoned for residential use. It is assumed
the estimated capacity of 77 dwelling units would provide residential units suitable to
Above-Moderate Income households.
204
Draft June 2014 B-4
Table B-3. Vacant Land Inventory
Table B-3
Vacant Land Inventory
Land Use Category Zoning No. of
Parcels Acreage Average
Density
Projected
Dwelling
Units
Hillside Conservation Residential
(RHC) HR 31 160.6
1 du/parcel/
6 du/acre
min
411
Hillside Open Space (OS-H) HR 2 12.8 1 du/parcel 2
Medium Density Residential (M-
10) R-1-10,000 9 1.9 1 du/parcel 9
Medium Density Residential (M-
12.5) R-1-12,500 2 1.2 1 du/parcel 2
Medium Density Residential (M-
15) R-1-15,000 1 0.4 1 du/parcel 1
Low Density Residential (RLD) R-1-20,000 3 2.5 1 du/parcel 3
Very Low Density Residential
(RVLD) R-1-40,000 18 31.8 1 du/parcel 18
Total 66 283.9 77
1Density Based on City of Saratoga preliminary application review
Source: City of Saratoga
b. Prospect Road Candidate C-N(RHD) Sites for Mixed-Use Development
As part of the 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City identified six adjoining parcels located
on Prospect Road between Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway suitable for multi-
family development. These parcels were rezoned from Commercial Neighborhood (CN)
to Commercial Neighborhood Residential High Density C-N(RHD) during the 2007-2014
planning cycle to encourage mixed-use development with a minimum net density
standard of 20 du/ac, allowing units to be counted towards the City’s lower income site
requirement pursuant to the default densities specified under AB 2348. Mixed-use
development is permitted by right in the in the C-N(RHD) district.
The potential development capacity was planned at 87 dwelling units on the identified
underutilized sites utilizing the 20 du/ac density standard. The City has determined that
these parcels can accommodate additional development beyond 20 du/ac given the
density of existing development in the vicinity. Parcels in the City of San Jose border the
candidate sites on three sides. City of San Jose development regulations for this area
allow residential densities starting at 55 du/ac. To make this accommodation the City of
Saratoga will modify the existing C-N(RHD) ordinance to allow for increased height from
30 feet to 35 feet and increase the permitted number of stories from two to three in order
to allow mixed-use development with a residential density of at least 30 du/ac. There is
potential to develop 183 units on the sites utilizing the 30 du/ac density standard. Table B-
4 describes the realistic development capacity for each of the six parcels.
205
Draft June 2014 B-5
Table B-4. Prospect Road Candidate C-N(RHD) Sites
Table B-4
Prospect Road Candidate C-N(RHD) Sites
Parcel APN Existing Use
Description
Acres General
Plan
Zoning Existing
Square
Footage
Proposed
Density
(Minimum)
Capacity
(# of
units)
Notes
1 386-10-
043
Retail,
Restaurant,
Personal
Services
2.27 CR CN(RHD) 23,021 30 du/ac 68
Potential for
lot
consolidation
2 386-10-
004 Personal
Services 1.00 CR CN(RHD) 9,357 30 du/ac 30
3 386-10-
055 Personal
Services 0.29 CR CN(RHD) 5,147 30 du/ac 8
4 386-10-
056 Office 0.70 CR CN(RHD) 3,081 30 du/ac 21
5 386-10-
006 Retail 0.93 CR CN(RHD) 11,381 30 du/ac 28
6 386-10-
007
Retail, Personal
Services,
Office
0.93 CR CN(RHD) 14,527 30 du/ac 28
Sub-Total 6.12 Sub-Total 183
Acreage reduction for
potential accommodation of
emergency shelter
0.3 Total
173
Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department
Exhibit B-1 on the following page shows the location of the Prospect Road sites, as well as
Saratoga Village and Gateway candidate sites described later in this chapter.
206
Draft June 2014 B-6
Exhibit B-1. Housing Opportunity Sites
207
Draft June 2014 B-7
Prospect Road Sites Realistic Capacity
Existing uses within the six underutilized parcels consist of single-story retail, fast food
restaurant and carwash uses surrounded by parking. The uses are located in older single
story structures built between the 1960s and 1980’s. The structures are characterized by
outdated architectural styles consisting of flat roofs with interior court parking offering
limited retail exposure.
These sites are well-suited for higher density residential development. The parcels are
located along a major transportation corridor and easily accessed by bus transit with
proximity to an expressway. Across from these parcels is a grocery store, retail mall and
high school. The parcels contain adequate infrastructure to support residential
development and no environmental constraints have been identified with the potential
to limit residential development.
The six parcels are located near higher
density developments in the neighboring City
of San Jose. These projects illustrate the
development trends occurring in the area.
The City of Saratoga adopted ordinance
amendments to permit mixed-use with high
density residential on these six cCandidate
Ssites under the new C-N(RHD) zoning district
(15-19.035). The minimum residential density is
20 units per net acre conforming to the
design standards of the Mixed-Use ordinance
(15-58). This C-N(RHD) district also
accommodates emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing for
homeless individuals and families. To further encourage development of mixed-use high
density housing in Saratoga, this Housing Element update includes policy actions that
amend the existing zoning standards for these parcels to allow for increased densities at
a minimum of 30 dwelling units per net acre with height allowance increases of three
stories and 35 feet. This Housing Element update continues to include policy actions to
support partnerships with the development community to provide housing opportunities
for lower income households; and encourage lot consolidation of smaller parcels.
Consistent with SB 2, the City has adopted provisions for Emergency Shelters within the C-
N(RHD) zoning district. In order to reserve C-N(RHD) acreage for potential emergency
shelter use, the City has reduced the total acreage on these six parcels available for
mixed use development by 0.3 acres and reduced the corresponding unit potential by
ten units. The City has determined that there is a potential capacity of 173 dwelling units
on these parcels given the following considerations:
x Site size,
x Accommodation of ground floor commercial uses fronting the street,
x Recent development trends occurring in the area,
x Availability of adequate infrastructure and services,
x Acreage reduction for emergency shelters, and
Existing development at the Prospect Road Site
208
Draft June 2014 B-8
x Ordinance amendments to require a minimum net density of 30 du/ac .
c. Saratoga Village Center Candidate Sites for Mixed-Use Development
The City has identified two adjoining parcels with potential for residential development on
Big Basin Way (known as the historic Saratoga Village). These parcels are located between
Highway 9 and Third Street, and are zoned Commercial Historic District 1 (CH-1). Mixed-use
development is a conditionally permitted use in this zone. The potential redevelopment
capacity for these parcels was determined through an evaluation of the longstanding
retail vacancies at the site, past development interest in the site and existing capacity
under current zoning regulations. The site can accommodate 22 units at a density of 20
dwelling units per net acre with a mix of commercial uses. Table B-5 describes the realistic
development capacity for each of the three parcels that make up the site. Exhibit B-1
shows the location of the three parcels.
Table B-5. Village Sites Inventory
Table B-5
Village Sites Inventory
Parcel APN Existing Use
Description
Acres General
Plan
Zoning Existing
Square
Footage
Proposed
Density
(Min.)
Capacity
(#of units)
Notes
1 517-09-015 Retail,
Personal
Service
1.04 CR CH-1 15,914 20 du/ac 21 Lots under
same
ownership
2 517-09-047 Personal
Service
.08 CR CH-1 3,400 20 du/ac 1
Total 1.12 Total 22
Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department
Saratoga Village Center Sites Realistic Capacity
Existing uses within the two underutilized parcels consist of retail and service uses setback
from the street and surrounded by parking. The uses are located in single story structures
built in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The structures have been predominately vacant for a number
of years following the discontinued operation of a small grocery market. The shopping
center is characterized by outdated ranch style architecture and building orientation that
provides limited retail exposure. The large surface parking lot in the front of the property is
inconsistent with the development pattern and character of the Village along Big Basin
Way.
209
Draft June 2014 B-9
The City reviewed an application for mixed-use
development on the site in 2009 that included
25 residential units and 21,571 square feet of
commercial space. For economic reasons the
development was not pursued at that time.,
Hhowever, the City has determined that the
current market conditions and the site’s prime
location near the gateway of the downtown
make the site well suited for increased
commercial density mixed with medium density
residential development.
The City had determined that the Saratoga Village Center sites are suitable for
development of 22 units. The sites are located in close proximity to other multi-family
development, bus transit and Highway 9.
d. Saratoga Gateway Candidate Sites for Mixed-Use Development
The City has identified four adjoining parcels with potential for residential development on
Saratoga Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (known as the Gateway Area). These parcels are
located on the east west side of Saratoga Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to the north of the
Southern Pacific Railroad line, and are zoned Commercial Visitor (C-V). Mixed-use
development is a conditionally permitted use in this zone. The City has determined the
potential redevelopment capacity for these parcels based on the underutilized nature of
the site, past and current development trends in the vicinity , and existing capacity under
current zoning regulations. The site can accommodate 65 units at a density of 15 dwelling
units per acre with a mix of commercial uses. The unit potential was determined through
an evaluation of the site’s proximity to a moderate density housing development located
adjacent to the site, and the development trend within the City’s Gateway Area of housing
units located behind a new commercial building. Table B-6 describes the realistic
development capacity for each of the four parcels that make up the site. Exhibit B-1 shows
the location of the four parcels.
Existing development at Saratoga Village Center
210
Draft June 2014 B-10
Table B-6. Gateway Sites Inventory
Table B-6
Gateway Sites Inventory
Parce
l
APN Existing Use
Description
Acres
(net)
General
Plan
Zoning Existing
Square
Footage
Proposed
Density
Capacity
(#of
units)2
Notes
1 366-
12-
072
Mini
Storage
3.221 CR CV 104,526 15 du/ac 36 Potential
for lot
console-
dation 2 366-
12-
054
Retail 1.02 CR CV 12,330 15 du/ac 11
3 366-
12-
065
Funeral
Home
1.03 CR CV 11,288 15 du/ac 11
4 366-
12-
066
Retail .58 CR CV 5,870 15 du/ac 7
Total Total 65
1Includes deduction for 25’ creek bank setback
2 Includes deduction of land area for horizontal mixed use
Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department
Gateway Sites Realistic Capacity
Existing development on the four underutilized parcels consists of retail and service uses
setback from the street and surrounded by parking. The buildings are all single story
structures built in the late 1960’s and the mid 1980’s. The structures on the sites contain: a
public storage business, a funeral home, and various service and retail businesses. The
center is characterized by outdated ranch style architecture and building orientation and
setbacks that provides limited retail exposure.
The City has determined that the
market conditions and the site’s
location near similarly approved mixed-
use development on Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road in the
Gateway Area make the site suitable
for higher density residential and
commercial mixed-use development.
The site is located on a major
transportation corridor that is easily
accessed by bus transit. Therefore, the
City has determined that these 65 units
to be affordable to moderate income households.
Existing development at Gateway Site
211
Draft June 2014 B-11
e. Fellowship Plaza
The City has identified Fellowship Plaza as
having the greatest potential to
accommodate the RHNA need for Very Low
and Low Income households. The retirement
community is currently comprised of 150
independent living apartments for seniors.
The Conditional Use Permit for Fellowship
Plaza allows for the development of a
minimum of 75 additional units affordable to
Very Low- and Low-Income households
located within a 10.5 acre parcel. The
Conditional Use Permit specifies that
development of these units is by-right without
discretionary action beyond Design Review at a minimum of 20 du/ac.
Table B-7. Fellowship Plaza Retirement Community
Table B-7
Fellowship Plaza Retirement
Community
APN Address Existing Use Acres General
Plan
Zoning
397-12-016 14500 Fruitvale Ave. Fellowship
Plaza
10.53 CFS R-1 – 40,000
Source: City of Saratoga
f. Second Unit Potential
City records show that a total of 65 Second Dwelling Units were constructed between 2001
and 2014, with 22 approved during the most recent 2007-20174 planning period (Table 2-
20). The City anticipates that demand for future Second Dwelling Unit permits will increase
with modifications to the City’s Second Unit Ordinance through adoption of the 2015-2023
Housing Element. Ordinance modifications will include elimination of the minimum unit size
and reductions to the requirements for minimum lot size. To further encourage second unit
development, the City will prepare an informational brochure as part of an overall
program to encourage second unit development. Taking into consideration the strong
support for second units expressed at the Housing Element community workshops, and past
construction achievements, the City anticipates receiving applications for an average of
4 to 5 second units per year. The City’s goal is to of achieve 35 Second Dwelling Units over
the course of the eight year planning period.
Fellowship Plaza
212
Draft June 2014 B-12
A survey (Craigslist May 9, 2014 & May 20, 2014) of second unit rentals in Saratoga and
surrounding cities showed rents ranging from $850 to $2,000, with a median rent for a 1
bedroom of $1,600 and $1,360 for a studio. These rents are in the range of Very Low to
Moderate affordability for Santa Clara County. Based on feedback from owners of second
units, city staff understands that a large percentage of second units are occupied rent free
by family members or domestic workers. While tThe city does not maintain records on rents
for second units other than deed restricted units. Surveys done in San Mateo County for the
nearby cities of Woodside, Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, and Hillsborough indicate that
between 62 and 74 percent of all second units are available to Very Low or Extremely Low
households. These cities are demographically similar to Saratoga. In Saratoga, the majority
of recently constructed second units have utilized the floor area and site coverage bonus
provisions which requires that the unit be deed restricted for rent to below market rate
households. During the 2007-2014 Housing Element Cycle, the city issued permits for 18
second units, 13 of which were deed restricted second units. The City estimates that the
deed restricted units would be available for Low income households and the non-deed
restricted units would be available for Moderate income households.
3. Sites Summary
State Housing Element Law requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land
suitable for residential development, including vacant sites, and sites having the potential
for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning , and public facilities, and
services to these sites. The inventory of land suitable for residential development must be
used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period. In terms
of evaluating the adequacy of these sites to address the affordability targets established
by the RHNA, State Housing Element law provides for the use of “default densities” to assess
affordability. Based on its population, Saratoga falls within the default density of 20
units/acre for providing sites affordable to Vvery lLow- and lLow-Iincome households. For
mModerate-Iincome households, a threshold of 12 units/acre is used to reflect a
reasonable density for achieving moderate income development.
Table B-8 summarizes the City of Saratoga’s capacity to meet RHNA goals.
213
Draft June 2014 B-13
Table B-8. Sites Summary
Table B-8
Sites Summary
Very Low-
Income1
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Total
2014-2022 RHNA Need 147 95 104 93 439
Approved Units/
Subdivisions
0 0 0 33 33
Vacant Land Capacity 0 0 0 77 77
C-N(RHD) Candidate
Sites
173 0 0 173
Saratoga Village Center
Sites
0 22 0 22
Saratoga Gateway
Sites
65 65
Fellowship Plaza
Retirement
Community
75 0 0 75
Second Unit Potential 3518 17 35
TOTAL Unit Potential 283 87 110 480
1The Extremely Low-Income need is assumed to be 50 percent of the Very Low-Income allocation = 73 units.
Source: City of Saratoga
B. Assisted Units “At-Risk” of Conversion
The State Housing Element Law requires jurisdictions to analyze government-assisted
housing that is eligible for conversion from lower income to market rate housing over the
next 10 years. State Law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage
subsidy, or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government
assisted housing converts to market rate housing for a number of reasons including
expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions .
This section will address:
x An inventory of assisted housing units that are “at-risk” of converting
to market rate housing;
x An analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing these units;
x Resources that could be used to preserve “at-risk” units;
x Program efforts for preservation of at-risk housing units; and
x Quantified objectives for the number of “at-risk” units to be
preserved during the Housing Element Planning Period.
214
Draft June 2014 B-14
1. Inventory of At-Risk Units
As presented in Table B-9 below, Saratoga has two rent-restricted affordable housing
projects within its jurisdiction. Fellowship Plaza, owned by the not-for-profit California Odd
Fellows Foundation, provides 150 apartments for very low income seniors. Saratoga Court
Senior Apartments was acquired in 1982 by the non-profit Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
(Mid-Pen) and provides 20 very low income independent living units for seniors; the City of
Saratoga provided Mid-Pen with $274,000 in CDBG funds to assist in the acquisition.
Both of these projects are considered
potentially at-risk of conversion during the
ensuing ten years due to expiring use restrictions
and Section 8 contracts subject to periodic
renewals. However, both projects are owned
and managed by non-profit organizations that
have a public purpose to develop and
maintain affordable housing for low income
and special needs populations; and are thus
considered at low risk of conversion.
Table B-9. Publicly Assisted Rental Housing
Table B-9
Publicly Assisted Rental Housing
Project/ Name/
Address
Housing
Type # Units Owner Name
Deed
Restriction
Source
Potential
Conversion
Date
Fellowship Plaza
14520 Fruitvale
Ave.
