The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-08-2022 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8, 2022 7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING This meeting will be entirely by teleconference and will be conducted in compliance with Government Code section 54953(e) of the Ralph M. Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. The public will not be able to participate in the meeting in person. During the meeting the Chair will explain the process for members of the public to be recognized to offer public comment. Members of the public view and participate in the meeting by: 1. Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82652375945 App (Webinar ID 826 5237 5945) and using the tool to raise their hand in the Zoom platform when directed by the Chair to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair; OR 3. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99) and calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair; OR 4. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair. Members of the public can send written comments to the Commission prior to the meeting by commenting online at www.saratoga.ca.us/pc prior to the start of the meeting. These emails will be provided to the members of the Commission and will become part of the official record of the meeting. ROLL CALL 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of May11, 2022. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of May 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. 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. This 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. Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3 REPORT ON 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. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court, members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. 2.1 Application PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098; 20436 Sea Gull Way (386-53-002); Ankush Gupta – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 2,880 square foot two-story single-family home (maximum height 26 feet) with a 435 square foot basement and an attached 796 square foot accessory dwelling unit. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 22-013 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 3. NEW BUSINESS 3.1 Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element 4. DIRECTOR ITEMS 5. COMMISSION ITEMS 6. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for review on June 3, 2022 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 3rd day of June 2022 at Saratoga, California. Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the Planning Commission by staff after the posting of the agenda are Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3 available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us or available at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 2 DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY MAY 11, 2022 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Zheng called the virtual Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the Chair and Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission meeting was conducted pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e) of the Ralph M. Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. The Planning Commission met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate in this meeting. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was also shared. Additionally, the Chair explained that votes would be taken through roll call. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Herman Zheng, Vice Chair Clinton Brownley, Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Jojo Choi, Anjali Kausar, Ping Li and Razi Mohiuddin ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2022. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 13, 2022. CHOI/ AHUJA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 13, 2022 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS: NONE REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 Application PDR21-0025/ARB21-0085; 14835 Farwell Avenue (397-20-008); Satish Bagalkotkar Trustee (Applicant) – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a 5,921 square foot two story residence with an (maximum height 26’) 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit (maximum height 11’). Thirteen protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD). Staff Contact: Nicole Johnson (408) 868-1209 or njohnson@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-012 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 2 KAUSAR / CHOI MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION NO. 22-012. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. DIRECTOR ITEMS - None 4. COMMISSION ITEMS - None 5. ADJOURNMENT Commissioners Kausar/Li moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:29 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst City of Saratoga 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 8, 2022 Application: PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 Address/APN: 20436 Sea Gull Way/386-53-002 Property Owner: Ankush & Vibha Gupta From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner 6 Report to the Planning Commission 20436 Sea Gull Way– Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a 2,880 square foot two-story residence with a 435 square foot basement and a 796 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. No protected trees are proposed for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 22-013 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1), approval by the Planning Commission is required as the project includes new multi-story main structure. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 7,350 sq. ft. gross (0.16 acres) Average Site Slope: < 10% General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-10) Zoning: R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residence w/Garage ADU Driveway/Walkways Patios Total Proposed 1,581 sq. ft. 796 sq. ft 1,050 sq. ft. 463 sq. ft. 3,890 sq. ft.* (53%) 5,210 sq. ft. (70%)* Floor Area Residence w/Garage Basement (exempt) ADU Total Floor Area 2,880 sq. ft. 435 sq. ft. 796 sq. ft. 3,676 sq. ft.* 3,680 sq. ft.* Height 26’ 26’ Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side Rear: 1st Floor 2nd Floor 25’ 28’6” 6’6” 11’6” 6’6” 11’6” 36’6” 48’ 1st Floor 2nd Floor 25’ 25’ 6’ 11’ 6’ 11’ 25’ 35’ Grading Cut = 3 CY Fill = 20 CY Import = 17 CY No grading limit in the R-1-10,000 zoning district * Includes onetime 800 sq.ft. allowance for ADU Per City code Section 15-56.025 (5) (b) SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The project site is located at 20436 Sea Gull Way in the R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning district. The 7,350 square foot property has an average slope of less than 10% is currently 7 Report to the Planning Commission 20436 Sea Gull Way– Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Page | 3 developed with a single-story residence. The site is surrounding on all sides by one and two story single-family homes of various architectural styles. Project Description The proposed lower floor of the residence is 1,554 square feet and includes a family room, dining room, kitchen and attached two-car garage. The lower floor also contains an additional 796 square foot attached ADU which has two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a living room with a kitchenette. The proposed upper floor is 1,299 square foot and includes three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The existing 435 square foot basement is proposed to remain and will be used as a game room. The applicant has provided a color and materials board (Attachment 5). Below is a list of the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors/Materials Exterior White/Stucco Windows / Trim Dark Bronze/ Dark Wood Front door/Garage door Black Metal with Glazing/Dark Bronze Roof Dark Brown Concrete Tile Trees The project arborist inventoried a total of four protected trees on the property. No protected trees are proposed for removal. A description of the trees to be preserved and the tree protection plan are included in the Arborist Report (Attachment 2). Landscaping The installation of front yard landscaping is required prior to building permit final inspection. The project includes a condition of approval that landscaping is to be installed per City Code Section 15- 12.095. FINDINGS Design Review The findings required for issuance of Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.080 are set forth below. a. 