Senior 150
Odd Fellows
Foundation
(Non-profit)
Sec 202
Sec 8 contract
3/2020
3/2014
Saratoga Court
18855 Cox Ave. Senior 20 Mid-Peninsula Housing
(Non-profit)
Sec 8 NC,
CDBG
Sec 8 contract
1/2019
2/2018
Source: California Housing Partnership, March 2014
2. Preservation and Replacement Costs
As both at-risk projects in Saratoga are already owned by non-profit entities, their
conversion to market rate rents rentals is highly unlikely. Nonetheless, as the HUD Section 8
contracts and/or capital subsidies have the potential to expire within the next ten years,
for purposes of the Housing Element, these projects are technically considered at potential
risk of conversion.
Preservation or replacement of Saratoga's at-risk projects can be achieved in two primary
ways: 1) provision of rental assistance using other sources of funds; or 2) replacement or
Saratoga Court Complex
215
Draft June 2014 B-15
development of new affordable rental units. These options are discussed below, along with
a general cost estimate for each.
a. Rental Assistance
The long-term availability of funding at the federal level for Section 8 contract renewal is
uncertain. If terminated, rent subsidies using alternative State or local funding sources
could be used to maintain affordability. Subsides could be structured similar to the Section
8 program, whereby HUD pays the owners the difference between what tenants can
afford to pay (30% household income) and what HUD establishes as the Fair Market Rent
(FMR).
The feasibility of this alternative, in the case of the property owners, depends on their
willingness to continue to accept rental vouchers and limit rents to fair market levels. Non-
profit owners are more likely to be willing to accept other rent subsidies, while for-profit
owners will compare the negotiated rents to market rents.
As depicted in Table B-10, the cost of providing rent subsidies to all 170 at-risk units in
Saratoga (the difference between HUD Fair market Rents and maximum affordable rents
for very low income households) is generally estimated at $516,000 per year, translating to
roughly $10 million in subsidies over a 20-year period.
Table B-10. Annual Rent Subsidies Required to Preserve At-risk units
Table B-10
Annual Rent Subsidies Required to Preserve At-Risk Units
Number of
Bedrooms
Number
of Units
2013
Voucher
Payment
Standard
Hhld
Household
Size
Hhld
Household
Income
(50%AMI)
Maximum.
Affordable
Rent
Per Unit
Subsidy
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Subsidy
1 bdrm 170 $1,315 2 person $42,450 $1,061 $253 $43,000 $516,000
Source: Santa Clara Housing Authority 2013 Voucher Payment Standards; State HCD 2013 Income Limits. Table
calculated by Karen Warner Associates, Inc.
b. Replacement Cost
Saratoga may consider the cost of unit replacement with new construction. Construction
cost estimates include per unit land costs and all hard and soft costs associated with
construction. The analysis assumes the replacement units are garden-style apartments
with parking provided on-site, with an average construction cost of $150 per square foot;
podium style development is typically twice the cost. Square footage estimates are
based on the average unit size per the prevailing sales in the region. Land costs have
been estimated based on a handful of multi-family property sales in Saratoga over the
past several years, which average $100 per square foot.
216
Draft June 2014 B-16
Table B-11. Replacement Costs of At-Risk Units
Table B-11
Replacement Costs of At-Risk
Units
Unit Size Costs per Square
Foot
Average Square
Foot/Unit
Replacement Cost
per Unit
Replacement Cost
for 170 At-Risk Units
1 bedroom $250 775 $194,000 $33 million
Notes:
1Based on the prevailing market conditions. Units assumed as garden-style apartments with on-site parking.
2Based on average square footage reported by RealFacts.
3 Assumes $150 per square foot construction costs and $100 per square foot multi-family land costs.
c. Cost Comparison
Given their non-profit ownership, it is highly unlikely that either of the two “at risk” projects
will convert to market-uses. Nevertheless, the above analysis attempts to estimate the cost
of preserving the at-risk units under various options. The annual costs of providing rental
subsidies required to preserve the 170 assisted units is relatively low at $516,000. However,
long-term affordability of the units cannot be ensured in this manner, unless it was
structured as a one-time rent buy-down. The option of acquiring or developing 170
replacement units is very costly at an estimated $33 million and constrained by a variety of
factors, including limited purchase opportunities of large multi-family properties and the
scarcity of land for new development. The best option to preserve the at-risk units thus
appears to be the purchase of affordability covenants through a one-time rent buy-down.
3. Resources for Preservation
A variety of programs exist to assist cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable
housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available to the City of
Saratoga.
i. Federal Programs
x HOME Investment Partnership – HOME funds are granted by formula basis
from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable
housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include new
construction, acquisition, rental assistance and rehabilitation.
x Section 8 Rental Assistance Program – The Section 8 Rental Assistance
program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market
rate units on behalf of very low-income tenants.
x Section 811/202 Program (Supportive Housing for Person with
Disabilities/Elderly) – Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no
217
Draft June 2014 B-17
interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the
construction of very low-income rental housing for seniors and persons with
disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which
can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and
immediate care facilities. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation,
new construction and rental assistance.
ii. State Programs
x California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs – CalFHA’s
Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, and preservation or new construction of rental housing that
includes affordable rents for low- and moderate- income families and
individuals. One of the programs is the Acquisition Finance Program, which is
designed to facilitate the acquisition of at-risk affordable housing
developments and provide low cost funding to preserve affordability.
x Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) – This program provides tax credits to
individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Tax
credits are sold to those with high liability and proceeds are used to create
housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation and
acquisition of properties.
x California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) – The California
Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multi-family affordable housing
lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for
low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating
private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of
affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation
and acquisition of properties.
iii. Local Programs
x Monitoring At-Risk Units – Through the Community Development
Department, the City continually monitors the eligibility of affordable
housing to convert to market-rate housing. Constant monitoring allows the
City to anticipate the timeframe by which affordability covenants would
expire, allowing the City to implement various resources to ensure the
continued affordability of the housing units.
iv. Qualified Entities
The following lists qualified entities who are interested in purchasing government-
subsidized multi-family projects within Santa Clara County.
x Affordable Housing Foundation
218
Draft June 2014 B-18
x BRIDGE Housing Corporation
x Cambrian Center, Inc.
x Charities Housing Development Corporation
x Christian Church Homes of Northern California, Inc.
x Community Home Builders and Associates
x Community Housing Developers, Inc.
x Matinah Salaam
x Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
x Palo Alto Housing Corporation
x Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc.
x Satellite Housing, Inc.
x South County Housing, Inc.
a. Quantified Objectives
Housing Element law requires that cities establish the maximum number of units that can
be preserved over the planning period. Two assisted projects with a total of 170 units are
at-risk of converting to market-rate housing within the planning period. Should either of
these properties lost lose their current funding subsidies and be at real risk of conversion,
the City of Saratoga will explore appropriate funding opportunities to assist in their
preservation.
219
Draft June 2014 B-19
This page intentionally left blank
220
Draft June 2014 C-1
Appendix C: Past Performance
Table C-1. Evaluation of 2007-2014 Housing Element Past Performance
Table C-1
Evaluation of 2007 - 2014 Housing Element Past Performance
Goal 1: To Accommodate the City's Fair Share of the Bay Area Regional Housing Need
Allocation for All Income Groups.
Objective: To designate sufficient vacant land and/or sites with re-use potential to
accommodate the City's allocation under the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND)
adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The RHND allocation for Saratoga
between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2014 is as follows:
Program 1.1: Zoning Code Changes for Mixed-Use Overlay
Program Activity
To further encourage mixed-use development, the City shall amend
the Mixed-Use Overlay D istrict standards:
x To allow both rental and owner occupied residential
development
x To remove the 50 percent limit on residential floor area
x To remove the 1,250 square foot maximum on new dwelling
units
Progress in
ImplementationLevel
of Achievement
The City’s Zoning Ordinance was revised on April 21, 2010 and
achieved the following:
x Allowed both rental and owner occupied residential
development
x Removed the 50 percent limit on residential floor area
x Removed the 1,250 square foot maximum on new dwelling
units
As a result, five residential units in mixed-use projects were permitted in
the Saratoga Village during this period.
Program 1.2: Amend Fellowship Plaza Retirement Community Use Permit
Program Activity
To accommodate at least 50 percent of the city’s lower-income need
(75 units), the City shall amend the Fellowship Plaza Retirement
Community Conditional Use Permit to allow the by-right development
without discretionary action at a minimum of 75 renter and/or owner
occupied units and 20 dwelling units per acre affordable to very low-
and low income households.
Level of
Achievement
The Planning Commission amended the Fellowship Plaza Conditional
Use Permit in November 2013. The City anticipates receiving a
development application during the 2014-2022 planning cycle.
221
Draft June 2014 C-2
Program 1.3: Provide for Adequate Sites for Housing Development
Program Activity
The City shall establish a new mixed-use zoning district
permitting rental and owner-occupied multifamily residential
development as a matter or right with a minimum density
standard of 20 DUdu/ac. The very low- and low-income
housing need shall be accommodated on sites with densities
and development standards that permit at least 16
dwe lling units per site and do not unduly constrain the
development of multi-family h o u s i n g .
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted Ordinance 277 on April 7, 2010
creating the new Mixed-Use Zoning District.
Program Activity The new M ixed-Use Z oning District shall encompass a
minimum of 3.75 acres to accommodate the remaining 50
percent of the City’s lower income need (75 units).
Level of Achievement
A 3.75 acre area on Prospect Road near Lawrence Expressway
was re-zoned C-N(RHD) to allow multi-family development by-
right at a minimum standard of 20 dwelling units per acre. To
further encourage multi-family residential development, the
2015-2023 Housing Element update includes a policy program to
increase the minimum density to 30 du/ac and increase the
height limit from 30 to 35 feet.
Goal 2: Encourage the Construction of Housing Affordable to Lower- and Moderate-
Income Household and Increase Affordable Housing Options.
Objective: To increase the supply of affordable housing and housing options in Saratoga
to house additional households and families earning less than 80% of the Santa Clara
County median income.
Program 2.1: Density Bonuses and Affordable Requirement for Very Low- and Low-
Income Housing
Program Activity Continue implementation of the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Level of Achievement
The City’s Community Development Department continues to
implement Article 15-81 (Housing Density Bonus) of the City’s
Municipal Code.
222
Draft June 2014 C-3
Program 2.2: Encourage Efficient Use of Energy Resources in Residential Development
Program Activity
The City shall encourage housing developers to maximize energy
conservation through proactive site, building, and building
systems design, materials, and equipment. The City encourages
the development community to exceed the provisions of Title 24
of the California Building Code. The City shall encourage the use
of Energy Star®- rated appliances, other energy-saving
technologies and conservation. To enhance the efficient use of
energy resources, the City shall review the potential of offering
incentives or other strategies that encourage energy
Level of Achievement
In September 2013, the City Council approved a waiver of the
Energy Calculation Review fee for all deed restricted affordable
housing units that meet CalGreen requirements. Twelve deed
restricted units were permitted.
Program 2.3: Encourage Green Building Practices in Home Construction
Program Activity
The City understands the importance of sustainable use of
limited resources and encourages the use of “green building”
practices in new and existing housing. The City’s Design Review
process requires that new and existing residential home
construction projects include a completed GreenPoint Rated
Checklist. The GreenPoint Rated Checklist tracks green features
Level of Achievement The City requires compliance with Green Building standards.
Information on green building and energy conservation is
available on the City’s website.
Program 2.4: Encourage and Facilitate Lot Consolidation
Program Activity
The City will encourage and facilitate the consolidation of the
identified candidate sites through a variety of incentives,
including but not limited to: financial incentives such as CDBG
funds, land write-downs, assistance with on- or off-site
infrastructure costs, and other pre-development costs
associated with the assemblage of multiple parcels.
Consolidation will provide the opportunity to develop these
underutilized lots to their fullest potential. The City will evaluate
the appropriateness of a variety of incentives and provide this
information to the developers and other interested parties
Level of Achievement
The City Council on September 4, 2013 approved a waiver of the
application costs associated with lot mergers, in an amount not
to exceed $5,000 for projects that provide a minimum of 20
percent deed restricted units affordable to low and very-low
income households.
223
Draft June 2014 C-4
Program 2.5: Review In-Lieu Park Facilities Fee for Affordable Housing Development
Program Activity
To ensure that the existing in-lieu park facilities fee is not a
constraint on the development of affordable housing, the City
shall review the fee and revise, as appropriate. If the City does
not revise the fee, alternative strategies will be considered to
address any potential future constraints to the development of
housing.
Level of Achievement
The City Council on September 4, 2013 approved a waiver of the
park-in-lieu fee for all new deed restricted units affordable to low
and very-low income seniors.
Program 2.6: Review Multi-Family Parking Requirement for Affordable Housing
Development
Program Activity
To ensure that the existing multi-family parking requirement is
not a constraint to the development of affordable housing, the
City shall review the requirement and revise, as appropriate. If
the City does not revise the requirement, alternative strategies
will be considered to address any potential future constraints to
the development of housing.
Level of Achievement
The City Council adopted Ordinance 307 on October 16, 2013
that decreased parking requirements for senior and student
housing projects.
Program 2.7: Development of Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households
Program Activity
The City understands the need to encourage and facilitate
housing development for households earning 30 percent or less
of the median family income. The City will encourage
development of housing for extremely-low income households
through a variety of activities that may include outreaching to
housing developers, identifying grant and funding opportunities,
and/or offering additional incentives beyond the density bonus
provisions.
Level of Achievement
Second dwelling units are a source of housing for low income
households. and t The City encourages their development by
providing a 10 percent increase in floor and lot coverage if the
units are deed restricted, thereby limiting their rental to below
market rate. Thirteen deed restricted units and five non-deed
restricted units were permitted during this period.
224
Draft June 2014 C-5
Program 2.8: Housing Opportunities for Persons Employed in Saratoga
Program Activity
The City shall explore opportunities to provide additional local
housing options for the City’s workforce, including rental housing
for families. These opportunities could include increasing public
awareness of the City’s housing assistance programs and
partnering with local universities to explore student and
faculty housing development.
Level of Achievement
The City has contacted the West Valley College administration
and expressed the City’s willingness to assist West Valley College
in the exploration of opportunities to develop housing for both
students and faculty.
Goal 3: Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
Objective: To eliminate substandard housing conditions in Saratoga through financial
assistance to low-income homeowners who are unable to properly maintain or repair
their homes.
Program 3.1: Saratoga Housing Rehabilitation and Assistance Program
Program Activity
Subject to available CDBG funds, the City will continue to
provide funds to the County of Santa Clara’s office of Affordable
Housing for the Housing Rehabilitation Program. The City shall
continue to refer interested residents to the County program.
Level of Achievement CDBG funds are no longer available from the County for this
program. However, in 2008 a $100,000 grant was made to a
household in Saratoga under this program.
Program 3.2: Code Enforcement
Program Activity
The City has a high level of quality housing. In order to
maintain the housing quality, the City will provide information
about rehabilitation programs on an individual basis, as needed.
Level of Achievement
CDBG funds are no longer available from the County for this
program. The City continues to perform code enforcement,
however, no home repair funds for lower income residents were
available.
225
Draft June 2014 C-6
Goal 4: Promote Design and Livability
Objective: Saratoga has unique, long-established neighborhoods that contribute to
community character and guide development within the City. Community design is
important in order to ensure quality design of new developments and to enhance the
aesthetic qualities of the City.
Program 4.1: Maintain Community Design
Program Activity
To ensure quality design of new housing units and modifications
to existing housing units, the City will review and revise the
General Plan or Zoning Code and enforce the design guidelines
and update as needed to provide aesthetic direction for future
residential development, as needed.
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted an update to the Single-Family Design
Guideline in February 2014.
Program 4.2: Encourage Mixed-use Development in Saratoga Village
Program Activity
The City shall evaluate the appropriateness of revisions to the
Zoning Code to further encourage rental and/or owner-
occupied residential development in the Saratoga Village.
Amendments and modifications to the existing Zoning Code
may include mixed-use development standards, infill
development standards, and adaptive reuse, live/work and
multi-family development standards.
Level of Achievement
The City Council adopted Ordinance 277 on April 7, 2010 for
Mixed-Use development standards. As a result, five residential
units in mixed-use projects in the Saratoga Village were
permitted during this period.
Program 4.3: Preserve the Saratoga Village
Program Activity
The City understands the importance of conserving the
community’s historic downtown district, “Saratoga Village”, to
preserve the City’s commercial resources and provide
opportunities for mixed-use development. The City shall continue
to implement design criteria in the Saratoga Village to preserve
the area’s character and to enhance the aesthetic qualities of
new residential and commercial developments.
Level of Achievement
The Community Development Department continues to
distribute copies of the Village Design Guidelines and these
guidelines are implemented during the review of all
developments in the Saratoga Village.
226
Draft June 2014 C-7
Goal 5: Access to Housing Opportunities
Objective: The City promotes the practice of providing equal housing opportunities
for all persons. Housing should be available for all persons regardless of income,
family status, presence of a disability, age, race, sex, national origin, or color. The
City encourages the provision of housing to meet needs of families with children,
elderly households, persons with disabilities, the homeless and all other segments of
Program 5.1: Encourage Development of Second Dwelling Units
Program Activity
To ensure the City’s existing policies and procedures for
second dwelling units are effective in providing additional
affordable housing opportunities, the City shall review the
existing Second Unit Ordinance and identify revisions, as
appropriate, to further encourage the development of second
dwelling units.
Level of Achievement
The Community Development Department reviewed Article 15-
56 (Second Dwelling Units) of the City’s Municipal Code and has
decided that comprehensive revisions would occur during the
2015-2023 Housing Element Update. Eighteen units were added,
with thirteen of these being deed restricted during this period.
Program 5.2: Senior Housing and Affordable Senior Housing
Program Activity
The City recognizes the unique needs of its elderly residents.
Seniors may have fixed incomes and need unique housing
features that are not typically included in market rate housing.
The City shall encourage, through incentives (e.g. parking
reductions, etc.), the development of senior housing that offers
a wide range of housing choices, for both affordable and
market rate, from independent living to assisted living with
services on-site, including healthcare, nutrition, transportation,
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted Ordinance 307 on October 16, 2013
that decreased parking requirements for senior housing projects.
227
Draft June 2014 C-8
Program 5.3: Compliance with SB 2 (Sections 65582, 65583, and 65589.5 of the Government
Code)
Program Activity
Pursuant to the provisions of SB 2, the City shall analyze and
revise the existing Zoning Code to allow for emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and supportive housing for homeless
individuals and families. The City will comply with SB 2 by:
x Amending the zoning code to provide sufficient
capacity to accommodate emergency shelters to
meet the identified local homeless need, pursuant to
SB 2. The City will consider and analyze the
commercial (C-N, C-V and C-H) zoning districts to meet
the requirements of SB 2.
x Amending the Zoning Code to ensure shelters are only
subject to the same development and management
standards that apply to residential or commercial uses
within the same zone.
x Amending the Zoning Code to permit transitional and
supportive housing as a residential use in all residential
zones and only subject to those restrictions that apply to
other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Level of Achievement
The City Council adopted Ordinance 277 on April 21, 2010 that
included a new zoning district C-N(RHD) that allowed the siting
of emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive
housing for homeless individuals and families.
Program 5.4: Reasonable Accommodations
Program Activity
To comply with State law (SB 520), the City will analyze
existing land use controls, building codes, and permit and
processing procedures to determine constraints they impose
on the development, maintenance, and improvement of
housing for persons with disabilities. Based on its findings, the
City will develop a policy for reasonable accommodation to
provide relief to Code regulations and permitting procedures
that have a discriminatory effect on housing for individuals with
disabilities. The policy shall include procedures for requesting
accommodation, a timeline for processing and appeals, and
criteria for determining whether a requested accommodation
is reasonable.
Level of Achievement
The City Council adopted Ordinance 277 on April 21, 2010 that
established a process for reasonable accommodations to
provide relief to Code regulations and permitting procedures to
individuals with disabilities.
228
Draft June 2014 C-9
Program 5.5: Zoning to Encourage and Facilitate Single-Room Occupancy Units
(SRO’s)
Program Activity
The City understands the importance of single-room
occupancy units to provide housing opportunities for lower-
income individuals, persons with disabilities, the elderly and
formerly homeless individuals. The City shall amend the Zoning
Code to establish explicit definitions for and regulatory
standards addressing single- room occupancy units. The
Zoning Code will include development standards and
permitting procedures that encourage and facilitate
development of SRO housing, consistent with State law.
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted Ordinance 313 on February 5, 2014
to amend the Zoning Code to include development standards
for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing.
Program 5.6: Monitoring and Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing
Program Activity
The City s hall continue to maintain a data base to provide
for the regular monitoring of deed-restricted units that have
the potential of converting to market- rate during the
planning period. Additionally, the City will review funding
opportunities for owners of these units to extend and/or renew
deed restrictions and/or covenants.
To proactively address the conversion of affordable units to
market-rate units concern, the City will investigate strategies
to preserve the affordable units. The City shall ensure
compliance with noticing requirements and provide for
tenant education when a notice of conversion is received.
Level of Achievement
The City maintains a list of the affordable units within the City
and along with the County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable
Housing is prepared to ensure compliance with noticing
requirements and tenant education when notice of conversion
is received. No deed restricted units were converted during this
229
Draft June 2014 C-10
Goal 6: Coordinated Housing Efforts
Objective: The City of Saratoga has limited local resources to provide for housing
and housing-related activities. Therefore, to maximize use of limited local resources,
the City strives to build partnerships and coordinate housing efforts with outside
agencies and organizations.
Program 6.1: Promote Fair Housing Efforts
Program Activity
The City currently disseminates fair housing information packets
about Fair Housing Regulations and refers discrimination
complaints to the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing or to
the County of Santa Clara County Office of Consumer Affairs.
The City will continue to participate in the County’s mediation
program and will continue to support these organizations which
provide fair housing assistance including landlord/tenant
counseling, homebuyer assistance, and amelioration or removal
of identified impediments.
Level of Achievement
The Community Development Department continues to refer all
housing discrimination complaints to the Santa Clara County
Office of Consumer Affairs and continues to participate in the
County’s mediation program for housing discrimination issues.
Program 6.2: Develop a Comprehensive Community Outreach Strategy for Housing
Program Activity
To ensure the Saratoga community is provided the highest
level of access to housing information, the City shall evaluate
the effectiveness of existing outreach and community education
efforts and develop a comprehensive outreach strategy. The
outreach strategy will consider various methods of delivery,
including print media, mailers, web-based information and other
methods that consider the economic and cultural considerations
in Saratoga.
Level of Achievement
The City’s website includes links that direct the public to the City
Code and the General Plan, which includes the Housing
Element. The City also uses print media, direct mailings and social
media to disseminate housing information.
230
Draft June 2014 C-11
Program 6.3: Partnerships with Development Community
Program Activity
The City supports cooperation in the development of affordable
housing through working with local housing trust and non-profit
agencies. The City will continue to cooperate with developers
to provide housing opportunities for lower income households;
prioritize efforts and resources to the identified sites for rezoning
to promote a variety of housing types, such as rental units,
affordable to lower income households. The City shall also
evaluate the effectiveness of its partnerships with housing
developers and seek ways to expand and foster its
partnerships as appropriate.
Level of Achievement
The City is prepared to cooperate with developers in the
construction of affordable housing by helping to identify possible
sites that could be rezoned to promote a variety of housing
types, such as rental units, affordable to lower income
Program 6.4: Healthy Community
Program Activity
The City supports residential development that promotes
healthy life styles (i.e. recreational activities, encourages
pedestrian and bicycle use and continued support of the
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted Ordinance 294 on September 4, 2012
to require retail and financial uses in all commercial districts,
with the exception of the C-H District to provide off-street
231
Draft June 2014 C-12
Table C-2. Progress in Achieving Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2007-2014
Table C-2
Progress in Achieving Housing Element Quantified
Objectives 2007 - 2014
Program Quantified Objective Level of Achievement
New Construction
Very Low-Income 90 0
Low Income 68 15
Moderate Income 77 7
Above Moderate Income 57 30
Total 292 52
Housing Rehabilitation
Very Low-Income 10 1
Low Income 10 0
Moderate Income Not Applicable Not Applicable
Above Moderate Income Not Applicable Not Applicable
Total 20 1
Preservation of At-Risk Rental Housing
Very Low-Income 170 170
Low Income 0 Not Applicable
Moderate Income 0 Not Applicable
Above Moderate Income Not Applicable Not Applicable
Total 170 170
232
Draft June 2014 C-13
This page intentionally left blank
233
Draft June 2014 D-1
Appendix D: Glossary of Terms
Above-Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually
greater than 120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as
determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city of a county, or in the absence
of such a survey, based on the latest available legibility limits established by the U.S.
Department of housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the §8 housing program.
Apartment. An apartment is one (1) or more rooms in an apartment house or dwelling
occupied or intended or designated for occupancy by one (1) family for sleeping or
living purposes and containing one (1) kitchen.
Assisted Housing. Generally multi-family rental housing, but sometimes single- family
ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been
subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to
Federal state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to Federal §8 (new
construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set-asides), Federal §s
213, 236, and 202, Federal §221 (d) (3) (below-market interest rate program), Federal
§101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FmHA
§515, multi-family mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu
fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density
bonus programs.
Below-market-rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to
low- or moderate-income households for an amount less than the fair-market value of
the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low income”
or “moderate income.” (2) The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.
Build-out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all
developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of
development envisioned by the General Plan. Build-out does not assume that each
parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning
regulations.
234
Draft June 2014 D-2
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for
entitlement communities and by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and
counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public
facilities and economic development
Condominium. A structure of two or more units, the interior spaces of which are
individually owned; the balance of the property (both land and building) is owned in
common by the owners of the individual units. (See “Townhouse.”)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A term used to describe restrictive
limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a
condition of holding title or lease.
Deed. A legal document which affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the
seller to the buyer.
Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to
accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the
maximum for which the parcel is zoned, usually in exchange for the provision or
preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location.
Density, Residential. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of
land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or
per net developable acre.
Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be
developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural
resource areas.
Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion
of the purchase price which is financed.
Duplex. A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupation as
the residence of two families living independently of each other.
Dwelling Unit (du). A building or portion of a building containing one or more rooms,
designed for or used by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having a separate
bathroom and only one kitchen or kitchenette. See Housing Unit.
235
Draft June 2014 D-3
Elderly Housing. Typically one- and two-bedroom apartments or condominiums
designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150
units, persons 55 years of age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them.
Emergency Shelter. A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and
supplemental services for the homeless. Shelters come in many sizes, but an optimum
size is considered to be 20 to 40 beds. Supplemental services may include food,
counseling, and access to other social programs. (See “Homeless” and “Transitional
Housing.”)
Extremely Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income equal to or less
than 30% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined
by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a
survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposed of administering the
Section 8 Existing Housing Program.
Family. (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of
the Census]. (2) An Individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a
bona fide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity,
sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution
of any kind [California].
General Plan. A comprehensive, long-term plan mandated by State Planning Law for
the physical development of a city or county and any land outside its boundaries which,
in its judgment, bears relation to its planning. The plan shall consist of seven required
elements: land use, circulation, open space, conservation, housing, safety, and noise.
The plan must include a statement of development policies and a diagram or diagrams
illustrating the policies.
Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will
direct effort.
Green Building. Green or sustainable building is the practice of creating healthier and
more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance,
and demolition. (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures and
neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation
of the building(s) to a former condition.
236
Draft June 2014 D-4
Historic Property. A historic property is a structure or site that has significant historic,
architectural, or cultural value.
Household. All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit.
(See “Family.”)
Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). The State agency that has
principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the
needs of low-and moderate-income households.
Housing Element. One of the seven State-mandated elements of a local general plan,
it assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of
housing needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs
for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law,
Housing Elements must be updated every five years.
Housing Payment. For ownership housing, this is defined as the mortgage payment,
property taxes, insurance and utilities. For rental housing this is defined as rent and
utilities.
Housing Ratio. The ratio of the monthly housing payment to total gross monthly income.
Also Called Payment-to-Income Ratio or Front-End Ratio.
Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A
housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a
modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered
real property under State law.
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD). A cabinet-level
department of the federal government that administers housing and community
development programs.
Implementing Policies. The City’s statements of its commitments to consistent actions.
Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies.
Infill Development. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered
vacant lots in a built-up area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits.
237
Draft June 2014 D-5
Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio used to describe the adequacy of the housing supply
within a defined area to meet the needs of persons working within the same area. The
General Plan uses ABAG’s definition which is a job total equal to 1.2 times the number
of housing units within the area under consideration.
Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of
properties.
Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for commercial
and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or
accessory to the primary use as a place of work.
Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than
51%-80% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined
by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a
survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the §8 housing program.
Low-income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State
governments for investors in housing for low-income households.
Manufactured Housing. Residential structures that are constructed entirely in the factory,
and which since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 under the administration of the U.
S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (See “Mobile Home” and
“Modular Unit.”)
Mixed-use. Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional,
and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated
development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent
physical design. A “single site” may include contiguous properties.
Moderate-income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater
than 81%-120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as
determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence
of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing
program.
Monthly Housing Expense. Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance paid by the
borrower on a monthly basis. Used with gross income to determine affordability.
Multiple Family Building. A detached building designed and used exclusively as a
dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites.
238
Draft June 2014 D-6
Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority,
usually a city or county.
Overcrowding Housing Unit. A housing unit in which the members of the household or
group are prevented from the enjoyment of privacy because of small room size and
housing size. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one
which is occupied by more than one person per room.
Parcel. A lot or tract of land.
Planned Unit. Development (PUD) A self-contained development, often with a mixture
of housing types and densities, in which subdivision and zoning controls are applied
to the project as a whole rather than to individual lots, as in most subdivisions. Densities
and lot sizes are calculated for the entire development, usually permitting a trade-off
between the clustering of houses and provision of common open space or other
amenities.
Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s planning area
typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of
influence.
Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies a clear
commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency
sets to follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See
“Program.”)
Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are
classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that
provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family,
number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each
year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.
Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to
achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how”
and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.
Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing
on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.
Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single
jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). A quantification by ABAG of existing and
projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.
239
Draft June 2014 D-7
Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.
Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and zoning ordinance for building
consisting of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling
Unit.”)
Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its
residents.
Residential, Multiple Family. Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which
may be in the same or separate buildings.
Residential, Single-Family. A single dwelling unit on a building site.
Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve its
operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and
to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.
Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or
intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.
Second Unit. A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in
addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. “Granny Flat” is one type of
second unit.
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one
of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households. The
program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers,
and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent”
of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is
calculated at 30% of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8”
includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate
housing rehabilitation.
Shared Living. The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one family in
order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and
assistance. Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all
residential districts by §1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Single-family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy
by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such
dwelling unit. (See “Townhouse.”)
240
Draft June 2014 D-8
Single-family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy
by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit
or structure intended for residential or other use. (See “Family.”)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A single room, typically 80-250 square feet, with a sink
and closet, but which requires the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower,
and kitchen.
Subsidize. To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting to terms or favors
that reduces the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms
of mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes,
sale or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing,
payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.
Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do
not provide safe and sanitary housing.
Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the
target population as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d),
and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident
in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her
ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. “Target population" means
adults with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or
AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for
services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and
may, among other populations, include families with children, elderly persons, young
adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings,
veterans, or homeless people. [California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.14(b)
and 53260(d)]
Target Areas. Specifically designated sections of the community where loans and grants
are made to bring about a specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of housing
affordable by very-low and low-income households.
Tax Increment. Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values
within a redevelopment area. State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for
redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20% to be used to increase and improve
the community’s supply of very low and low income housing.
Tenure. A housing unit is “owned” if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is
“owned only if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or condominium unit
is “owned only if the owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied units are classified
as “rented,” including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment
of cash rent.
241
Draft June 2014 D-9
Townhouse. A townhouse is a dwelling unit located in a group of three (3) or more
attached dwelling units with no dwelling unit located above or below another and with
each dwelling unit having its own exterior entrance.
Transitional Housing. Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as
long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling
programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable
income and permanent housing. (See “homeless” and “Emergency Shelter.”)
Undevelopable. Specific areas where topographic, geologic, and/or superficial soil
conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants and a liability to the City
are designated as “undevelopable” by the City.
Acronyms Used
242
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: July 23, 2014
Application: Design Review PDR13-0028 / Zoning Amend.
ZOA13-0004 / Neg. Dec. ENV13-0004
Location / APN: 19700 Prospect Rd. / 386-35-070
Owner / Applicant: Congregation Beth David / Joel Karr
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
19700 Prospect Road
243
2
SUMMARY
ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Single-Family Residential (R-1-10,000) Community Facility (CFS)
PARCEL SIZE AVERAGE SLOPE
2.4 acres (net lot size) 1%
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Representatives from Congregation Beth David have submitted an application (PDR13-
0028) to expand the synagogue by 6,577 sq. ft. for a total of approximately 28,748 sq. ft.
The project would include increasing the height of the existing building from 30 feet to
41 feet and repaving some of the existing landscaping with new ADA parking spaces.
The existing zoning is single-family residential. The proposed floor area, building
height, and site coverage would not be allowed within a residential district, without the
addition of a Planned-Combined (P-C) Overlay District onto the existing residential
district. Therefore, the applicant has also submitted an application (ZOA13-0004) for a
zoning amendment from R-1-10,000 to P-C / R-1-10,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-028 thereby adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
recommending City Council approve the project subject to conditions of approval.
PROJECT APPROVALS:
This project includes applications for the following:
Design Review
Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.020(a)(4), any project requires design review under
the terms or conditions of any tentative or final subdivision map, use permit, variance or
rezoning.
Zoning Amendment
Pursuant to City Code Section 15-16.010 (b), one of the purposes of the P-C combined
district is to provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that
provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application
of the zoning regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings
that exceed the City’s green building standards, provides community facilities that are
open to the public, or allows for innovative in-fill design. A P-C zoning district requires
final approval from the City Council via an ordinance with is included as Attachment 2.