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 building site is in a similar location of the existing building. The site development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it. b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native 8 Report to the Planning Commission 20436 Sea Gull Way– Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Page | 4 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 no protected trees are requested for removal. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that no community view sheds are in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence complies with the maximum height limitation of 26 feet allowable for residential structures. The building has varying architectural forms and exterior materials to break up the appearance of mass. In addition, the neighborhood is a mix of architectural styles. The building setbacks comply with those required for a substandard lot in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood and streetscape. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the home is similar in mass and height with the homes in the neighborhood and will not cast shadows on the adjacent properties which could impair the adjacent property owner’s opportunity to utilize solar energy. g. 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. 9 Report to the Planning Commission 20436 Sea Gull Way– Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Page | 5 h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence The Community Development Department mailed public notices to property owners within 500 feet of the site. The public hearing notice and description of the project was also published in the Saratoga News. The applicant submitted six (6) completed neighborhood notification forms, five (5) of which had no negative project related comments. One (1) adjacent neighbor located east of the site expressed concerns with privacy and the location of a proposed hot tub with a trellis (Attachment 4). In response to privacy concerns, the applicant has proposed a 6 foot tall privacy wall with frosted glazing on the eastern side of the rear balcony. The applicant has also proposed frosted glazing on the second story windows with fixed bottom panels so that only the tops of the windows may open on the sides of the home. The hot tub and trellis have since been removed from the proposed plans. The same neighbor also expressed concerns verbally regarding potential shadows cast by the proposed two-story residence. In response, the applicant provided a solar study (Attachment 7) which shows the shadowing effect of the proposed residence is minimal due to the recessed second floor and hip roof. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single-family residence and small structures in a residential area. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of a new residence replacing an existing residence. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 22-013 2. Arborist Report 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Story Pole Certification 5. Materials Board 6. Project Plans 7. Solar Study 10 RESOLUTION NO: 22-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR21-0027 AND ARBORIST REVIEW ARB21-0098 20436 SEA GULL WAY (APN 386-53-002) WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021 an application was submitted by Ankush and Vibha Gupta requesting Design Review approval for a 2,880 square foot two story residence with a 435 square foot basement and a 796 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). 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 Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on June 8, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single- family residence and small structures in a residential area. Section 3: The proposed residence is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The proposed residence is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. 11 20436 Sea Gull Way Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Resolution #22-013 Page | 2 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR21- 0027/ARB21-0098 for 20436 Sea Gull Way (APN 386-53-002), 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 8th day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________________ Herman Zheng Chair, Planning Commission 12 20436 Sea Gull Way Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Resolution #22-013 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 20436 SEA GULL WAY (386-53-002) 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. 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. 13 20436 Sea Gull Way Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Resolution #22-013 Page | 4 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Development Plans. All proposed changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 6. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval, a Lighting Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited to full cut-off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties. 7. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 8. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 9. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 10. The final landscaping and irrigation plan submitted for Building Permit approval shall demonstrate how the project complies with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall consider the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that 14 20436 Sea Gull Way Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Resolution #22-013 Page | 5 provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency, and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall consider potential damage to roots of protected trees 11. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 12. 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. 13. West Valley Collection & Recycling is the exclusive roll-off and debris box provider for the City of Saratoga. FIRE DEPARTMENT 14. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. ARBORIST 15. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated October 12, 2021 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans. Payment of the Tree Protection Security Deposit and installation and inspection by the City Arborist of the tree protection fencing shall be completed prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING 16. 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 current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 15 20436 Sea Gull Way Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Resolution #22-013 Page | 6 17. Applicant / Owner shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including all new utilities prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 18. Applicant / Owner shall make the following improvements in the City right-of-way: a. Remove existing driveway approach and replace with new driveway approach per City Standard Detail 205 & 206. See City of Saratoga Standard Details for removal and new installation. New flow line shall conform to existing flow lines and grade. 19. Damages to driveway approach, curb and gutter, public streets, or other public improvements during construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection. 20. All new/upgraded utilities shall be installed underground. 21. Applicant / Owner shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and other right of way as well as adjacent properties, both public and private, in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed immediately. 22. The Owner/Applicant shall incorporate adequate source control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff (e.g. landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs, such as Bay- Friendly Landscaping). 23. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution: • Owner shall implement construction site inspection and control to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains per approved Erosion Control Plan. • The City requires the construction sites to maintain year-round effective erosion control, run-on and run-off control, sediment control, good site management, and non-storm water management through all phases of construction (including, but not limited to, site grading, building, and finishing of lots) until the site is fully stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures. • City will conduct inspections to determine compliance and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs in preventing the discharge of construction pollutants into the storm drain. Owner shall be required to timely correct all actual and potential discharges observed. 24. Prior to the commencement of any earthwork/grading activities, the permittee shall arrange a pre-construction meeting. The meeting shall include the City of Saratoga Grading 16 20436 Sea Gull Way Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Resolution #22-013 Page | 7 Inspector (408-868-1201), the grading contractor, and the project Soils Engineer. The permittee or representative shall arrange the pre-construction meeting at least 48 hours prior to the start of any earthwork activities. 25. Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. 26. Prior to the Building final, all Public Works conditions shall be completed per approved plans. 27. Upon the completion of this project the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and verified by the City's building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the City’s Floodplain Administrator. 17 20436 Sea Gull Way Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Resolution #22-013 Page | 8 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 20436 SEA GULL WAY (386-53-002) The findings required for issuance of Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.080 are set forth below. a. 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 building site is in a similar location of the existing building. The site development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints with single family homes around it. b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that no protected trees are requested for removal. c. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that no community view sheds are in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence complies with the maximum height limitation of 26 feet allowable for residential structures. The building has varying architectural forms and exterior materials to break up the appearance of mass. In addition, the neighborhood is a mix of architectural styles. The building setbacks comply with those required for a substandard lot in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complimentary to the neighborhood and streetscape. 18 20436 Sea Gull Way Application # PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 June 8, 2022 Resolution #22-013 Page | 9 This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a condition of approval that front yard landscaping is to be installed prior to building department final inspection. The City Code requires that at least 50% of the front setback area be landscaped. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the home is similar in mass and height with the homes in the neighborhood and will not cast shadows on the adjacent properties which could impair the adjacent property owner’s opportunity to utilize solar energy. g. 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. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable as the project is not on a hillside lot. The project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. 19 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/171/trees 831.291.1344 CITY OF SARATOGA ARBORIST APPROVAL Conditions of Approval and Tree Protection Plan Prepared by Katelyn Obana, Contract Arborist Application No.PDR21-0027/ARB21-0098 Phone: (831) 291-1344 Address:20436 Seagull Way Email: Katelyn.Obana@Davey.com Owner:Ankush Gupta APN:386-53-002 Date:October 12, 2021 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to demolish an existing house and build a two- story house with an attached ADU. 0 trees protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree security deposit –Required - $4,530 Tree protection –Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals –No trees that are protected by City Code are requested or approved for removal in order to complete this project. Replacement trees –N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Findings and Tree Information 2 – Conditions of Approval 3 – Map Showing Tree Protection 1 20 Attachment 1: FINDINGS Tree Removals According to Section 15-50.080 of the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. No trees that are protected by City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final sets of plans: 1.Shall include the Construction Impacts to Subject Trees and Tree Protection Specifications & Recommendations Sequence from the arborist report by Kurt Fouts from the report dated August 27, 2021; 2.The Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval,and the Map showing tree protection from this report dated October 12, 2021. 2 21 Attachment 1 Continued: TREE INFORMATION Project Arborist:Kurt Fouts Date of Report:August 27, 2021 Number of protected trees inventoried:4 Number of protected trees requested for removal: 0 A table summarizing information about each tree is below. Table 1: Tree information and appraisal values from submitted arborist report submitted August 27, 2021. Total Value of Appraised Trees (including neighbor trees):$18,120 Appraised Value of Removals (to be replaced):N/A Required Security Deposit (25% of tree appraisal):$4,530 *Tree #5 not included as it is outside the limits of disturbance. 3 22 Attachment 3: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.Owner, Architect, Contractor:It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2.Permit: a.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. b.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. 3.Final Plan Sets: a.Shall include the Construction Impacts to Subject Trees and Tree Protection Specifications & Recommendations Sequence from the arborist report by Kurt Fouts from the report dated August 27, 2021; b.Shall include the Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the Map showing tree protection sections of the City Contract Arborist report dated October 12, 2021. 4.Tree Protection Security Deposit: a.Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b.Shall be $4,530 for tree(s)#1T, #T2, & #T1-A. c.Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department before obtaining Building Division permits. d.May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond. e.Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project. f.May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City Arborist. 5.Tree Protection Fencing: a.Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b.Shall be shown on the Site Plan. c.Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. d.Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. e.Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CONTRACT CITY ARBORIST, KATELYN OBANA (831) 291-1344”. f.Wherever protection is needed outside of fences, unprocessed wood chips, or approved equivalent, shall be placed to the edge of the tree’s canopy and to a depth of 6 inches. g.Call the Contract City Arborist, Katelyn Obana at (831) 291-1344 for an inspection of tree protection fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. h.Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 6.Construction:All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing unless permitted as conditioned below. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the 4 23 following: demolition, grading, trenching for utility installation, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7.Work inside fenced areas: a.Requires a field meeting and approval from the Contract City Arborist before performing work. b.Requires Project Arborist on site to monitor work. 8.Project Arborist: a.Shall be Kurt Fouts unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. b.Shall visit the site every two weeks during grading, trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. A letter/email shall be provided to the City after each inspection which documents the work performed around trees, includes photos of the work in progress, and provides information on tree condition during construction. c.Shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. 9.Damage to protected trees that will be retained: a.Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City ’s Tree Fund. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 b.Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. 10.Final inspection: 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 the Contract City Arborist for a final inspection. Before scheduling a final inspection from the Contract City Arborist, have the project arborist do an inspection, prepare a letter with their findings and provide that letter to the City for the project file. 5 24 Attachment 4:Tree Protection Zone Map: 6 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DATE: 12/7/2021SCALED: AS NOTEDDRAWN: LEI ZHENGDESIGN: LEI ZHENGENGINEER: LEI ZHENGMANAGER: ---- NOBY DATEREVISIONSPREPARED BY, OR UNDERTHE DIRECTION OF:LEI ZHENG P.E CIVILPHONE : 510-877-3721EMAIL: ENGINEER.LEI@GMAIL.COMPREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:ANKUSH GUPTA20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070----APN: 386-53-002CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIASHEET NO.20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070of SHEETS7TITLE SHEET1C1PRECISE GRADING PLANFORANKUSH GUPTA20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070STANDARD GRADING PLAN NOTES1. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY EARTHWORK GRADING ACTIVITIES. THE PERMITTEE SHALL ARRANGE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION IONMEETING. THE MEETING SHALL INCLUDE THE CITY OF SARATOGA GRADING INSPECTOR (408058-1201). THE GRADING CONTRACTOR AND THEPROJECT SOILS ENGINEER. THE PERMITTEE OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL ARRANGE THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AT LEAST 48 HOURSPRIOR TO THE START CE ANY EARTHWORK GRADING ACTIVITIES2. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN APPLIES ONLY TO THE EXCAVATION. PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF NATURAL EARTH. THIS APPROVAL DOES NOTCONFER ANY RIGHTS OF ENTRY TO EITHER PUBLIC PROPERTY OR THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF OTHERS APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN DOES NOTCONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS. ANY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THERESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES AND ALL OTHER PERMITS/APPROVALS SHALL BE OBTAINED.3. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE TO IDENTIFY. LOCATE AND PROTECT ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.4. THE PERMITTEE SHALL MAINTAIN ALL STREETS. SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC RIGHT-OF WAYS IN A CLEAN SAFE AND USABLE CONDITION. ALLSPILLS OF SOIL. ROCK OR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM PUBLIC PROPERTY. ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY BOTH PUBLIC ANDPRIVATE. SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN. SAFE AND USABLE CONDITION.5. ALL GRADING AND EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO COMPLY WITH STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THEBAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR AIRBORNE PARTICULATES.6. ALL KNOWN WATER WELL LOCATIONS ON SITE SHALL BE MAINTAIN OR ABANDONED ACCORDING TO CURRENT REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BYTHE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT. CALL 408-265-2600 X2600 TO ARRANGE FOR DISTRICT OBSERVATION OF WELL ABANDONMENT.7. THIS PLAN DOES NOT APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF ANY TREES. APPROPRIATE TREE REMOVAL PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THECOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ANY REQUIRED TREE PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.8.THE PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER HAS DESIGNED THIS PROJECT TO COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICALREPORT PREPARE BY .9. ALL GRADING AND EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL GRADING AND EARTHWORKACTIVITIES SHALL BE OBSERVED AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIORTO ANY GRADING OR EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES. UNOBSERVED OR UNAPPROVED WORK SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED UNDER OBSERVATIONOF THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER.10.ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES ARE TO BE WINTERIZED WITH APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IN PLACE FROM OCTOBER 15TH TOAPRIL 15TH OF EACH YEAR.11.GRADING ACTIVITIES ARE ONLY ALLOWED MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. 7:30 AM TO 600 PM.EROSION CONTROL1.TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL PLANS ARE REQUIRED FROM OCTOBER 15 TO MAY 15.2.EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE AVAILABLE ONSITE BETWEEN OCTOBER 15 AND MAY 15.3.BETWEEN OCTOBER 15 AND MAY 15. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHENEVER THEFIVE-DAY PROBABILITY OF-RAIN EXCEEDED 30 PERCENT. DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. THEY SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF THEWORKING DAY. WHENEVER THE DAILY RAINFALL PROBABILITY EXCEEDS 50 PERCENT.4.TEMPORARY DESILTING BASINS, WHEN REQUIRED. SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.REQUIRED INSPECTIONS1.A PRE-GRADING MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF GRADING WITH THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE PRESENT: OWNER.GRADING CONTRACTOR. DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEER. SOILS ENGINEER. GEOLOGIST. CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.REQUIRED FIELD INSPECTIONS WILL BE OUTLINED AT THE MEETING.2.A PRE-PAVING MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF THE SUB-GRADE PREPARATION FOR THE PAVING WITH THEFOLLOWING PEOPLE PRESENT: OWNER. PAVING CONTRACTORS. DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEER. SOILS ENGINEER. CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR OR THEIRREPRESENTATIVES. REQUIRED FIELD INSPECTIONS WILL BE OUTLINE AT THE MEETING.GRADING FILLS/CUTS1.GRADED SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 2 HORIZONTALS TO 1 VERTICAL.2.FILL SLOPES SHALL BE COMPACTED TO NO LESS THAN 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION OUT TO THE FINISHED SURFACE.3.ALL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED THROUGHOUT TO A MINIMUM OF 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION AS DETERMINED BY ASTM TEST METHOD 1557.AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. COMPACTION TESTS SHALL BE PERFORMED APPROXIMATELY EVERY TWO FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT ANDOF SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO ATTEST TO THE OVERALL COMPACTION EFFORT APPLIED TO THE FILL AREAS. AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL SHALL BECLEARED OF ALL VEGETATION AND DEBRIS. SCARIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACING OF THE FILL.5.FILLS SHALL BE KEYED OR BENCHED INTO COMPETENT MATERIAL.6.ALL EXISTING FILLS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER OR REMOVED BEFORE ANY ADDITIONAL FILLS ARE ADDED.7.ANY EXISTING IRRIGATION LINES AND CISTERNS SHALL BE REMOVED OR CRUSHED IN PLACE AND BACKFILLED AND APPROVED BY THE SOILSENGINEER.8.THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND SOILS ENGINEER SHALL. AFTER CLEARING AND PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF FILL IN CANYONS. INSPECT EACHCANYON FOR AREAS Of ADVERSE STABILITY AND DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF OR POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE ACCUMULATION OF. SUBSURFACEWATER OR SPRING FLOW. IF NEEDED. DRAINS WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF FILL IN EACH RESPECTIVECANYON.9.THE EXACT LOCATION Of THE SUBDRAINS SHALL BE SURVEYED IN THE FIELD FOR LINE AND GRADE.10.ALL TRENCH BACKFILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED THROUGHOUT TO A MINIMUM Of 93 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION. AND APPROVED BY THESOLS ENGINEER. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIRE CORING OF CONCRETE FLAT WORK PLACED OVER UNTESTED BACKFILLS TO FACILITATETESTING.11.THE STOCKPILING OF EXCESS MATERIAL SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.12.LANDSCAPING OF ALL SLOPES AND PADS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 15 Of THE NBMC.13.ALL CUT SLOPES SHALL BE INVESTIGATED BOTH DURING AND AFTER GRADING BY AN ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST TO DETERMINE IF ANY STABILITYPROBLEM EXISTS. SHOULD EXCAVATION DISCLOSE ANY GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS OR POTENTIAL GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS. THE ENGINEERINGGEOLOGIST SHALL RECOMMEND AND SUBMIT NECESSARY TREATMENT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL.14.WHERE SUPPORT OR BUTTRESSING OF CUT AND NATURAL SLOPES IS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS ANDSOLS ENGINEER. THE SOLS ENGINEER WILL OBTAIN APPROVAL OF DESIGN. LOCATION AND CALCULATIONS FROM THE BUDLING DEPARTMENT PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION.15.THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND SOILS ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT AND TEST THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALL BUTTRESS FILLS AND ATTEST TOTHE STABILITY OF THE SLOPE AND ADJACENT STRUCTURES UPON COMPLETION.16.WHEN CUT PADS ARE BROUGHT TO NEAR GRADE THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST SHALL DETERMINE IF THE BEDROCK IS EXTENSIVELYFRACTURED OR FAULTED AND WILL READILY TRANSMIT WATER IF CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND SOILS ENGINEER.A COMPACTED FILL BLANKET WILL BE PLACED.17.THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST SHALL PERFORM PERIODIC INSPECTIONS DURING GRADING.18.NOTIFICATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE: IF. IN THE COURSE OF FULFILLING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. THE CIVIL ENGINEER THE SOILS ENGINEER. THEENGINEERING GEOLOGIST OR THE TESTING AGENCY FINDS THAT THE WORK IS NOT BEING DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED GRADINGPLANS. THE DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING TO THE PERSON IN CHARGE Of THE GRADING WORK AND TO THEBUILDING INSPECTOR. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE MEASURES. IF NECESSARY, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FORAPPROVAL.OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT NOTICE1.AN APPROVED ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.2.A PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTION IS REQUIRED BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT FINAL CAN BE ISSUED.AT THE TIME OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INSPECTION. IF ANY OF THE EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SURROUNDING THE SITE ISDAMAGED. NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK. CURB AND GUTTER. AND ALL STREET PAVEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED. ADDITIONALLY. IF EXISTINGUTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE ARE DEEMED SUBSTANDARD. A NEW 1-INCH WATER SERVICE. WATER METER BOX. SEWER LATERAL AND\ORCLEANOUT WITH BOX AND LID WILL BE REQUIRED. 100% OF THE COST SHALL BE BORNE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER (MUNICIPAL CODES14.24.020 AND 14.08030). SAID DETERMINATION AND THE EXTENT OF THE REPAIR WORK SHALL BE MADE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PUBLICWORK INSPECTOR. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTIONPROJECT. A STOP WORK NOTICE MAY BE ISSUED FOR ANY DAMAGE OR UN MAINTAINED PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.3.AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NON-STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-Cf-WAY.4.ALL WORK RELATED TO WASTEWATER IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A C-42 LICENSED SANITATION SEWERCONTRACTOR OR AN 'A' LICENSED GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR.5.ALL WORK RELATED TO WATER IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A C-34 LICENSED PIPELINE CONTRACTOR OR AN 'A*LICENSED GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR.DOCUMENTATION1.AN AS-BUILT GRADING PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE CIVIL ENGINEER INCLUDING ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONS. AS GRADEDGROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONS. LOT DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND LOCATIONS. AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGEFACILITES. HE/SHE SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN APPROVAL THAT THE WORK WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL APPROVED GRADINGPLAN AND STATE THE NUMBER OF YARDS OF CUT AND OR FILL MOVED DURING THE OPERATION.2.A SOILS GRADING REPORT PREPARED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. INCLUDING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATION OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS. SUMMARIESOF FIELD AND LABORATORY RESULTS AND OTHER SUBSTANTIATED DATA AND COMMENTS ON ANY CHANGES MADE DURING GRADING AND THEIREFFECT ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE SOILS ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT. HE SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN APPROVAL AS TOTHE ADEQUACY OF THE SITE FOR THE INTENDED USE AND COMPLETION OF WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JOB SPECIFICATIONS.3.A GEOLOGIC GRADING REPORT PREPARED BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. INCLUDING A FINAL DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOLOGY OF THE SITE.INCLUDING ANY NEW INFORMATION DISCLOSED DURING THE GRADING AND THE EFFECT OF SAME ON RECOMMENDATIONS INCORPORATED INTHE APPROVED GRADING PLAN. HE/SHE SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN APPROVAL AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE SITE FOR THE INTENDED USE ASAFFECTED BY GEOLOGIC FACTORS.ENGINEER NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR1. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OFTHE AVAILABLE RECORDS. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION AS THE TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESSOF THE LOCATION OR THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY UTILITY AND OR STRUCTURE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIS PROJECT. THECONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE ALL DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEANS TO PROTECT THE UTILITIES OF RECORD OR NOT THE RECORD OR NOT SHOWNON THESE PLANS.2. RELOCATE OR REMOVAL OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY OWNERS. AT THE EXPENSE OF THEDEVELOPER.3. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL SATISFY HIMSELF AS TO THE GRADING QUANTITY AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AS PART OF HIS BIO.4. IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE GRADING CONTRACTOR NOTIFY THIS PRIVATE ENGINEER BY CALLING AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE COMPLETION OF THEGRADING OPERATION IN ORDER THAT THIS OFFICE MAY PERFORM A FINAL INSPECTION WITH OUR GRADE CERTIFICATION.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED PERMITS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OPERATIONS.6. UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES AND USES: THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLAN WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR. OR LIABLE FOR. UNAUTHORIZEDCHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OFWORK.7. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. CONSTRUCTOR WILL BEREQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITION DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMALWORKING HOURS. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND. INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL HARMLESS FROM ANYAND ALL LIABILITY. REAL OR ALLEGED. IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT. EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROMTHE SOLE NEGLIGENCE Cf DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.ADDITIONAL NOTE1.SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER SHALL PERMANENTLY MONUMENT PROPERTY CORNERS OR OFFSET BEFORE STARTING GRADING.2.IF THIS PROJECT IS STAKED BY SURVEY CREWS OTHER THAN THOSE CREWS UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE SIGNATORY ENGINEER. THESIGNATORY ENGINEER WILL NO LONGER BE THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND WILL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY AS TO THE FINAL CONSTRUCTED PROJECT.THE SIGNATORY ENGINEER WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED DURING THECONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. IF THE STAKING HAD BEEN DONE BY THE SURVEY CREW UNDER HIS DIRECT SUPERVISION.VICINITY MAPN-T-SEARTHWORK QUANTITYCUT 3 C.YFILL 20 C.YMAX DEPTH CUT 0.68 FTMAX DEPTH FILL 0.79 FTIMPORT 17 C.YLOT SIZE 7350 SQ-FTEXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 2150 SQ-FTPROPOSED NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA 3887.1 SQ-FTNOTE:QUANTITIES SHOWN HERE ON ARE FOR PERMIT AND ORBIDDING PURPOSE ONLY.ARCHITECTMICHELLE MINER DESIGN18488 PROSPECT RD, #6SARATOGA, CA 95070PHONE: 408-396-0984CIVIL ENGINEERLEI ZHENG P.E CIVILPHONE : 510-877-3721EMAIL: ENGINEER.LEI@GMAIL.COMBENCHMARKELEVATION FOR THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON ASSUMEELEVATION 500.00 AT POINT 1SHEET LIST TABLESheet Title SHEET DESCRIPTIONC1 TITLE SHEETC2 EXISTING AND DEMOLTION PLANC3 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC4 CONSTRUCTION DETAILSC5 EROSION CONTROL PLANC6 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE DETAILSC7 POLLUTION PREVENTION BMP 48 16342N0° 20' 03.28"W 125.673'S2° 32' 00.00"E 125.626'S88° 00' 00.00"W 62.993'N88° 00' 00.00"E 58.170'5SCALE 1" = 10'DEMOLITION NOTES:1. DEMOLISH FIRST FLOOR .2. EXISTING BASEMENT TO BE REMAIN.3. REMOVE EXISTING GATE.4. DEMOLISH FRONTAGE RETAINING WALL .5. EXISTING 18" DIAMETER LIGHT POLE TO BE RELOCATED .6. EXISTING TREE TO BE PROTECTEDFeet01020NDATE: 12/7/2021SCALED: AS NOTEDDRAWN: LEI ZHENGDESIGN: LEI ZHENGENGINEER: LEI ZHENGMANAGER: ---- NOBY DATEREVISIONSPREPARED BY, OR UNDERTHE DIRECTION OF:LEI ZHENG P.E CIVILPHONE : 510-877-3721EMAIL: ENGINEER.LEI@GMAIL.COMPREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:ANKUSH GUPTA20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070----APN: 386-53-002CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIASHEET NO.20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070of SHEETS7EXISTING AND DEMOLTION PLAN2C249 N0° 20' 03.28"W 125.673'S2° 32' 00.00"E 125.626'S88° 00' 00.00"W 62.993'N88° 00' 00.00"E 58.170'501.70FS501.70FS501.70FS501.70FS501.70FS501.70FS501.70FS501.70FS501.70FS501.70FS501.70FS501.70FG500.92FG501.03FS500.57FS499.87FS499.75FS5% 4%501.70FS5%2%2%5%2%2%5%2%2%5%2%2%5%6% 6% 6%10%8%1%10%4%FFE:501.70123333500.77FS500.75FS501.66FG501.70FGEXISTEXISTEXISTEXISTEXIST490495500505510515490495500505510515SIDE SWALEAS PER PLAN5%P/LP/L14'-7"6'-6"EXISTINGFENCEFFE = 501.70485490495500505510515485490495500505510515P/LP/L4%6%SIDE SWALEAS PER PLANEXISTING BASEMENT FOUNDATION WALLFFE = 501.70SEA GULL WAY501.70FS501.70FS501.70FSCOVEREDPATIO2%3WATER LINE PROPOSED SWALE500.67FS500.82FS500.87FSSEC-ASEC-ASEC-BSEC-B41%2%1%3%4%501.79FG501.33FG500.96FGCONSTRUCTION NOTES1.REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY APPROACH AND REPLACE WITH NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER CITY STANDARD FOR DETAIL SEE SHEET C4.2. CONSTRUCT PAVER WALK WAY AS PER LANDSCAPE PLAN .3. INSTALL DISCONNECTED DOWNSPOUT AS PER DETAIL SHEET C44. GRADE DRAINAGE SWALE AS PER PLANABBREVIATIONDF DEEPENED FOOTINGPAD PROPOSED PAD ELEVATIONFS PROPOSED FINISHED SURFACEFG PROPOSED FINISHED GROUNDFF PROPOSED FINISHED FLOORINV INVERT OF PIPETG TOP OF GRATEPL PROPERTY LINETW TOP OF WALLTF TOP OF FOOTINGHP HIGH POINTLP LOW POINT LEGENDS: SYMBOL DESCRIPTION EXISTING CONTOUR PROPERTY LINE ROAD CENTERLINE PROPERTY EASEMENT SWALE300500.95FS PROPOSED CONTOUR SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED HARDSCAPE AREA PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA2% SURFACE SLOPESCALE 1" = 10'Feet01020NSEC A-A:SEC B-B:DATE: 12/7/2021SCALED: AS NOTEDDRAWN: LEI ZHENGDESIGN: LEI ZHENGENGINEER: LEI ZHENGMANAGER: ---- NOBY DATEREVISIONSPREPARED BY, OR UNDERTHE DIRECTION OF:LEI ZHENG P.E CIVILPHONE : 510-877-3721EMAIL: ENGINEER.LEI@GMAIL.COMPREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:ANKUSH GUPTA20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070----APN: 386-53-002CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIASHEET NO.20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070of SHEETS7GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN3C3STORM WATER RETENTION NOTE :INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING NOTE ON THE SITE PLAN. “DISPOSITION AND TREATMENT OF STORM WATER WILLCOMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATIONSTANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM . NOTE :a.CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE ENCLOSED BY 6' OPAQUE FENCE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION.b.NO CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, PORTABLE TOILETS, TRASH CONTAINERS, OR DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED INTHE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.c.A TRASH CONTAINER SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE AT ALL TIMES AND DEBRIS ON SITE WHICH COULD OTHERWISEBLOW AWAY, SHALL BE REGULARLY COLLECTED AND PLACED IN CONTAINER.d.ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (WOOD SCRAPS AND OTHER DEBRIS, WHICH CANNOT BLOW AWAY) SHALL BE PILED WITHINTHE PROPERTY LINES OF THE PROJECT IN A NEAT AND SAFE MANNER.e.THE PROJECT SHALL HAVE A SIGNAGE VIEWABLE FROM THE PUBLIC STREET THAT INDICATES THE HOURS OFCONSTRUCTION AS: MON- FRI FROM 7:30 AM TO 6 PM, SATURDAYS FROM 9AM TO 5 PM.f.ALL GRADING AND EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALLGRADING AND EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES SHALL BE OBSERVED AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILSENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES. UNOBSERVEDOR UNAPPROVED WORK SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED UNDER OBSERVATION OF THE PROJECT SOIL ENGINEER.g.PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION FOR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR CIVIL ENGINEERWHO PREPARED THE SOIL INVESTIGATION SHALL ISSUE A FINAL REPORT STATING THE COMPLETED PAD, FOUNDATION,FINISH GRADING, AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE APPROVED PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS,AND INVESTIGATION.h.PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE CITY, THE LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE AWRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL BUILDING SETBACKS ARE PER THE APPROVED PLANS.i.THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE OBSERVATION DURING GRADING AND DRAINAGEOPERATIONS.j.DAMAGES TO DRIVEWAY APPROACH, CURB AND GUTTER, PUBLIC STREETS, OR OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DURINGCONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.k.PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FINAL, ALL DRAINAGE, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING OF THE SITE SHALL BECOMPLETED.50 DRIVEWAYS HARDSCAPEAMIN. SLAB THICKNESS 6"4"BMIN.AGG.BASE THICKNESS 6"4"CMIN.REINFORCEMENT (0.C/E.W).