244
3
SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
PROJECT DATA:
History
In July 1973, the City of Saratoga approved a project submitted by Congregation Beth
David to build a 7,271 sq. ft. synagogue at 19700 Prospect Road. In May 1978, the
Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a 14,900 sq. ft. addition to
replace the synagogue with classrooms and construct a new synagogue, increasing the
total floor area to approximately 22,171 sq. ft., with an overall height of 30 feet. Along
with the new buildings, the Use Permit included multiple uses on the site. These new
uses included office and classroom use, existing sanctuary uses, and related parking and
landscaping.
Project Location
The parcel containing the synagogue (APN 386-35-070) is located east of Scully Avenue
and north of Ascension Drive. Due to the unique shape of the lot, the Community
Development Department (per City Code Section 15-06.430(f)) has the discretion to
designate existing lot lines for setback purposes. Staff has determined the north lot line
which the synagogue faces as the front, the south lot line parallel to Ascension Drive as the
rear, the west lot line parallel to Scully Avenue as the exterior side, and the east lot line
adjacent to the property of Church of Ascension as the interior side. The setbacks are as
follows:
R-1-10,000 Zoning
Site Area: 2.41 acres.
Proposed Allowable / Required
Setbacks 1st Floor 1st Floor
25’
10’
25’
10’
Front (North): 280’
Rear (South): 20’
Left Side (West): 38’
Right Side (East): 138’
The height of the existing synagogue is currently 30 feet. The applicant has proposed to
increase the height by 11 feet, to a total height of approximately 41 feet as follows:
Height
Maximum Height =
As determined by PC
Lowest Elevation Point: 273.90’
Highest Elevation Point: 274.50’
Average Elevation Point: 274.20’
Proposed Topmost Point: 315.20’(41’)
245
4
The project would increase the floor area of the site. If approved, the floor would:
Floor Area
Maximum Floor Area =
As determined by PC
Existing Building Gross S.F. 22,171 sq. ft.
Addition: 6,576 sq. ft.
Total: 28,748 sq. ft.
The project would increase the impervious coverage of the site. If approved, the site
coverage would include the following:
Site Coverage
Maximum Coverage =
As determined by PC
Building: 24,160 sq. ft.
Driveways / Parking: 29,066 sq. ft.
Patio / Walkways: 9,790 sq. ft.
Total: 63,016 sq. ft.
Per the tables above, the development standards such as proposed height, floor area and site
coverage exceed those allowed within the R-1-10,000 residential district.
The City can approve a P-C district overlay when a proposed project would not conform to
the underlying development standards. The P-C district would provide greater flexibility of
land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not
otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations.
Congregation Beth David has provided, and continues to provide, a number of public
benefits, such as hosting weddings, evening traditional and alternative prayer services,
Jewish film presentations, adult education, meeting rooms, blood drives, storage areas for
charitable collections, and social areas for the general public. If approved, they would also
have the ability to provide a below-market rate dwelling unit (i.e. parsonage) on their site. A
list of public benefits has been included as Attachment 3.
P-C DISTRICT ANALYSIS:
Project Summary
Per discussion's with the applicant, the proposed project is part of the below described
master plan that includes updating the current infrastructure, identifying a location for a
future parsonage, and the future development of parcel 2 (as shown on Attachment 8) for
residential use.
Infrastructure Update - Along with standard maintenance, the applicant has
proposed increasing the amount of floor area of the synagogue by approximately
6,576 sq. ft. The expansion would include a new chapel, central rotunda, multi-
purpose room and fellowship room. The central rotunda would become a main
focal point of the synagogue and would be constructed to resemble a "Star of
246
5
David". The existing 30-foot stone wall that projects north of the site would be
re-tiled with Jerusalem stone. The major improvements to the site would occur
within the existing synagogue.
Future Parsonage - A goal of the applicant is to utilize the site for potential
housing for a rabbi or other official of their faith. The construction of a
residential unit would offset the cost of housing for the congregation and to
provide a competitive benefit for future rabbi's that would like to serve in the Bay
Area.
Re-use Parcel 2 for residential uses - To fund ongoing projects and the future
endowment of the Congregation, the applicant has proposed to subdivide Parcel 2
and change the use from existing parking into residential uses. Such a proposal
would require a General Plan amendment to amend the existing general plan
designation from Community Facilities into Medium Density Residential. To
expedite the upgrade to the infrastructure, the applicant would phase the master
plan of the site and would apply for a General Plan amendment at a later date.
Though not proposed at this time, a discussion of the subdivision is included in
this report.
Building Design / Exterior Materials
The exterior colors include white stucco, Jerusalem stone, and stained glass windows. The
Thermoplastic polyolefin membrane roof would also be white, but completely unseen from
all ground angles. The proposed color pallet is consistent with the exterior of the
synagogue.
Height
The applicant has proposed to increase the height of the synagogue from 30 feet to 41 feet.
The height is due to the proposed central rotunda. The rotunda would be constructed of
stucco, glass and steel into a cylinder structure with the “Star of David” ’capping the top of
the cylinder. A perspective of the rotunda from the public right-of-way has been included as
Attachment 4.
The proposed height of 41 feet is lower than the height of other religious facilities in the
City as illustrated in the below table;
Religious Facility Address Height
St. Archangel Michael Serbian
Orthodox Church
18870 Allendale Ave.
50 feet
St. Andrews Episcopal Church 13601 Saratoga Ave.
60 feet
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints
19100 Allendale Ave. 58 feet
As shown above, the height of the proposed project is lower than the height of other
religious facilities within the City.
247
6
Parking
There are approximately 423 parking spaces between the CBD and the adjacent Church of
the Ascension. Currently, CBD owns 125 parking spaces. The below includes the amount
of parking required for the different uses within the project:
Room Use Floor Area Code Requirement # of Spaces
Offices 3,248 sq. ft. 1 / 250 sq. ft. 15
Classrooms 4.898 sq. ft.
1 per employee* 12 (9 teachers & 3
admins.)
(E) Sanctuary 4,885 sq. ft. 1 / 40 sq. ft. † 122
(N) Chapel 1,437 sq. ft. 1 / 40 sq. ft.† 36
Rotunda 2,107 sq. ft. 1 / 250 sq. ft.† 9
Kitchen 1,163 sq. ft. 1 / 250 sq. ft.† 5
Total 17,738 sq. ft. 199 spaces
The parking calculation does not include approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of non-accessible
floor area within the building, such as storage, bathrooms, ventilation and interior wall
spaces as these areas do not increase parking demand.
Based on the table above, the amount of parking required for CBD would be 199 stalls
and the amount of existing and shared parking with the church would satisfy this
requirement.
As previously stated, there has been an informal agreement between CBD and the Church
of the Ascension to share the existing parking. There has been little conflict with this
shared parking arrangement as the primary uses of the two facilities occur on opposite
days.
To minimize possible future parking impacts between the two religious facilities, the City
has required a recorded parking agreement between both CBD and Church of the
Ascension. A copy of the parking agreement is included as Attachment 5.
Trees
Approximately 50 trees are located on both parcels. The applicant has proposed the removal
of six trees as they are either in conflict with the project or in poor health. The applicant
submitted an arborist report, which was reviewed by the City Arborist, and it has been
determined that the trees being removed meet the conditions of the City Code. The arborist
report has been included as Attachment 6.
* One space for each employee, including teachers and administrators, plus such additional spaces as
determined by the Planning Commission to be adequate for student and visitor parking.
† One space for each four seats or one space for each forty square feet of floor area usable for seating if
seats are not fixed, plus one space for each two employees.
248
7
Neighbor Correspondence
To solicit input from neighboring property owners, CBD hosted two neighborhood meetings
(November 18, 2013 and June 30, 2014) regarding the proposed remodel of the facility. Per
the applicant, all participants of the first meeting were in support. No neighbors attended the
second meeting so members of CBD visited the neighboring property owners to discuss any
additional concerns. Staff has also sent out notices for the public hearing and has not
received any comments to date.
Study Sessions
The Planning Commission previously reviewed the project during a July 2014 study session
and requested that the uses proposed for the site be confirmed. The applicant has indicated
that they wish to continue the existing uses already established by the previous use permit
(UP-218). No new uses would be added to the P-C overlay district.
ZONING AMENDMENT FINDINGS
The findings required for the issuance of a Zoning Amendment Approval for a Planned-
Combined zoning district are pursuant to City Code Section 15-16.060(b) and are set forth
below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required
findings:
1) That the proposed location of the planned combined district is in accord with the
objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the
site is located. The proposed project meets this finding because the synagogue is
located within a site that has a General Plan designation of Community Facilities
which has been reserved for private institutions, including, but not limited to,
religious facilities. Furthermore, the site is located in a residentially zoned district
which permits community facilities and institutional uses.
2) That standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the
community and produce an environment of stable and desirable character
consistent with the overall objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed project meets this finding because the applicant has proposed a
remodel to update the look of the existing site. This includes updating portions of
the exterior with white stucco, replacing windows with stained glass, and resurfacing
the main wall of the synagogue with Jerusalem stone.
3) That the uses in the development will complement each other and will not
adversely affect existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public
health, safety and welfare. The proposed project meets this finding because the
uses allowed for the site will not be changed. The synagogue currently provides
prayer services, hosts community events, including, but not limited to, blood drives,
charitable collections, and social and religious education events. The approval of the
P-C district will only continue the uses already associated with the facility.
249
8
4) The application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes
contained within Section 15-16.010. The proposed project meets this finding
because the approval will allow the City to provide greater flexibility of land use and
design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be
attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations, such as allowing a 41
foot tall structure, when only 26 feet is allowed, and encouraging innovative design
that achieves a specific goal and policy of the General Plan, such as providing
sufficient land area for public, quasi-public and similar land uses in Saratoga (Goal
LU 4).
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section 15-46.040 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural
features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include
height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The proposed project
meets this finding because only one building is being proposed. The modern design
will be updated and resurfaced with a fresher, cleaner look that includes white
stucco, stained glass windows, and Jerusalem stone. The original design of the
building will remain unchanged.
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall
have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be
harmonious in appearance. The proposed project meets this finding because only
one sign is being proposed. That sign will be titled “Congregation Beth David” and
would be located along the top portion of the main wall. The size, scale, font, and
material of the sign are compatible with the Jerusalem stone it would be attached to,
and would be harmonious in appearance with the synagogue.
(c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be
preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation
systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it
shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows
or regularly spaced. The proposed project meets this finding because the proposed
addition will maintain the majority of the existing trees and vegetation on the site.
Six trees are in conflict with the addition and the City Arborist was able to make the
findings for removal. Furthermore, new trees will be required to be planted onsite.
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be
nonreflective. The proposed project meets this finding because the color of the wall
will remain white stucco. The roofing material is comprised of a membrane, but due
to the building design, will be completely unseen from the ground.
250
9
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials
such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical
equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The
proposed project meets this finding because all mechanical equipment located on the
roof (with the exception of solar panels) will be appropriately screened.
(f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design
with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project meets this
finding because the proposed addition for the synagogue is compatible in terms of
height, bulk and design with the Church of the Ascension. The existing church has
approximately 35,000 sq. ft. of floor area in comparison to the synagogues proposed
approximately 28,000 sq. ft. The height of the Church is 28 feet at the main ridge
and 49 feet at the top cross, while the synagogue would have a height of
approximately 30 feet at the main ridge and 41 feet at the top of the rotunda.
Furthermore, the Church of the Ascension’s finished grade is approximately five
higher than the synagogue, providing a greater amount of compatibility when
viewed together.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Community Development Department
completed an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources
Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations
sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable requirements. The intent to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed and circulated for a 20-day public
review period from July 2, 2014 – July 22, 2014. All Interested Parties desiring to comment
on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the
adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on Project before
the Planning Commission on July 23, 2014. Please see Attachment 7.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval – 19700 Prospect Road
2. Ordinance
3. Public Benefit List
4. Perspective Drawing
5. Draft Parking Agreement
6. Arborist report, dated 7/7/14.
7. Mitigated Negative Declaration
8. Neighbor Notifications
9. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”
251
RESOLUTION NO. 14-028
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENV13-0004), ZONING
AMENDMENT (ZOA13-0004) AND DESIGN REVIEW (PDR13-0028), LOCATED AT
19700 PROSPECT ROAD (386-35-070) FOR
CONGREGATION BETH DAVID
WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Joel Karr, representing Congregation Beth
David, for a Zoning Amendment and Design Review approval, to allow the expansion of its
Synagogue by 6,577 sq. ft., for a total square footage of approximately 28,748 sq. ft. and to increase
the height of the existing structure from 30 feet to 41 feet to accommodate the proposed central
rotunda, which would be constructed of steel and glass shaped into a cylinder structure with the
symbol of the “Star of David” capping the top of the cylinder. The proposed floor area, site
coverage and structure height would not be permitted within a residential district, without adding a
Planned Combined (P-C) Overlay District onto the existing residential district. Therefore, the
applicant has submitted an application (ZOA13-0004) for a zoning amendment from R-1-10,000 to
R-1-10,000 P-C. By allowing the P-C district, the City will further their objectives of providing a
public benefit, such as exceeding the City’s green building standards and providing community
facilities open to the public. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution;
and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other
interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177), CEQA
Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000-15387), and any other applicable
requirements. The intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were duly noticed
and circulated for a 20-day public review period from July 2, 2014 – July 22, 2014. All Interested
Parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit written and oral
comments on the adequacy of the MND up to and including the close of the Public Hearing on
Project before the Planning Commission on July 23, 2014.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 4 in that the
City shall continue to provide sufficient land area for public, quasi-public and similar land uses in
Saratoga.
252
Resolution No. 14-028
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code Section 15-46.040 in that
where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and
landscaping thereof shall be harmonious, and where more than one sign will be erected or displayed
on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall
be harmonious in appearance. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and
appurtenances, and landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be
preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the
maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural
appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced, and that colors of wall
and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective, and the roofing
materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as
approved by the Planning Commission, and that no mechanical equipment shall be located upon a
roof unless it is appropriately screened, and that the proposed development shall be compatible in
terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area.
Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the removal of six
protected trees meets the criteria established in Section 15-50.080(a).
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV13-0004 and approve application ZOA13-
0011 and PDR13-0028 for the project located at 19700 Prospect Road, subject to the Conditions of
Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 23rd day of
July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
253
Resolution No. 14-028
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ENV13-0004, ZOA13-0011, PDR13-0028
19700 PROSPECT ROAD (386-35-070)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for
this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval
documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by
the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the
Community Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid
in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on
the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or
made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner
relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by
the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney.
254
Resolution No. 14-028
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated June 19, 2014
denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in
writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition No. 4, above.
7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the
following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6
above;
b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private
vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on
the site;
c. City Arborist Reports dated July 7, 2014, and all other future updated reports onto separate
construction plan pages;
d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
e. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division.
8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public
right-of-way.
9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval
authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-
75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required.
10. Stormwater Mitigation. The project sponsor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the
construction of the proposed project. It is not required that the SWPPP be submitted to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), but it must be maintained on-site and
made available to Water Board or City staff upon request. The SWPPP shall include specific
and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related
pollutants. At a minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction
materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and
adhesives) with storm water. Ingress and egress from construction sites shall be carefully
controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down
facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions.
The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site
supervisor, and shall include both dry and wet weather inspections.
255
1
ORDINANCE __________
AN ORDINANCE REZONING ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 386-35-070,071
FROM R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED DISTRICT)
Congregation Beth David - 19700 Prospect Road
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Findings
1. Saratoga City Code Article 15-16 establishes the P-C (Planned Combined) District is to
provide the City the authority to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning
district so as to achieve the following objectives:
(a) To provide a means of guiding development or redevelopment of properties in areas
of the City that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns
and standards.
(b) To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides
a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of
the zoning regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings
that exceed the City's green building standards, provides community facilities that are
open to the public, or allows for innovative in-fill design.
(c) To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more specific
goals and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be attainable through
strict application of the zoning regulations.
2. A Planned Combined District may be combined with any zoning district upon the granting of a
change of zone to a combined district in accord with the provisions of this Article. A planned
combined district shall be designated by the symbol "P-C" following the zoning district
designation with which it is combined.
3. Congregation Beth David (CBD) proposes to expand its Synagogue by another 6,577 sq. ft.,
making the Synagogue a total of approximately 28,748 sq. ft. in size and to increase the
height of the existing structure from 30 feet to 41 feet to accommodate the proposed central
rotunda, which would be constructed of steel and glass shaped into a cylinder structure with
the symbol of the “Star of David” capping the top of the cylinder. The proposed floor area,
site coverage and structure height would not be allowed within any residential district,
without adding a Planned Combined (P-C) Overlay District onto the existing residential
district. Therefore, the applicant has submitted an application (ZOA13-0004) for a zoning
amendment from R-1-10,000 to R-1-10,000 P-C. By allowing the P-C district, the City will
further their objectives of providing public benefit, such as exceeding the City’s green
building standards and providing community facilities open to the public.
4. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission and City Council have each found that that the
change is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance set forth in Section 15-
256
2
05.020, and following additional findings required in support of the rezoning to R-1-10,000
P-C:
(a) That the proposed location of the planned combined district is in accord with the
objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the
site is located.
(b) That standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community
and produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the
overall objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
(c) That the uses in the development will complement each other and will not adversely
affect existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public health, safety and
welfare.
(d) That the application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes
contained within Section 15-16.010 (as set forth above, particularly purposes (b) and
(c) under Finding 1 above).
5. The City Council may by ordinance adopt a change of zone to a planned combined district as
applied for or in modified and/or conditional reclassification. The conditions of this
rezoning are set forth in Attachment 1 hereto and include limitation of the exceptions to the
City’s floor area, site coverage and height regulations as specified in Finding 3 above.
6. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on August 20,
2014, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with
that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof.
Therefore, the City Council hereby amends the City Code as follows:
Section 1. Adoption.
The Saratoga City Zoning Map is amended to conditionally rezone ASSESSOR’S PARCEL
NUMBERS 386-35-070 (owned by Congregation Beth David and also known as 19700 Prospect
Road, Saratoga, California from R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED
DISTRICT) subject to the conditions specified in Attachment 1 hereto.
Section 2. Severance Clause.
The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause
and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section,
paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section,
paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City
Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective
of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this
ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.
257
3
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act
The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration which included a review of the environmental impact of this Rezoning and the City
Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Section 4. Publication.
A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of
Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption.
Following a duly notice public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 20th day of August, 2014, and was
adopted by the following vote on September 3rd, 2014.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: ATTEST:
_________________________________ _____________________________
EMILY LO CRYSTAL BOTHELIO
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
Saratoga, California Saratoga, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________________
RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY
258
4
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ORDINANCE _______
19700 PROSPECT ROAD (386-35-070)
CONGREGATION BETH DAVID
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All permitted uses per City Code Sections 15-12.020 and 15-12.030 are allowed. Additional
permitted uses include a community facility, an institutional facility, and a religious and
charitable institution (per UP-218).
2. The maximum site coverage is 62 percent.
3. All required setbacks shall be per City Code Section 15-12.090 for the R-1-10,000 zoning
district..
4. 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 the City Code.
5. Construction of a future parsonage or accessory structure shall comply with applicable design
review regulations set forth in Article 15-45 of the City Code.
6. Expansion of the existing synagogue shall comply with applicable design review regulations set
forth in Article 15-46 of the City Code.
7. The total allowable floor area for the site shall be no greater than 32,000 square feet.
8. The allowable building height shall be no taller than 41 feet.
9. The allowable height of a future parsonage shall be no taller than 26 feet.
10. All uses permitted on site shall be open to the public.
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application No: ARB14-0032
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 19700 Prospect Road
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Congregation Beth David
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 386-35-070
Email: dan@skilken.net
Report History:
Report #1
Date:
Plans received June 23, 2014
Report completed July 7, 2014
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to add on to and remodel their facility. The interior
courtyard will be turned into a rotunda, and a chapel will be added.
The work in the parking area has been deleted from the project at this time.
Six trees protected by Saratoga City Code (trees 1 – 5 and 12) are requested for removal to construct
the project. Trees 1 – 5 are in conflict with the proposed additions, and tree 12 is in poor condition.
STATUS: Approved by the City Arborist to proceed, with conditions (attached).
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree bond – Required - $22,000. For trees 6 – 11 and 13.
Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map.
Tree removals – Trees 1 – 5 and 12 are permitted for removal and replacement
once a building permit has been issued.
Replacement trees – Required = $25,400.
268
19700 Prospect Road
FINDINGS:
Tree Removals
Six trees are requested for removal to construct the project. They include 3 ginkgoes (trees 1 – 3),
one Hollywood juniper (tree 4), one Monterey pine (tree 5), and one blue gum (tree 12). Whenever
a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree
removal criteria met. All six trees meet the criteria per Saratoga City Code Section 15-50.080,
allowing them to be removed and replaced as part of the project. The table below summarizes which
tree removal criteria have been met, and the paragraph below provides specifics about how those
criteria have been met. Attachment 3 contains the tree removal criteria for reference.
Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met
Tree No. Criteria met Criteria not met
1 – 4 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8
5 and 12 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 5
Trees 1 – 5 are in conflict with the proposed addition and trees 5 and 12 are in decline (criterion 1).
There are many trees on site in addition to these trees (criterion 4). The alternative to removing these
six trees is to keep the courtyard area and do without the rotunda and chapel (criterion 6) which is
not a practical option for the applicant. Removal of these six trees and replacement with new trees is
consistent with the intent of the Tree Regulations (criterion 7). Removal of these trees and
replacement with new trees provides the owner with economic and other enjoyment of the property
when there is no feasible option (criterion 9). Removal of trees 5 and 12 also meets criterion 8, in
that they are in decline and could threaten public safety.
The trees do not threaten damage to the property so criterion 2 is not met. The property is relatively
flat so control of erosion is not an issue and criterion 3 is not met. The trees are not planted too close
together for good forestry practices so criterion 5 is not met.
Replacement Trees:
The total appraised value of trees 1 – 5 and 12 is $25,400. New trees equal to this appraised value
will be required as a condition of the project. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on the
property. Replacement values for new trees are listed below.
Replacement Tree Values:
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
269
19700 Prospect Road
New Construction
Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements
for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code.
Incense cedar trees 6 – 10, Monterey pine tree 11, and blue gum 13 can be adequately protected
during construction with tree protection fencing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information
2 – Conditions of Approval
3 – Tree Removal Criteria
4 – Map of Site showing tree locations and protective fencing
IMPORTANT
This entire report, including attachments, shall be copied onto a plan
sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans.
270
19700 Prospect Road Attachment 1
PLAN REVIEW:
Architectural Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Weske Karr Design Group
Date of Plans: June 14, 2014
Sheet P1 Cover Sheet
Sheet P2 Existing and Proposed Master Plan
Sheet A 2.1 Construction Plan
Sheet A 3.0 Elevations
Sheet A 3.1 Cross Sections
Civil Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Westfall Engineers, Inc.
Date of Plans: June 2014
Sheet 1 of 4 Tentative Map
Sheet 2 of 4 Grading and Drainage Plan
Sheet 3 of 4 Grading and Drainage Plan
Sheet 4 of 4 Details
TREE INFORMATION:
Preparer: David Lazcko, Ian Geddes and Associates
Date of Arborist Report: June 20, 2014
An arborist was submitted for this project which inventoried 13 trees protected by Saratoga
City Code. Six protected trees were requested for removal. Inventoried trees included three
ginkgoes (1 – 3), one Hollywood juniper (4), two Monterey pines (5 and 11), and five
incense cedars (6 – 10). Information on the condition of each tree, potential impacts from
construction, suitability for preservation, recommendations for protection of trees, and
appraised values were provided in the report (see Table 2, next page).
Appraised values in the submitted report were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method
and according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. This was used in conjunction with the Species
Classification and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
271
19700 Prospect Road Attachment 1
Table 2: Tree inventory, from submitted arborist report.
272
19700 Prospect Road Attachment 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This entire arborist report shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and
included in the final job copy set of plans.
2. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $22,000
a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080.
b. Shall be for tree(s) 6 – 11 and 13.
c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department
before obtaining Building Division permits.
d. May be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond.
e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project.
f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City
Arborist.
3. Tree Protection Fencing:
a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map.
b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site.
c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch
diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10
feet apart.
d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR
REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408)
868-1276”.
e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division
permits.
f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection.
g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to
arrange a field meeting.
4. The designated Project Arborist shall be David Laczko of Ian Geddes and Associates, unless
otherwise approved by the City prior to receiving Planning approval.
5. The Project Arborist shall visit the site monthly during construction.
6. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the project,
the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. That letter shall
document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and
provide information on the condition of the trees. The letter may be delivered via email.
7. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be
removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building
division for the approved project.
8. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for
protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work.
273
19700 Prospect Road Attachment 2
9. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching,
equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and
equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
10. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards.
11. Trees permitted for removal shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices,
and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height,
location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. The
value of the removed trees shall be calculated in accordance with the ISA Guide for Plant
Appraisal.
12. New trees equal to $25,400 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and
occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species planted anywhere on the property
as long as they do not encroach on retained trees.
13. Replacement values for new trees are listed below.
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
14. Stockpiling of construction materials or equipment, and the disposal of construction debris or
harmful products, is prohibited under tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to
areas under tree canopies.
15. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and
have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final
inspection.
274
19700 Prospect Road Attachment 3
TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article
15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If
findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and
replacement during construction.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or
proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a
Fallen tree.
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements
or impervious surfaces on the property.
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the
diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes.
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would
have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general
welfare of residents in the area.
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry
practices.
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the
protected tree.
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and
intent of this Article.
(8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this
ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no
other feasible alternative to the removal.
(10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the
requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed
and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation.
275
1
Attachment 4
Legend
Tree Canopy Protected trees to be removed:
Tree Protection Fencing 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 12
2
3
5
19700 Prospect Road
4
6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
276
Environmental Initial Study
and Negative Declaration
For:
A Master Plan which includes a
General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Design Review
for 19700 Prospect Road
Owner:
Congregation Beth David
19700 Prospect Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Public Review Period:
July 2, 2014 to July 23, 2014
277
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 2
1. Project title: GPA14-0004, ZOA13-0011, PDR13-0028
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Saratoga; Planning Division
13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Contact person and phone number: Michael Fossati, Planner
(408) 868-1212
4. Project location/APN: 19700 Prospect Road, 386-35-070,071
5. Project sponsor name and address: Congregation Beth David
6. General plan designation: Community Facility (CFS)
7. Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R-1-10,000)
8. Description of project: The project includes a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined
Zoning District (P-C) to a 2.402 acre parcel (APN 386-35-070, also known as Parcel 2), a General
Plan Amendment to change a 0.986 acre parcel (APN 386-35-071, also known as Parcel 3) from
Community Facilities (CFS) to Medium Density Residential (M-10), and a design review application
to add approximately 6,500 sq. ft. of building area including, but not limited to, a new chapel, central
rotunda, and associated spaces to an existing 22,000 sq. ft. synagogue. The height of the exiting
synagogue would increase from 30 feet to 40 feet.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project location is bounded to the Prospect Road to the north,
Church of Ascension to the east, Ascension Drive to the south, and Scully Avenue to the west.
Single-family residential is located along the north, south, and west areas, while the east area is
occupied by the Church of Ascension.
Parcel 2 consists of Congregation Beth David (CBD), which is a 22,171 sq. ft. synagogue, and
associated landscape and open space. Parcel 3 is an associated parking lot, used for both the CBD
and Church of the Ascension, located on the adjacent parcel due east.
10. Other public agencies whose review is required
a. Santa Clara County Fire District
b. Cupertino Sanitation District
278
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 3
Contents
Figure 1- Project Location ..........................................................................................................................................4
Figure 2 - Site Plan .....................................................................................................................................................5
Figure 3 - Construction Plan .......................................................................................................................................6
Figure 4 – Roof Plan ...................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 5 – Existing Elevations ...................................................................................................................................8
Figure 6 – Proposed Elevations ..................................................................................................................................9
Figure 7 – Rendering ................................................................................................................................................ 10
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................................. 14
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 15
III. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................ 15
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................... 16
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 17
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................. 18
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................................................................... 19
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................................... 19
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................. 20
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................................................... 21
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 22
XII. NOISE ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING .............................................................................................................. 24
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................................................. 25
XV. RECREATION ........................................................................................................................................... 26
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .............................................................................................................. 27
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 29
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................ 29
279
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 4
Figure 1: Project Location
280
Figure 2 Site Plan
281
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 6
Figure 3 – Construction Plan
282
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 7
Figure 4 – Roof Plan
283
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 8
Figure 5 – Existing Elevations
284
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 9
Figure 6 – Proposed Elevations
285
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 10
Figure 7 – Rendering
286
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 11
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist
beginning on page 8 for additional information.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required
____________________________________ ______________________
Michael Fossati, Planner Date: July 1, 2014
City of Saratoga
287
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 12
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
288
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 13
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
289
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 14
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No scenic view or viewsheds are in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, there are no scenic
views or viewsheds explicitly identified in the City of Saratoga’s General Plan or other planning
documents. The zoning amendment and remodel of the existing synagogue would not affect any
existing scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
The zoning amendment and associated design review would not damage scenic resources as the project
location is currently built out and not considered historic.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
The zoning amendment and associated design review would not damage existing visual character or
quality of the site as the project location is currently built out and not considered historic. Any future
development would be single-family residential structures, which currently surround the site.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
The project, as proposed would not create substantial light or glare. Although the proposed “Star of
David” would be constructed of glass, the window portion would be difficult to see the right of way.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impact on
Aesthetics.
(Source: staff review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element, and Saratoga City Code
§15-45).
290
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 15
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION:
a-e) The project location is within a single-family residential area and is not proposing any conversion of
agricultural or forest land.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Agricultural and Forest Resources.
(Sources: staff review of the project, City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code §15-12,
California Public Resource Code)
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by
the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may
be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significa
nt Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
291
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 16
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
DISCUSSION:
a-e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The project would not have any substantial impact on air quality. All associated construction of the
proposed project would be required to follow Best Known Methods (BKM) from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Air
Quality.
(Sources: BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
(a-d) The project would have no substantial adverse effect on ripartian habitat, sensitive natural
community or species, wetlands, or corridors for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species.
292
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 17
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
The proposed project includes the removal of four protected trees (per Saratoga City Code), as the trees
are located within the proximity of the proposed building footprint. Those trees have been reviewed by
a consulting arborist. It has been determined by the consulting arborist that the findings consistent with
City Code Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations) have been met to remove such trees. Furthermore, the
applicant will be required to plant new trees with an appraised value to such trees that are being
proposed for removal. To date, the City Arborist has not reviewed the plans. By implementing the
following condition, the impacts to protected trees would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The applicant shall implement measures per the City Arborist
recommendation, once an Arborist report is completed for the project site.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project, as proposed, would not conflict with any conservation plan, as the location is not within
such a plan area.
Based on the above discussion, mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
biological resources.
(Sources: staff review of the project. Arborist report by Ian Geddes)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION:
a-d) The project site is a developed 3.38 parcel site within a residential suburban area. The site has been
developed for more than 50 years, but is not recognized as a historic structure on the Heritage Resource
Inventory. The General Plan amendment and design review would not substantially adversely change
any historic resources, as there are no historic resources located on the property.
293
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 18
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Cultural Resources.
(Sources: staff review and City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentiall
y
Significa
nt Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
DISCUSSION:
a-e) The project includes a zoning amendment and design review of an existing synagogue. Any
proposed construction due to entitlement approvals would be required to follow the most recent
International Building Code (IBC) which references proper construction methods regarding seismic
issues, such as ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides.
Based on the above discussion, No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
geology and soils.
(Sources: Staff’s review of the project, Seismic Hazard Zones Map)
294
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 19
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions, or conflict with any policies
for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases because the proposed project and potential uses (i.e. single-
family residential) are consistent with the uses already located.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of
greenhouse gases.
(Sources: Staffs review of the project)
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
295
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 20
DISCUSSION:
a-h) The project includes a General Plan amendment and design review of an existing use and structure
that is not located on or near a hazardous waste and substance site. The project would not create a
significant hazard to the public regarding hazardous materials because the project use has no exposure to
hazardous materials. There are no airports or protected wildlands within the area of the project and the
project, as proposed, would not impair the implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts of
hazards or hazardous materials.
(Sources: California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed May 19, 2014),
staff’s review of the project.)
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam?
296
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 21
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
DISCUSSION:
a-j) The proposed project includes a General Plan and Zoning amendment and design review to add
approximately 6,000 addition within the existing building footprint. If approved, the applicant will have
to potential to subdivide the lot, allowing up to three single-family residences on the property. Even so,
the project would not violate water standards, deplete groundwater supplies or significantly alter
drainage patterns. The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or an area potentially
affected by a levee, dam, or tsunami.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Hydrology and Water Quality Resources.
(Sources: FEMA Map Service Center FEMA Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001
&langId=-1/ (accessed May 19, 2014); Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014. Interactive ABAG
(GIS) Maps Showing Tsunami Planning Areas. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/(accessed May 19,
2014.)
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
a-c) The proposed project includes a General Plan amendment, Zoning amendment, and Design Review
to add approximately 6,000 sq. ft. and ten feet of height to an existing 30 foot tall synagogue. The
existing site is currently used for religious service and would not physically divide an established
community. The project, as proposed would not be in conflict of any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction, including any applicable habitat conservation
plan.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Land Use and Planning.
297
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 22
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga Municipal Code, Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element)
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
a-b) The property is not categorized or referenced within the General Plan as having mineral deposits or
value to the region and has not been recognized as being a locally important mineral resource recovery
site. Based on the above discussion, the project does not present the potential for a significant adverse
effect on the environment related to mineral resources.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Mineral Resources.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Open Space Element)
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
DISCUSSION:
298
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 23
a-f) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The following table lists noise standards for
residential uses in the City of Saratoga Noise
Ordinance (Article 7-30 of the City Code). The
indoor standards apply to noise produced by exterior
noise sources. Because the site is not located in
close proximity to high-traffic roadways, ambient
noise levels on the site are low, and are expected to be in the range of 50 – 60 A-weighted decibels
(dBA) or lower. Noise sources around the project site include light traffic volumes, public and private
functions held by Congregation Beth David and Church of the Ascension, and landscaping activities.
Implementation of the proposed project could increase noise levels in the vicinity of the site during the
project construction period. Construction of the proposed project would involve limited earthwork and
grading, since the addition is within the existing building area. Construction of the proposed project is
scheduled to extend over a period of 12 – 18 months. Construction related short-term noise levels would
be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity but would end once construction
is completed. The site preparation phase, which would include excavation and grading of the site, tends
to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving
equipment. Mitigation would not be required, because the project sponsor is mandated to follow
construction practices as stated per the City Code.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Residents adjacent to the project site could be exposed to temporary increased levels of ground borne
vibration and ground borne noise during the construction period. These increases are expected to occur
infrequently, and for only short durations during the project construction period, which is expected to
extend over 12 – 18 months. As such, the exposure of such noise levels is considered less than a
significant impact.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Long-term use of the project site will not substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels
because the existing and proposed use (community facility and single-family residential) are currently in
effect within the area. There is no impact that would substantially increase ambient noise levels
permanently within the project vicinity.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Table 1: Residential Ambient Noise Standards
Land Use Daytime Evening Nighttime
Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA
Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA 30 dBA
Source: City of Saratoga, June 2014. City Code, Article 7‐30.
299
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 24
Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the
project site vicinity but would cease once construction is completed. This increase in noise levels is
considered less than significant because the proposed construction is similar to residential construction
which happens throughout the City of Saratoga.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to
high levels of airport-related noise.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not expose site visitors to high levels of airstrip-related noise.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to noise impacts.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga City Code)
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significa
nt Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
DISCUSSION:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Implementation of the proposed project would not induce population growth, as the project includes a
General Plan amendment to change a designation from “Community Facilities” to “Medium Density-
300
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 25
Residential, but the number of potential (two) residential lots would be considered insignificant to
induce substantial population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would not displace existing housing, but rather have the potential to create new
housing stock. There would be no impact.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Implementation of the proposed project would not displace people or dwelling units.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on Population and Housing.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Housing Element)
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significa
nt Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
DISCUSSION:
The following discussion addresses the potential impacts of the project on fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities.
Fire protection. The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) would provide fire fighting services
to the project site. Since the project will be reviewed and conditioned by the SCCFD, the environmental
impacts relating to fire protection will be less than significant.
301
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 26
Police protection. The proposed project would receive crime enforcement services from the West
Valley Division of the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff. The proposed project may result in the
construction of potentially two single-family residences, if the project proposes a zoning amendment for
Parcel 3. Although these new residences could be the target of crime, an increase in demand for Sheriff
services would not be required due to the construction of the new dwellings.
Schools. Any students generated by the proposed project would be permitted to attend Cupertino Union
School District (elementary and middle) and Fremont Union High School District (high school). Since
the proposed project has the potential to increase residential units, there would be a potential net
increase of students to increase demand for school facilities. Due to the potential number of residential
units, the increase of student demand would be less than significant.
Parks. Implementation of the proposed project would potentially increase park demand because the
project is includes a General Plan amendment that would potentially allow the development of two new
residential lots, but the amount of density created would be considered less than significant.
Furthermore, if a developer would process an application for subdivision, a park-in-lieu fee of
approximately $
Other public facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the
demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care
facilities, because the project only has the potential of creating more density in the form of two new
residential lots.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Public Services.
(Sources: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan. Saratoga Municipal Code. Developmental
Review Comments for Congregation Beth David, dated 12/11/13 – SCCFD )
XV. RECREATION: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significa
nt Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
DISCUSSION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
302
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 27
The project has the potential to increase the use of parks, but not in such a manner that it would
substantially deteriorate such facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project does not include formal recreational facilities; therefore, there would be no impact that
would adversely physically effect the environment.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Recreation.
(Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Open Space Element)
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,
but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
DISCUSSION:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially result in an increase in traffic because
the existing and proposed use (community facilities) would remain the same. The proposed addition
would allow the increase of members to use the facility, but not in capacity that would be in conflict
with a circulation plan.
303
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 28
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a designated roadway to exceed a level of
service standard established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency because the
project is not expected to substantially increase vehicle trips on any road or highway within the vicinity
of the project site.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
The project site is not located near an airport and, if implemented, would have no affect on air traffic
patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The proposed project would not change public road access, therefore it would not increase hazards due
to design features.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Implementation of the proposed project would not cause inadequate emergency access because the
project, as conditioned, is required to construct (or maintain) adequate emergency access to the project
site. The project sponsor will utilize existing driveways to enter the site, which already satisfies the
requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted plans, policies, or programs
supporting alternative transportation because the City of Saratoga does not have such policies as part of
single-family residential development or a lot line adjustment application.
No mitigation is necessary or required in relation to transportation and traffic.
(Source: Review of the project, Saratoga General Plan Circulation Element, Developmental Review
Comments for Congregation Beth David, dated 12/11/13 – SCCFD )
304
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 29
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
DISCUSSION:
a - g) Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for
wastewater treatment because the project would not significantly increase the existing number of
dwelling units currently established in the vicinity. Furthermore, the proposed addition is modest in
size, with only one new restroom facility being proposed, which can be maintained by the existing
sanitation district without increasing capacity.
Based on the above discussion, no mitigation is necessary or required in relation to impacts on
Utilities and Service Systems.
(Source: Review of the project, phone conversation with Thanh Nguyen, Cupertino Sanitation District,
dated 6/24/14)
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
305
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 30
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
Implementation of the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the exiting
environment because the project site is already utilized for religious uses and surrounded by residential
uses. The site does not contain riparian woodland where fish, wildlife, or endangered plants or animals
are located. Furthermore, there are no examples of structures that reflect major periods of California
history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
The proposed project would result in the continuation of community facilities with the potential of the
addition of residential lots within an existing residential neighborhood, in a way that is consistent with
the City’s General Plan and zoning regulations. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result
of the proposed projects are considered either less than significant or no impact within this Initial Study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
The project site has been historically developed as a religious uses and single-family residential area.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would result with contaminated soil or groundwater.
The site is not located in a high wildfire risk area. Therefore, the proposed project would not have
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.
GENERAL SOURCE REFERENCES:
1. City of Saratoga General Plan (Land Use, Circulation , Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and
Safety Element)
2. City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and Map
3. City of Saratoga Housing Element
306
City of Saratoga Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration
19700 Prospect Road
Page 31
4. City of Saratoga Heritage Resource Inventory
5. City of Saratoga Seismic Hazard Zones Map, dated July 2007
PROJECT RELATED SOURCES/REFERENCES:
6. Project Plans.
7. California Public Resource Code, 2014. Website: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/calawquery?codesection=prc (accessed May 16, 2014)
8. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2014. Website:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA
%20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en (accessed May 16, 2014)
9. Arborist Report prepared by Ian Geddes, dated June 20, 2014.
10. California Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site
List. Website: www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed May 19, 2014).
11. FEMA Map Service Center, Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/(accessed May 19, 2014.)
12. Developmental Review Comments for Congregation Beth David, SCCFD, dated 12/11/2013.
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: July 23, 2014
Application: PDR13-0026, GRE14-0001, ARB13-0069
Location / APN: 22700 Mount Eden Road / 503-10-006
Owner/Applicant: Sholeh Diba Goetting
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan
22700 Mount Eden Road
SITE
318
Page 2 of 10
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 6,942 square foot
two story single-family home with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square foot one story
detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also includes a grading exception for 9,339 cubic
yards of grading which includes 1,226 cubic yards to construct the basement. The net size area is
3.83 acres or 166,835 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-025 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section
15-45.060(a)(3).
Grading Exception Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code
Section 15-13.050(f).
PROJECT DATA:
Gross Site Area: 169,884 SF / 3.90 acres
Net Site Area: 166,835 SF / 3.83 acres
Average Site Slope: 26%
Average Slope at Bldg. Site 9.2%
General Plan Designation: RHC (Hillside Conservation)
Zoning: HR (Hillside Residential)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Proposed Site Coverage
Residential Footprint/Main Residence
Front Porch
Driveway
Front Walkway
Pool
Pool Deck
Terraces
Cottage/Terrace
Total Proposed Site Coverage
4,294 sq. ft.
271 sq. ft.
3,283 sq. ft.
381 sq. ft.
770 sq. ft.
1,122 sq. ft.
3,249 sq. ft.
720 sq. ft.
14,090 sq. ft. (8.5%)
16,500 sq. ft.
[15,000 sq. ft. + 10%
(1,500 sq. ft.) increase for a deed
restricted secondary
dwelling unit]
Floor Area
Main House
First Floor
Second Story
Garage
Covered Porch
Secondary Dwelling Unit
Total Floor Area
3,542 sq. ft.
2,612 sq. ft.
752 sq. ft.
36 sq. ft.
600 sq. ft.
7,542 sq. ft.
7,557 sq. ft.
[6,870 sq. ft. + 10%
(687 sq. ft.) increase for a deed
restricted secondary
dwelling unit]
319
Page 3 of 10
Height (Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
Total Proposed Height
771.3
780.3
775.8
801.8
(26.00 Ft.)
26 Feet
Height (Second Dwelling)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
Total Proposed Height
741
743.25
742.1
731.8
(19.7 Ft.)
26 Feet
Setbacks (vacant site)
Main House
Front (20% of lot depth)
Left (10% of site width)
Right (10% of site width)
Rear (25% of lot depth)
Second Dwelling Unit
Front
Left
Right
Rear
109’
69’
189’
208’-9”
305’
125’
176’-8”
109’-6”
87’-8” (20% of lot depth)
35’-6” (10% of site width)
35’-6” (10% of site width)
109’-6” (25% of lot depth)
87’-8” (20% of lot depth)
35’-6” (10% of site width)
35’-6” (10% of site width)
109’-6” (25% of lot depth)
Grading (Cubic Yards)
Residence
Basement
Pool and Patios
Driveway and Turnaround
Guest House
Driveway for Guest House
Total
Cut
1,175
1,226
144
4,736
48
98
7,427
Fill
0
0
130
927
85
770
1,912
Total
1,175
1,226
274
5,663
133
868
9,339
1,000 Cubic Yards
(Grading Exception Requested)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site Description: The 3.9 acre project site is located at 22700 Mount Eden Road near its
intersection with Edencrest Drive. The site has an average slope of 26%.
The project site was identified as Lot No. 2 on the Tentative Map that was recently approved by
the Planning Commission on June 25, 2014 that divided the 11.89 acre site into three lots.
Access to the site is provided by a common driveway that connects to Mount Eden Road.
The site was included in a group of 16 parcels totaling 46 acres that were recently annexed to the
City of Saratoga. The site currently has a General Plan Designation of Hillside Open Space (OS-
H). In conjunction with the approved subdivision as mentioned above, the Planning Commission
also approved a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a land use amendment
from OS-H to Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) so that the existing Residential (HR)
320
Page 4 of 10
zoning designation is consistent with the General Plan. The City Council is scheduled to act on
the land use amendment at their meeting of August 20, 2014.
Surrounding land uses include Garrod Farms to the north on the opposite side of Mount Eden
Road, a vacant site and vineyard uses to the east, single-family homes with equestrian uses to the
south, and the Orchard Meadow Subdivision to the west. The property line separating the project
site from the adjacent subdivision coincides with the city’s boundary line with Unincorporated
Santa Clara County.
Numerous protected trees are located on the property but only 19 protected oak trees that could
potentially be impacted by the project were inventoried. These trees range in size between 7 –
23 inches in diameter. All trees are in fair or good condition as reported by the City Arborist.
Project Description and Architectural Style: The project would include the construction of a
new two story single-family main residence and a secondary dwelling unit. The 6,190 square
feet main residence would be 26 feet tall with a 752 square foot attached garage. The 2,202
square feet basement would be located below grade and is not included in the allowable floor
area. The project also includes a 600 square feet detached secondary dwelling unit located
approximately 80 feet south of the main residence Both structures have a similar architectural
style.
Main Residence
The residence would have a wide asymmetrical building footprint with two symmetrical side
wings on opposite sides of the front entry. The relatively steep pitched roof would have dark
green colored real slate tiles. The exterior of the residence would be covered in cement plaster
with a smooth finish with portions of the exterior plaster of the first story etched or ‘carved’ to
resemble individual stones. Pre-cast concrete quoins would accent the front elevation as well as
potions of the side elevations. Exterior windows and doors would be a combination of both
square and arched windows. The architectural element that projects from the front façade would
form an entrance element with a second story terrace supported by 16” diameter pre-cast
concrete tapered columns. A covered patio extends to the right of the front elevation. The
residence would include two fireplaces, a gas fireplace located in the family room and a wood
burning fireplace located in the outdoor pavilion located at the back of the residence. Photo
renderings of the project are included as Attachment #7.
Secondary Dwelling Unit
The 600 square foot, one story, 19.7 feet tall secondary dwelling unit would be located
downslope and approximately 80 feet south of the main residence. This one bedroom building
with a living room and a full kitchen would have the same architectural style and exterior
materials that were used for main residence.
The secondary dwelling unit would be deed restricted. This would increase the site’s 6,800 square
feet of allowable floor area by an additional 10 percent (687 square feet) for a maximum allowable
floor area of 7,557 square feet. The total proposed floor area for the entire site is 7,542 square feet.
Saratoga City Code Section 15-56.030(d) allows a one-time ten percent increase in site coverage
and allowable floor area if an applicant agrees to a deed restriction that would restrict the rental of a
321
Page 5 of 10
second unit to below market rate (BMR) households. A condition has been added to the project
requiring this deed restriction be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The provision of
the BMR second unit would allow the applicant to construct an additional 687 square feet of floor
area on the site above the maximum allowable floor area of 6,800 square feet for a total allowable
floor area of 7,557 square feet. In addition, the 15,000 square foot maximum site coverage would
also be increased by ten percent for total allowed site coverage of 16,500 square feet.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development publishes an annual list of
income limits for Santa Clara County households that would qualify as lower (80%), very-low
(50%), or extremely-low (30%) income households that would be eligible to rent a BMR housing
unit. All percentages are based on the 2013 Santa Clara County median income level of $105,500.
As an example, a couple with a combined yearly income of $84,400 (80% of the median) would be
eligible to rent the proposed secondary dwelling unit.
Saratoga City Code Section 15-56.030 contains Development Standards that are applicable to the
proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit. The Secondary Dwelling Unit would be deed restricted
thereby requiring that, if the unit was rented, that it be rented to Below Market Rate households.
The Unit complies with the Development Standards by:
• Exceeding the minimum lot size required for a Secondary Dwelling unit in the Hillside
Residential zone district.
• Being larger than the minimum size of 400 square feet, not exceeding the maximum size of
1,200 square feet, and not exceeding two bedrooms.
• Providing one off street parking space located within the three-car garage of the residence.
The parking requirements for a secondary dwelling unit are a minimum of one off-street parking
space within a garage. The garage requirement may be waived if the second dwelling unit is
deed restricted but a parking space still must be provided. There would be an unenclosed
parking space located adjacent to the secondary dwelling unit. Nonetheless, the project will
include a three-car garage thus meeting the covered parking requirements for both the main and
the secondary dwelling unit.
• Providing access by a common driveway.
• Having a common architectural appearance as the main residence.
Landscaping: The proposed landscape plan (page L-1 of the Project Plans) illustrates that the
project will feature drought tolerant landscaping, groundcover, and grasses which will be
clustered close to the buildings and developed areas thereby leaving the majority of the site in its
natural state. This landscaping would include 62 new trees that include Coast Live oaks, Birch,
and Crape Mrytles. Shrubs and vines would include Toyon and Rosemary. Groundcover and
grasses would include Gazania, Star Jasimine, French Lavender, and Mexican Sage.
322
Page 6 of 10
Materials and Colors:
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior Tan colored stucco and trim
Railings Black colored “wrought iron”
Pre-Cast Concrete Ballustrade
Limestone Trim Tan colored w/ sandstone finish
Windows Brown colored vinyl “wood clad” windows
Garage Door Sectional wood door – Match trim color
Roof Dark green colored slate tiles
Grading over one thousand cubic yards: City Code section 15-13.050 limits the combined cut and
fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand (1,000)
cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool and basement, unless a larger quantity is
approved by the Planning Commission. The project includes a request for a grading exception for a
combined cut and fill of 9,339 cubic yards (7,427 cut and 1,912 fill) with an export of 5,515 cubic
yards . The proposed grading would be to:
1. Limit construction of the project to those portions of the site with the least amount of slope
which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the project
geologist.
2. Avoid adverse impacts on protected trees and limiting the amount of development area to
maintain the maximum extent of native landscaping.
3. Provide a relatively level turnaround area for the Santa Clara County Fire Department with a
minimum outside radius of 36 feet providing an emergency vehicle the opportunity to reverse
direction. Fire Department access must be provided to and around all structures. The required
grading to provide both vehicular and Fire Department access would require 8,064 cubic yards
of grading which is 86% of all the proposed grading for the site.
4. The total grading of 9,339 cubic yards includes all cut and fill soil quantities. 5,515 cubic yards
of the total grading quantity will be exported and deposited off site. This material will not be
used as fill which could have the effect of modifying to an event greater extent the existing
contours of the site.
5. Maintaining a consistent floor plan elevation throughout the residence and to maintain the
asymmetrical building footprint consistent with the proposed French Eclectic architectural style
of the project.
6. Lowering the grades of the project to reduce its visual prominences as viewed from Mount Eden
Road and the adjacent Orchard Meadows Subdivision. The grading would also improve the
building integration into the natural topography of the site as recommended in the City’s
Residential Design Handbook thereby potentially offsetting negative views of the project.
Trees: The Project Arborist inventoried 19 trees on the project site that could potentially be
impacted by construction. Nine of the trees would be adversely impacted by construction. All
the trees are either Valley or Coast Live oaks and are located in the area of the proposed Fire
Department turnaround or near the area of the proposed secondary dwelling unit and its
driveway.
323
Page 7 of 10
The City Arborist has determined that all the trees proposed for removal meet the criteria
allowing removal and replacement as listed in the arborist report All remaining protected trees
in the vicinity of the project will be protected during the duration of the project.
Details of the arborist findings and descriptions of the tree to be removed are included in the
Arborist report which is included as Attachment #2.
Residential Calgreen Measures: The project will meet the minimum CalGreen standards for a
new home. The Residential Calgreen Measures Checklist is included as Attachment #6.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted eight (8) Neighbor
Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners. None of the forms included negative
comments related to the project. Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as
Attachment #5. A Public Notice was also sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. No
additional concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this staff report.
FINDINGS
Design Review Findings - The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless
it is able to make the following findings. These findings are in addition to and not a substitute for
compliance with all other Zoning Regulations (which constitute the minimum requirements, as
provided in City Code Section 15-05.050).
1. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the site development is limited to those portions of the site with the least
amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as identified by the
project geologist thereby preserving the natural contours of the site.
2. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations).
If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and
native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal
of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the project has been designed to reduce impacts to a minimum number
of protected trees. The nineteen (19) protected trees that were inventoried as being
potentially impacted include Valley and Coast Live oaks. The City Arborist has determined
that all the trees proposed for removal meet the criteria allowing removal and replacement as
listed in the arborist report All remaining protected trees in the vicinity of the project will be
protected during the duration of the project.
3. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the 3.9 acre size
of the parcel, the large building setbacks from property lines, and existing and proposed
vegetation and trees would screen views of both the proposed main residence and secondary
unit from surrounding properties and Mount Eden Road. Because the project would be
324
Page 8 of 10
screened from Mount Eden Road, the setbacks far exceed the minimums, and existing
vegetation and proposed landscaping would screen the project form the residences on the
adjacent sites, there would be no unreasonable impact to the privacy of adjoining properties
and to community viewsheds.
4. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in
scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the overall design, height, materials, and location of building features for both
the main residence and the secondary unit will avoid the perception of excessive bulk and the
French Eclectic architectural theme of the project and the use of architecturally true elements for
the proposed architectural style helps unify the building façades. The facades of the buildings
are well articulated with jogs in the building lines with varying height of roof elements,
architectural projections, and rooflines. The elevations are softened by the use of varying
materials to include earth toned smooth finished stucco, slate, and concrete. The views from
homes on adjacent sites are screened by existing and proposed landscaping.
5. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that a portion of the emergency vehicle turnaround and driveway
is the only hardscape located within the 87’-8”’ front setback area and there is no additional
hardscape proposed. The neighborhood streetscape along this section of Pierce Road is
characteristic of a rural mountain road and the project will have no effect on this existing
streetscape.
6. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties
to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the location of
the nearest existing residence is located at a distance of more than 200 feet and that all
proposed landscaping would be located in close proximity to the development so there would
be no shadowing that could impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy.
7. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made
in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and
techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding
unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above.
8. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts
to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance
with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is not
located on a ridgeline, there are no significant hillside features on the site to be impacted, and
the project is screened from offsite views by existing and proposed vegetation. The overall
size of the parcel and the proposed building setbacks would cause the project to not
unreasonably impact community viewsheds and the project is in compliance with City Code
Section 15-13.100 (Height of Structures).
325
Page 9 of 10
Grading Over One Thousand Cubic Yards - City Code section 15-13.050 limits the combined
cut and fill of any grading for a project in the Hillside Residential (HR) zone district to one thousand
(1,000) cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is
approved by the Planning Commission based upon making all of the below listed findings. The
project includes a request for a grading exception for a combined cut and fill of 9,339 cubic yards
(7,427 cut and 1912 fill) with an export of 5,515 cubic yards.
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. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that construction of the project is limited to those portions of the site
with the least amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable areas as
identified by the project geologist. The Santa Clara County Fire Department requires a
relatively level turnaround area with a minimum outside radius of 36 feet providing an
emergency vehicle the opportunity to reverse direction. Fire Department access must be
provided to and around all structures. The required grading to provide both vehicular and Fire
Department access would require 8,064 cubic yards of grading which is 86% of all the proposed
grading for the site. The proposed grading lowers the grades of the project to reduce its visual
prominences as viewed from Mount Eden Road and the adjacent Orchard Meadows
Subdivision. The grading would also improve the building integration into the natural
topography of the site as recommended in the City’s Residential Design Handbook thereby
potentially offsetting negative views of the project and would allow reasonable development of
the property and achieve a reasonable access to the project site.
2. The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected. This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that construction of the project is limited to those portions of
the site with the least amount of slope which also coincides with the most geologically stable
areas as identified by the project geologist. The total grading of 9,339 cubic yards includes all
cut and fill soil quantities. 5,515 cubic yards of the total grading quantity will be exported and
deposited off site. This material will not be used as fill which could have the effect of
modifying to an event greater extent the existing contours of the site. Limiting the project
development to the geologically stable area as identified by the project arborist and exporting all
excess grading material will preserve and protect the natural land forms of the site.
3. The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with
the natural terrain. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the grading would
improve the integration of the structures into the natural topography of the site by constructing
the buildings to follow the sites existing contours. Maintaining a consistent floor plan elevation
throughout the residence and to maintain the asymmetrical building footprint consistent with the
proposed French Eclectic architectural style of the project. The increased grading by terracing
the project into the site and maintaining a consistent true architectural theme would promote the
compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain.
4. The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed
from surrounding views or from distant community views. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the project is screened from offsite views due to the size of the lot and
existing and proposed vegetation and is screened would be screened from distant community
views.
326
Page 10 of 10
5. No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main
residential structure. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the grading will not
be used to create flat building pads beyond the building footprints as the majority of project
grading would be used to excavate the basement and construct the emergency vehicle
turnaround and driveways to provide access to both the main residence and the secondary
dwelling unit. Landscape grading will be used to transition from graded areas to non-graded
areas. The grades to the north of the residence and secondary dwelling unit will continue to
increase as the slope currently rises in front of the buildings and the area at the rear of the
buildings will gradually decrease until daylighting with existing grades.
Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to
that exemption applies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-025 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review
2. Arborist Report dated 2-26-14
3. Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
4. Public Hearing Notice
5. Neighbor Notification Forms
6. CalGreen Checklist
7. Photo Renderings
8. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
327
RESOLUTION NO: 14-025
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A NEW TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, A
ONE STORY DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT AND A GRADING
EXCEPTION TO EXCEED 1,000 CUBIC YARDS
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2014, an application was submitted by Michael Davis of D&Z
Design Associates, Inc. on behalf of Sholeh Diba Goetting requesting Design Review approval to
construct a new two story home and a one story detached secondary dwelling unit located at 22700
Mount Eden Road. The project also includes a request for grading exception to exceed 1,000 cubic
yards of grading. The project has a total floor area of 7,542 square feet. The height of the proposed
residence would be 26 feet and the height of the secondary dwelling unit would be 19’-7”. The site
is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District (APN 503-10-006).
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other
interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the
construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land
Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the
new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require
that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a
residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of
development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to
prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides
that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the
visual impact of new development.
328
Resolution No. 14-025
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and
improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project follows the natural
contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints;
preserves protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining
properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural
elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes
hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the
neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize
solar energy; is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook; and in the case of hillside
lots, avoids unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds,
and is in compliance with Section 15-13-100.
Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the request for a
grading exception to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading is consistent with the Grading Exception
findings in that 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; natural land forms and
vegetation are being preserved and protected; the increased grading is necessary to promote the
compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; the increased grading is necessary to
reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant
community views; and that no building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad
surrounding the main residential structure.
Section 6: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the removal of nine
protected tree meets the criteria established in Section 15-50.080(a).
Section 7: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR13-0026
GRE14-0001, and ARB13-0069 located at 22700 Mount Eden Road subject to the Findings, and
Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 23rd day of
July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
329
Resolution No. 14-025
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR13-0026, GRE14-0001, and ARB13-0069
22700 Mount Eden Road
(APN 503-10-006)
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it
shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or
its equivalent.
2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all
processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is
maintained).
3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference.
4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done
or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting
on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate
agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and
Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney.
330
Resolution No. 14-025
5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding
drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater
management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the
site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down
slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow
the 2007 Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building
department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as
required by the building department. Additionally, the site development plan must not restrict,
obstruct or alter the existing natural drainage swale along the rear property in any way that
would cause or increase erosion.
6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A".
All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing
the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be
subject to approval in accordance with City Code.
7. City Council Action: Approval of this project is consistent on the City Council adopting a
resolution to modify the existing general plan designation of the project site from Hillside Open
Space (OS-H) to Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC).
8. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the
following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department.
b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages.
d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design
Review Approval.
331
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application #: ARB13-0069
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Sholeh Diba-Goetting
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 503-10-006
Email: getting @comcast.net
REPORT
HISTORY:
#1
Date plans received by City:
Architectural Plans received December 16, 2013
Civil Plans received December 16, 2013 and February 4, 2014
Arborist report received January 13, 2014
Report completed February 26, 2014
#2 – This report
replaces report #1
Revised civil plans received March 11, 2014
Arborist report received March 11, 2014
Report completed March 26, 2014
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to build a new two story house with a basement and an
attached three-car garage, a pool, and a guest cottage on a vacant lot. The applicant is requesting that
this application be considered concurrently with a submitted subdivision application.
Nine trees are requested for removal to construct this project. They meet the criteria allowing
removal and replacement as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained.
See the Conditions of Approval for details.
STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with conditions.
This project has clearance to proceed from the arborist, with the conditions listed under the
Conditions of Approval.
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree protection
security deposit – Required – $59,800 for trees #19 – 23 and 25 – 30
Tree fencing – Required – See attached map for locations
Tree removals – Permitted w/ building permit See Conditions of Approval
Replacement trees – Required -- $31,190 for trees #13 – 18, 24 and 31
Page 1 of 4
332
22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot 2
PLANS REVIEWED:
Architectural Plans reviewed:
Preparer: DZ Design Associates, Inc.
Date of Plans: December 16, 2013
Table 1: Architectural plans
Sheet T1 Title Sheet
Sheet A1 Site Plan
Sheet A2 Entry Level Floor Plan
Sheet A3 Upper Level Floor Plan
Sheet A4 Basement Level Floor Plan
Sheets A5 and A6 Elevations
Sheet A7 Sections
Sheet A9 Guest House
Civil Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Westfall Engineers, Inc.
Date of Plans: February 14, 2014
Table 2: Civil plans
Sheet C1 February 2014 (Proposed) Title Sheet
Sheet C2 February 27, 2014 Grading and Drainage Plan
Sheet C3 February 26, 2014 Sections and Details
Sheet C1 February 14, 2014 Tentative Map
Sheet C2 February 14, 2014 Slope Classification Map
Sheet C3 February 27, 2014 Preliminary Development Plan
TREE INFORMATION:
Arborist Report reviewed:
Preparer: Deborah Ellis, Consulting Arborist and Horticulturist
Dates of Reports: January 10, 2014, March 11, 2014
The submitted arborist report provided information on the condition of trees on the site,
recommendations for tree protection, suitability for preservation and appraised values. The
designated project arborist for the construction work on Lot #2 will be Deborah Ellis.
Trees #13 – 17 appear to be in conflict with proposed grading but are not requested for removal.
Either they should be requested for removal and replacement, or the design modified to adequately
protect them. Trees that are requested for removal should be clearly indicated on the plans.
Page 2 of 4
333
22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot 2
Trees #18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26 and 31 are to be retained, protected and preserved during construction.
They require design modifications and special construction methods to adequately protect them
during construction. See the Conditions of Approval for details.
Table 3: Tree data from submitted arborist report for Lot #2
Tree
No. Species DBH
Crown
spread
(feet)
Suitability for
Preservation
Zone of
protection (ft.)
Appraised
Value
13
Valley
oak 6, 6, 5, 5 20 Fair/Poor 0 $2,710
14
Coast
live oak 6, 5 15 Fair/Poor 0 $1,060
15
Coast
live oak 6, 5, 3 15 Fair 0 $1,590
16
Coast
live oak 7 18 Fair 0 $1,170
17
Coast
live oak 11 20 Fair/Good 0 $1,910
18
Coast
live oak 23 25 Fair/Good 0 $13,600
19
Coast
live oak 16 30 Fair/Good 12 $4,540
20
Coast
live oak 21 25 Good 15 $8,700
21
Coast
live oak 4, 7 20 Fair/Good 10 $8,000
22
Coast
live oak 16 22 Fair 8 $3,670
23
Valley
oak 15 30 Fair 11 $3,490
24
Valley
oak 10 20 Good 0 $1,850
25
Valley
oak 15 25 Fair/Good 15 $4,200
26
Coast
live oak 28 50 Good 21 $15,300
27
Coast
live oak 9, 8, 5 25 Good 8 $4,400
28
Coast
live oak
11
22
Fair
6
$2,190
29
Coast
live oak 14 22 Fair/Good 7 $3,610
30
Coast
live oak 8.5 15 Fair/Good 6 $1,700
31
Coast
live oak 14, 14 35 Fair/Good 0 $7,300
Page 3 of 4
334
22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot 2
Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the Guide for
Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and Group Assignment, published by
the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
FINDINGS:
Tree Removals
Nine trees are requested for removal to construct the new house, pool and guest house. They include
trees #13 – 18, 24, and 31. Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain
findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. Trees all nine trees are in conflict with
proposed grading for the project, and meet the City’s criteria allowing them to be removed and
replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2
contains the tree removal criteria for reference.
Table 5: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met
Tree # Criteria met Criteria not met
13 – 18, 24, 31 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 8
Replacement Trees:
The total appraised value of trees #13 – 18, 24 and 31 is $31,190. New trees equal to this appraised
value will be required as a condition of the project. Replacement trees may be planted anywhere on
the property. Replacement values for new trees are listed below.
New Construction
Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements
for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Conditions of approval
2 – Tree removal criteria
3 – Map of Site showing tree locations and protective fencing
IMPORTANT
This entire report, including attachments, shall be copied onto a plan
sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans.
Replacement Tree Values:
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
Page 4 of 4
335
22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 Attachment 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This arborist report shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included
in the final job copy set of plans.
2. The arborist report by Deborah Ellis shall also be copied onto a plan sheet and included in
the final job copy set of plans. It shall include at a minimum:
a. The cover sheet.
b. The maps for lot 2 with tree locations.
c. Table 3, Complete Tree Table, with the information for trees #13 – 31 and 45 – 48.
d. Recommendations.
3. Trees #13 – 18, 24 and 31 shall be indicated for removal on the architectural site plan.
4. Tree Protection Security Deposit – $59,800
a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080(d).
b. Shall be for tree(s) 19 – 23 and 25 – 30.
c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department
before obtaining Building Division permits.
d. May be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond.
e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project.
f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City
Arborist.
5. Tree Protection Fencing:
a. Shall be as shown on the attached map (Attachment 3).
b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site.
c. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch
diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10
feet apart.
d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR
REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408)
868-1276”.
e. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division
permits.
f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection.
g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to
arrange a field meeting.
6. The designated Project Arborist shall be Deborah Ellis, Consulting Arborist and
Horticulturist.
7. All recommendations of the Project Arborist shall become conditions of approval for the
project, unless a stricter condition is imposed by the City.
Page 1 of 3
336
22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 Attachment 1
8. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every week during grading activities and monthly
thereafter.
9. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 20 feet of trees 19 – 22 and
25 – 26.
10. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the project,
the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. The letter shall
document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and
provide information on the condition of the trees.
11. Trenching to install new utilities shall not be permitted inside tree protection fencing.
12. The existing grade shall be preserved for the distances listed below:
a. 10 feet from the trunk of tree 25
b. 15 feet from the trunk of trees 19 – 22 and 26
13. The proposed driveway to the guest house shall be built entirely on top of grade and out of
pervious materials where it is within 25 feet of tree 25. It is acceptable to construct a concrete
curb on top of grade to contain pavers or other materials.
14. The dissipater pit by tree 25 shall be located so that it is no closer than 20 feet from the tree’s
trunk.
15. The dissipater pit by trees 46 – 48 shall be located so that it is no closer than 15 feet from
their trunks.
16. Excavation for all utilities shall be hand dug for the first three feet wherever they are within
25 feet of a protected tree.
17. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be
removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building
division for the approved project.
18. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for
protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work.
19. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching,
equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and
equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
20. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards.
21. Trees 13 – 18, 24 and 31 meet the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced
once Building Division permits have been obtained.
Page 2 of 3
337
22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 Attachment 1
22. New trees equal to $31,190 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and
occupancy of the new home.
23. Replacement values for new trees are listed below.
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
24. At least four replacement trees shall reach a height at maturity of 35 feet or more.
25. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half
of the canopy of oak trees on site.
26. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies.
27. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited under
tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage to areas under tree canopies.
Herbicides shall not be applied under tree canopies.
28. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and
have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final
inspection.
Page 3 of 3
338
22700 Mt. Eden Road Lot #2 Attachment 2
TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article
15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If
findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and
replacement during construction.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to
existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services;
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property;
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and
the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes;
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal
would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the
general welfare of residents in the area;
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry
practices;
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on
the protected tree;
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose
and intent of this Article;
(8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes
of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is
no other feasible alternative to the removal.
Page 1 of 1
339
22700 Mt. Eden Road
Lot #2
Legend
Tree Canopy
Tree Protection Fence
Attachment 3
26
13
18
24
25
31
17—14
20
19
46
47
48
340
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Riordan, Project Planner, Community Development Department
CC: Goetting, S / Davis, M D&Z Design Associates (Owner / Applicant)
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO14-0004 (Lot 2) at 22700 Mt Eden Rd
DATE: March 21, 2014
1. Final plans for construction of residential improvements on Lot 2 should be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Consultant for conformance with geotechnical design recommendation. Consideration should be given to utilizing site non-expansive earth materials for the construction of fill beneath residential improvements. The results of the plan review should be submitted to the City, for review by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of permits for building and grading on Lot 2. 2. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Completed drainage improvements should be inspected for conformance with geotechnical recommendations. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 4. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
341
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on:
Wednesday, the 23rd of July, 2014, at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site
visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the
Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. The public hearing agenda item is
stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development
Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at
www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures.
APPLICATION: PDR13-0026, GRE14-0001, ARB13-0069
ADDRESS: 22700 Mount Eden Road
APPLICANT/OWNER: Sholeh Diba Goetting
APN: 503-10-006
DESCRIPTION: The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new
6,942 square foot two story single-family home with a 2,202 square foot basement and a 600 square
foot one story detached secondary dwelling unit. The project also includes a grading exception for
9,339 cubic yards of grading which includes 1,226 cubic yards to construct the basement. The net
size area is 3.83 acres or 166,835 square feet and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential).
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order for information
to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be
filed on or before Monday, July 21, 2014.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of
this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice,
we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your
Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP
Senior Planner
(408) 868-1235
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: July 23, 2014
Application: Design Review PDR14-0014
Location / APN: 12970 Glen Brae Dr. / 389-03-002
Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga / Crown Castle on behalf of Sprint
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
12970 Glen Brae Dr. – Congress Springs Park
375
2
SUMMARY
ZONING
Single-Family Residential (R1-12,500)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Open Space – Managed Resources (OS-MR)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting to replace three panel antennas on an existing monopole located
at Congress Springs Park with larger panel antennas. The existing radome will be used to
house the three proposed antennas. The total combined height of the radome and monopole
would be approximately 45 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 14-027 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
PROJECT DATA
Pursuant to City Code Section 15-44.020(a), no building permit shall be issued for the
construction of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, or the modification of an
existing Wireless Telecommunications Facility, within any zoning district until such
structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission. The
application includes the replacement and installation of new panel antennas and
associated equipment.
SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Site Description: The project site is located in the southeast corner of Congress Springs
Park. The approximately 10 acre park site contains baseball, softball, soccer, and
recreational fields. The monopole is located is the northwestern portion of the park,
bordered by the park itself, Highway 85, and Saratoga Creek.
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to replace three existing wireless
antennas with three new larger panel antennas. The existing radome is approximately 36
inches in diameter and large enough to cover the new antennas. The overall height of the
pole and radome will not be increased. Therefore, no aesthetic change will be noticed
from the public right-of-way.
Additional equipment would be added to the site which includes three new Radio Remote
Units on an existing ground-mounted H-frame. Four new batteries would be installed
within the existing ground-mounted cabinets. Additional fiber cables associated with the
antennas would also be installed.
There is a number of Sprint wireless sites located within the City. The applicant has
supplied the sites locations as Attachment 2. Coverage will not increase due to the
antenna replacement, but rather, the antennas would be an upgrade due to newer
technology. The coverage map has been included as Attachment 3.
376
3
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over Radio
Frequency (RF) emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. The City can evaluate
and regulate only the aesthetic aspects of wireless installations. Any concerns regarding
health and safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within the purview of the Planning
Commission. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to
regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities.
Radio Frequency (RF) Analysis
The applicant has provided a Radio Frequency (RF) Analysis which concludes the proposed
telecommunication facility would comply with the FCC’s current standards for limiting
human exposure to RF energy, and no significant impact on the general public is expected.
As proposed, the new antennas would operate at no more than 5.081% of the maximum
power density in any accessible area on the ground.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant was unable to contact any neighboring property owners regarding the project.
Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the
Saratoga News. Staff has not received any comments on the proposed project.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section 15-44.025 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility is or can be co-located with another
Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a structure or an existing utility
pole/tower in the public right-of-way unless the applicant has demonstrated that such
location is not technically or operationally feasible.
The project meets this finding because the new antennas will be located on an existing
wireless facility.
(b) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility and related structures incorporate
architectural treatments and screening to substantially include:
(1) Appropriate and innovative stealth design solutions;
(2) Techniques to blend with the surrounding environment and predominant
background;
(3) Colors and materials that are non-reflective;
(4) Exterior textures to match the existing support structure or building; and
(5) Reasonably compatible height with the existing surrounding environment.
The project meets this finding because the proposed antenna replacement would be
located significantly away from sight lines of neighboring property owners as it
would be constructed at the northwest end of Congress Springs Park, adjacent to
377
4
Highway 85, and within an existing equipment storage facility. The color, exterior
textures and height of the proposed wireless equipment are consistent with the gray,
industrial color of nearby utilities in the area.
(c) That landscaping and fencing provide visual screening of the Wireless
Communication Facility's ground-mounted equipment, related structures, and that
fencing material is compatible with the image and aesthetics of the surrounding area.
The project meets this finding because the equipment area is screened by fencing,
recreational equipment storage, and maintenance equipment and is non-accessible to
patrons of the park, trail and other recreational facilities. Additional existing shrubs and
bushes located along the southwest portion of the fence area provide additional aesthetic
screening of the ground-mounted equipment.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes installation and
replacement of new cellular equipment, is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of limited
small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval – 12970 Glen Brae Dr.
2. Antenna Locations – Sprint PCS
3. Coverage Maps – Sprint PCS
4. Photo Simulations
5. RF Analysis
6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”
378
RESOLUTION NO: 14-027
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0014 REGARDING WIRELESS ANTENNAS
LOCATED AT 12970 GLEN BRAE DR (CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK)
WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Crown Castle on behalf of Sprint requesting
Design Review approval to replace three existing cellular panel antennas with three new panel
antennas. The approval also includes the installation of associated ground-mounted equipment
which includes, but not limited too, three Radio Remote Units and four batteries, within a leased
area located at the southeast end of 12970 Glen Brae Drive (APN 389-03-002), also known as
Congress Springs Park. The site is located within the R-1-12,500 zoning district.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other
interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3
(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption applies to new construction and
installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies:
Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that
new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; Land Use Element Policy 5.2 which states that Development proposals shall be
evaluated against City standards and guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light,
appearance, and intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be
fully mitigated; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the
existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new
development.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and
improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project is co-located with
another wireless telecommunications facility, blends in with the surrounding environment and
predominant background, and is appropriately screened visually.
379
Resolution No. 14-027
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0014
located at 12970 Glen Brae Drive, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 23rd day of
July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
380
Resolution No. 14-027
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR14-0014
12970 Glen Brae Dr.
(APN 389-03-002)
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-
05.035, as applicable.
4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the
Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to
the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively
“processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS
AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES
CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning
Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community
Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit
accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in
accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
381
Resolution No. 14-027
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and
volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any
action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations
taken, done or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person
acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans and Description of Use. The development shall be located and
constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans
and Description of Use, denominated Exhibit "A", and the Photo Simulations, denominated
Exhibit “B, both received and dated July 1, 2013. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans
and Description of Use must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including
a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in
accordance with Condition A.3, above.
10. Harmonizing with Existing Structures. Prior to the installation of the proposed radome and
accessory equipment, the radome and equipment shall be painted a color similar to the structure
it’s being attached to.
11. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The
construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.9
above;
b. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division
382
Resolution No. 14-027
C. REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES OR UTILITIES
12. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Verification. The applicant for this Project
shall contact the FCC and verify whether there are any required permits from said Commission.
If required by the FCC, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for any proposed equipment
installations (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved use), the Owner and/or
Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department documentation from the
FCC showing proof of compliance of the proposed use and/or development with the FCC's
requirements.
13. Decommission. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all cellular antennas and
related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation.
14. Governmental entities. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission, must be met.
15. Emergency Access. The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference
problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours from the
time the interference was reported.
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: July 23, 2014
Application: Design Review PDR14-0014
Location / APN: 12970 Glen Brae Dr. / 389-03-002
Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga / Crown Castle on behalf of Sprint
Staff Planner: Michael Fossati
12970 Glen Brae Dr. – Congress Springs Park
405
2
SUMMARY
ZONING
Single-Family Residential (R1-12,500)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Open Space – Managed Resources (OS-MR)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting to replace three panel antennas on an existing monopole located
at Congress Springs Park with larger panel antennas. The existing radome will be used to
house the three proposed antennas. The total combined height of the radome and monopole
would be approximately 45 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 14-027 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
PROJECT DATA
Pursuant to City Code Section 15-44.020(a), no building permit shall be issued for the
construction of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, or the modification of an
existing Wireless Telecommunications Facility, within any zoning district until such
structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission. The
application includes the replacement and installation of new panel antennas and
associated equipment.
SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Site Description: The project site is located in the southeast corner of Congress Springs
Park. The approximately 10 acre park site contains baseball, softball, soccer, and
recreational fields. The monopole is located is the northwestern portion of the park,
bordered by the park itself, Highway 85, and Saratoga Creek.
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to replace three existing wireless
antennas with three new larger panel antennas. The existing radome is approximately 36
inches in diameter and large enough to cover the new antennas. The overall height of the
pole and radome will not be increased. Therefore, no aesthetic change will be noticed
from the public right-of-way.
Additional equipment would be added to the site which includes three new Radio Remote
Units on an existing ground-mounted H-frame. Four new batteries would be installed
within the existing ground-mounted cabinets. Additional fiber cables associated with the
antennas would also be installed.
There is a number of Sprint wireless sites located within the City. The applicant has
supplied the sites locations as Attachment 2. Coverage will not increase due to the
antenna replacement, but rather, the antennas would be an upgrade due to newer
technology. The coverage map has been included as Attachment 3.
406
3
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over Radio
Frequency (RF) emissions from personal wireless antenna facilities. The City can evaluate
and regulate only the aesthetic aspects of wireless installations. Any concerns regarding
health and safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within the purview of the Planning
Commission. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has established rules to
regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities.
Radio Frequency (RF) Analysis
The applicant has provided a Radio Frequency (RF) Analysis which concludes the proposed
telecommunication facility would comply with the FCC’s current standards for limiting
human exposure to RF energy, and no significant impact on the general public is expected.
As proposed, the new antennas would operate at no more than 5.081% of the maximum
power density in any accessible area on the ground.
Neighbor Correspondence
The applicant was unable to contact any neighboring property owners regarding the project.
Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the
Saratoga News. Staff has not received any comments on the proposed project.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code
Section 15-44.025 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to
support making all of those required findings:
(a) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility is or can be co-located with another
Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a structure or an existing utility
pole/tower in the public right-of-way unless the applicant has demonstrated that such
location is not technically or operationally feasible.
The project meets this finding because the new antennas will be located on an existing
wireless facility.
(b) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility and related structures incorporate
architectural treatments and screening to substantially include:
(1) Appropriate and innovative stealth design solutions;
(2) Techniques to blend with the surrounding environment and predominant
background;
(3) Colors and materials that are non-reflective;
(4) Exterior textures to match the existing support structure or building; and
(5) Reasonably compatible height with the existing surrounding environment.
The project meets this finding because the proposed antenna replacement would be
located significantly away from sight lines of neighboring property owners as it
would be constructed at the northwest end of Congress Springs Park, adjacent to
407
4
Highway 85, and within an existing equipment storage facility. The color, exterior
textures and height of the proposed wireless equipment are consistent with the gray,
industrial color of nearby utilities in the area.
(c) That landscaping and fencing provide visual screening of the Wireless
Communication Facility's ground-mounted equipment, related structures, and that
fencing material is compatible with the image and aesthetics of the surrounding area.
The project meets this finding because the equipment area is screened by fencing,
recreational equipment storage, and maintenance equipment and is non-accessible to
patrons of the park, trail and other recreational facilities. Additional existing shrubs and
bushes located along the southwest portion of the fence area provide additional aesthetic
screening of the ground-mounted equipment.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, which includes installation and
replacement of new cellular equipment, is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to new construction of limited
small new facilities; installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval – 12970 Glen Brae Dr.
2. Antenna Locations – Sprint PCS
3. Coverage Maps – Sprint PCS
4. Photo Simulations
5. RF Analysis
6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”
408
RESOLUTION NO: 14-027
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0014 REGARDING WIRELESS ANTENNAS
LOCATED AT 12970 GLEN BRAE DR (CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK)
WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Crown Castle on behalf of Sprint requesting
Design Review approval to replace three existing cellular panel antennas with three new panel
antennas. The approval also includes the installation of associated ground-mounted equipment
which includes, but not limited too, three Radio Remote Units and four batteries, within a leased
area located at the southeast end of 12970 Glen Brae Drive (APN 389-03-002), also known as
Congress Springs Park. The site is located within the R-1-12,500 zoning district.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other
interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3
(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption applies to new construction and
installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies:
Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that
new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; Land Use Element Policy 5.2 which states that Development proposals shall be
evaluated against City standards and guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light,
appearance, and intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be
fully mitigated; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the
existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new
development.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and
improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project is co-located with
another wireless telecommunications facility, blends in with the surrounding environment and
predominant background, and is appropriately screened visually.
409
Resolution No. 14-027
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0014
located at 12970 Glen Brae Drive, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 23rd day of
July 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
410
Resolution No. 14-027
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR14-0014
12970 Glen Brae Dr.
(APN 389-03-002)
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly
otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16-
05.035, as applicable.
4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the
Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to
the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively
“processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS
AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES
CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning
Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community
Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit
accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in
accordance with the City Code.
6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
411
Resolution No. 14-027
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and
volunteers harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any
action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations
taken, done or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person
acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Compliance with Plans and Description of Use. The development shall be located and
constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans
and Description of Use, denominated Exhibit "A", and the Photo Simulations, denominated
Exhibit “B, both received and dated July 1, 2013. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans
and Description of Use must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including
a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in
accordance with Condition A.3, above.
10. Harmonizing with Existing Structures. Prior to the installation of the proposed radome and
accessory equipment, the radome and equipment shall be painted a color similar to the structure
it’s being attached to.
11. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The
construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.9
above;
b. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division
412
Resolution No. 14-027
C. REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES OR UTILITIES
12. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Verification. The applicant for this Project
shall contact the FCC and verify whether there are any required permits from said Commission.
If required by the FCC, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for any proposed equipment
installations (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved use), the Owner and/or
Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department documentation from the
FCC showing proof of compliance of the proposed use and/or development with the FCC's
requirements.
13. Decommission. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all cellular antennas and
related equipment shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation.
14. Governmental entities. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission, must be met.
15. Emergency Access. The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference
problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours from the
time the interference was reported.
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434