#4@12" #4@12"DMAX.SAWCUT OR COLD JT.SPACING 10' 8'ETHICKENED EDGE DEPTH12"8"FTHICKENED EDGE WIDTH8" 8"2DETAILTYPICAL DRIVEWAY HARDSCAPE SECTIONNOT TO SCALEUNDISTURBED COMPETENT SOILOR 90% COMPACTION MOISTURECONDITION SOIL SUB GRADE PERSOIL ENGINEERRECOMMENDATIONNOTES:1. THIS DETAIL IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE SOILS REPORTREQUIREMENTS. HARDSCAPE DESIGN BY OTHERS.2.SEE SOILS REPORT FOR OVEREXCAVATION AND SUBGRADE PREPARATIONREQUIREMENTS.SURFACETEXTURE, TILE,PAVERSETC. PERLANDSCAPE PLANSDOWNSPOUT PERARCHITECT PLANBUILDING FACECOBBLE OR SPLASH BLOCKFINNISH GRADE4DETAILDOWNSPOUTNOT TO SCALEVARIES 2% MIN >VARIES 2% MIN >1.5'1.5'0.17'MIN5DETAILEARTH SWALENOT TO SCALESLOPE 5 PERCENT AWAY FROM BUILDINGFOR GROUND AND LANDSCAPE AREAOR 2% AWAY FROM BUILDING FOR HARDSCAPE AREA,FOR TEN FEET UNLESS NOT PRACTICAL LONGITUDINALSWALE MAY BE USEDDATE: 12/7/2021SCALED: AS NOTEDDRAWN: LEI ZHENGDESIGN: LEI ZHENGENGINEER: LEI ZHENGMANAGER: ---- NOBY DATEREVISIONSPREPARED BY, OR UNDERTHE DIRECTION OF:LEI ZHENG P.E CIVILPHONE : 510-877-3721EMAIL: ENGINEER.LEI@GMAIL.COMPREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:ANKUSH GUPTA20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070----APN: 386-53-002CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIASHEET NO.20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070of SHEETS7CONSTRUCTION DETAILS4C451 N0° 20' 03.28"W 125.673' S2° 32' 00.00"E 125.626'S88° 00' 00.00"W 62.993'N88° 00' 00.00"E 58.170'COVERED PATIOWATER LINE FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFR FRFRFRWM-1WM-2WM-3WM-4WM-5WM-8WM-9SE-5SE-5SE-5SE-5SE-5TC-1SE-5FFE:501.70312EROSION CONTROL BMPEC-1 SCHEDULINGSCHEDULE PREPARED BY CONTRACTOR SHALL BE ON SITE DURING CONSTRUCTIONTEMPROARY SEDIMENT CONTROLSE-1 SILT FENCEINSTALL SILT FENCES ALONG LEVEL CONTOURS BEYOND THE DISTURBED AREA LIMITS.SE-2 SEDIMENT BASINCONSTRUCT SEDIMENT BAS MS WHERE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. BASIN WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT LIMITS ARE TEMPORARY UNTIL PRECISE GRADING COMMENCES.SE-5 FIBER ROLLSINSTALL WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN.SE-6 GRAVEL BAG BERMINSTALL WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN.SE-7 STREET SWEEPING AMD VACUUMINGSTREET SHALL BE SWEEP ED SEDIMENT COLLECTION. AND DISPOSED OF THE SITE ON A DAILY 8ASIS.SE-IO STORM WATER MET PROTECTIONONCE INLET RISERS ARE CONSTRUCTED. SURROUND RISERS WITH GRAVEL BAGS OR CAP THE RISER TO REDUCE SEDIMENT INTRODUCTION TO THE AREA DRAIN SYSTEMWIND EROSION CONTROL BMPWE-1WIND EROSION CONTROLWATER OR COVER MATERIAL SHALL BE USED TO ALLEVIATE DUST NUISANCE ON THE ROUGH GRADED PADS AND ANY STOCKPILETRACKING CONTROLTC-1 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXITRUMBLE RACK SHALL BE PLACED ON THE DRIVEWAY TO ENSURE THAT ALL VEHICLES LEAVING THE SITE PASS OVER THE DEVICES BEFORE ENTERING THE PUBLIC STREETNON-STORMWATER MANGEMENTNS-1 WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICESMAINTAIN WATER EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGES.NS-3 PAVING AFC GRADING OPERATIONSAPPLY PARAMETER CONTROLS AND VACUUMING TO PREVENT NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE.NS-6 ILLICIT CONVECTION 1 ILLEGAL DISCHARGECONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT ILLICIT CONNECTIONS OR LEGALLY DUMPED MATERIALS ON SITE TO THE RESIDENT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY AND CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION UNTIL THE RESIDENT ENGINEER PROVIDE A RESPONSENS-7 POTABLE WATER f IRRIGATIONEXCISE CARE CURING CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES.NS-8VEHICLE AMD EQUIPMENT CLEAN N GALL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT WILL BE CLEANED OFF-SITE.NS-9VEHICLE AMD EQUIPMENT FUELINGALL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT WILL BE FUELED OFF-SITE.NS-10VEHICLE AMD EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCEALL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT WILL BE MAINTAINED OFF-SITE.NS-12 CONCRETE CURINGAPPLES TO ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION.NS-13CONCRETE FINISHINGAPPLES TO ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION.WASTE MANGEMENT AND MATERIAL POLLUTION CONTROLWM-1MATERIAL DELIVERY AND STORAGEMATERIALS SHALL BE STORED ON-SITE IN ORIGINAL MARKED CONTAINERS AND COVERED FROM RAIN AND WIND. MATERIAL INVENTORY SHALL CONSIST OF SUPPLY REQUIRED FOR A FEW DAYS.WM-2MATERIAL USEMATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRODUCT DIRECTION.WM-3 STOCKPILE MANAGEMENTMATERIALS STOCKPILES SHALL BE SURROUNDED BY A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BARRIER AND COVERED TO MAINTAIN OUST CONTROL.WM-4SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROLAMPLE CLEANUP SUPPLIES FOR STORED MATERIALS SHALL BE KEPT ON-SITE. EMPLOYEE SHALL BE EDUCATED ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF SPILLS AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSES.WM-5 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTSOLD WASTE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE STORED ON APPROPRIATE CONTAINERS. FULL CONTAINERS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLYWM-8 CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENTAN ON-SITE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. USED. AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER WHICH MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY.WM-9 SANITÄRY SEPTIC WASTE MANAGEMENTON-SITE FACILITY SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION Of THE PROJECT.SCALE 1" = 10'Feet01020NEROSION CONTROL NOTES NOTES:1. PROTECT DOWN SLOPE DRAINAGE COURSES, STREAMS AND STORM DRAINS WITH ROCK FILLED SAND BAGS, TEMPORARYDRAINAGE SWALES, SILT FENCES, EARTH BERMS, STORM DRAIN INLET FILTERS AND/OR STRAW BALES USED ONLY INCONJUNCTION WITH PROPERLY INSTALLED SILT FENCES.2. A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE INCEPTION OF ANY WORK ON-SITE, AND SHALLREMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF ALL LANDSCAPING.3. STRAW ROLL(S) SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE INCEPTION OF ANY WORK ON-SITE, AND SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THELANDSCAPING GROUND COVER IS INSTALLED.4.DRY SWEEPING METHODS SHALL BE USED TO REMOVE ANY DEBRIS AND/ OR SOIL TRACKED ON TO SEA GULL WAY WAY. DRYSWEEPING SHALL BE DONE AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW AND USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) FOR DISCHARGE INTO THE CITY'S STORMWATER SYSTEM DURING SITE STRIPPING, HAULING, EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES, HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS, GENERALCONSTRUCTION AND SITE SUPERVISION,PAINTING, APPLICATIONS AND USE OF SOLVENTS AND ADHESIVES, LANDSCAPING ANDGARDENING.6. STOCKPILED MATERIAL SHALL BE COVERED WITH VISQUEEN OR A TARPAULIN UNTIL THE MATERIAL IS REMOVED FROM THESITE. ANY REMAINING BARE SOIL THAT EXISTS AFTER THE STOCKPILE HAS BEEN REMOVED SHALL BE COVERED UNTIL ANATURAL GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED OR IT MAY BE SEEDED OR PLANTED TO PROVIDE GROUND COVER PRIOR TO THEFALL RAINY SEASON.7. ONCE THE PROPOSED ON-SITE DRAINAGE INLETS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ANY BARE SOILFROM ENTERING THE INLETS BY INSTALLING FILTER FABRIC UNDER THE INLET GRATES. THE FILTER FABRIC SHALL REMAINUNTIL NATURAL GROUND COVER IS ESTABLISHED.8. A WATER HOSE SHALL BE PROVIDED ON SITE FOR DUST CONTROL.9.IF EROSION DEVELOPS IN A TEMPORARY EROSION PROTECTED AREA OR ANY ESTABLISHED VEGETATED AREA. THECONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY ALLEVIATE AND REMEDY THE PROBLEM AND TAKE PREVENTATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZETHE POSSIBILITY OF ITS RE-OCCURRENCE AND ALSO TO PREVENT THE RESULTING FLOW OF SOILS OR WATER WITHSUSPENDED SOILS FROM GETTING INTO THE CITY DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR ANY NATURAL DRAINAGE CHANNEL OR DITCH.10. ALL DISTURBED SOIL SHALL BE' 'MATTED" AND SEEDED WITHIN TWO (2) WEEKS OF ''FINAL DISTURBANCE". LEGENDSFIBER ROLLSSILT FENCE BARRIERLIMIT OF LAND DISTURBANCEINLET PROTECTIONSFSFFRFRCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEBMP NAMESYMBOLWASTE MANAGEMENTWMWMWMWMWMWMDATE: 12/7/2021SCALED: AS NOTEDDRAWN: LEI ZHENGDESIGN: LEI ZHENGENGINEER: LEI ZHENGMANAGER: ---- NOBY DATEREVISIONSPREPARED BY, OR UNDERTHE DIRECTION OF:LEI ZHENG P.E CIVILPHONE : 510-877-3721EMAIL: ENGINEER.LEI@GMAIL.COMPREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:ANKUSH GUPTA20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070----APN: 386-53-002CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIASHEET NO.20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070of SHEETS7EROSION CONTROL PLAN5C552 DATE: 12/7/2021SCALED: AS NOTEDDRAWN: LEI ZHENGDESIGN: LEI ZHENGENGINEER: LEI ZHENGMANAGER: ---- NOBY DATEREVISIONSPREPARED BY, OR UNDERTHE DIRECTION OF:LEI ZHENG P.E CIVILPHONE : 510-877-3721EMAIL: ENGINEER.LEI@GMAIL.COMPREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:ANKUSH GUPTA20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070----APN: 386-53-002CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIASHEET NO.20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070of SHEETS7BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE DETAILS6C653 DATE: 12/7/2021SCALED: AS NOTEDDRAWN: LEI ZHENGDESIGN: LEI ZHENGENGINEER: LEI ZHENGMANAGER: ---- NOBY DATEREVISIONSPREPARED BY, OR UNDERTHE DIRECTION OF:LEI ZHENG P.E CIVILPHONE : 510-877-3721EMAIL: ENGINEER.LEI@GMAIL.COMPREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:ANKUSH GUPTA20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070----APN: 386-53-002CITY OF SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIASHEET NO.20436 SEA GULL WAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070of SHEETS7POLLUTION PREVENTION BMP7C754 55 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: June 8, 2022 Subject: Draft Housing Element Address/APN: Citywide Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and provide recommendations to the City Council on the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. (Attachment 1) BACKGROUND: Since adoption of the California Housing Element Law in 1969, the State of California has required cities and counties to designate sufficient land at sufficient densities to provide their share of projected housing needs for people of all income levels through the General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element is a blueprint for future housing development and must be updated every eight years and is subject to review and approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In 2021, the Planning Commission hosted a series of four community meetings to obtain public input on opportunity sites and policies that would further support housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets and presented the recommendations to the City Council at a joint meeting on December 14, 2021. The City Council subsequently held five additional community meetings to receive public input and on February 16, 2022, the City Council approved the list of opportunity sites, distribution of units, and policies and programs to include in the project description for the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Housing Element Update. The draft Housing Element identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs and contains policies and programs for the preservation, conservation, rehabilitation, and production of housing in the city of Saratoga. The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Commission with an update on the draft Housing Element and receive comments and feedback to be incorporated into the document for review by the City Council. DISCUSSION: The draft Housing Element consists of the following sections: 1. Introduction: Explains the purpose, process, and contents of the Housing Element. 56 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element June 8, 2022 Page | 2 2. Housing Needs Assessment: Includes an analysis of population and employment trends, the City’s fair share of RHNA, household characteristics and the condition of housing stock. 3. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Summarizes the ways the City is affirmatively furthering fair housing under the requirements of Assembly Bill 686. Affirmatively furthering fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics”. 4. Constraints: Reviews governmental constraints, including land use controls, fees, and processing requirements, as well as non-governmental constraints, such as construction costs, availability of land and financing, physical environmental conditions that may impede the development, preservation, and maintenance of housing. 5. Resources: Identifies resources available for the production and maintenance of housing, including an inventory of land suitable for residential development and discussion of federal, state, and local financial resources and programs available to address the City’s housing goals. 6. Adequate Sites: Describes and maps the land suitable for residential development to accommodate the City’s RHNA. 7. Housing Policy Program: Details specific policies and programs the City will carry out over the Planning Period to address Saratoga’s housing goals. The draft Housing Element also includes five technical appendices with detailed analysis and information that supports the findings and conclusions in the main document. The following sections contain some of the highlights from the draft Housing Element. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). One of the new requirements for the 6th cycle Housing Element Update is AFFH. Assembly Bill (AB) 686, passed in 2018, created new requirements for jurisdictions to affirmatively further fair housing. According to AB 686, affirmatively furthering fair housing means to take “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics” and is Federally mandated by the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The four main goals are to: o Address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity o Replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns o Transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity o Foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws AFFH is discussed in Chapter 3 and more thoroughly analyzed in Appendix D. 57 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element June 8, 2022 Page | 3 Housing Goals, Policies, and Program. The Policy Program section is organized into five areas: o Housing Production and Variety o Incentivize and Preserve Housing o Removal of Constraints to the Production of Housing o Access to Housing Opportunities o Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing The list of policies and programs in this section is comprised of the nine new policies approved by the City Council in February, existing policies and programs that have been updated for the 6th cycle Housing Element, and additional policies suggested by the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative and the consultant team for compliance with HCD requirements. The specific policies and programs can be found in Section 7 and includes program description, quantified objectives and metrics, timeframe, responsible agency, and funding source. Regional Housng Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Sites Inventory. In January of 2022, HCD approved ABAG’s adopted Final RHNA Plan which establishes a total RHNA of 441,176 residential units for the San Francisco Bay Area’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. Saratoga’s assigned RHNA for this housing cycle is 1,712 units distributed across four income categories. Total Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate 1,712 454 261 278 719 To meet the RHNA, the City’s strategy is to utilize pipeline projects, vacant sites, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), as well as rezoning the following opportunity sites. Area Density Range Minimum Homes Maximum Floors Prospect/Lawrence 80 – 50 units/acre 410 10 Fellowship Plaza 20 units/acre 80 3 Gateway (North) 15 – 25 units/acre 44 2 Gateway (South) 30 – 40 units/acre 197 3 Village East 30 – 40 units/acre 87 3 Saratoga Avenue 30 – 40 units/acre 344 3 Wardell R-1-12,500 10 2 Allendale/Chester R-1-20,000 24 2 Quito/Pollard R-1-10,000 10 2 Total 1,206 58 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element June 8, 2022 Page | 4 Since the City Council approved the list of opportunity sites on February 16, 2022, staff has received requests to modify the density of two parcels in the Gateway South area. The neighbors behind the Azule Crossing property at 12312 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road have expressed concerns that a three story development with 30-40 du/ac will cast excessive shadows onto the Harvest Lane properties to the east and requested that the density for the site be reduced to 15-25 du/ac. In exchange, it is suggested that the density of the Gateway North sites at 12015 and 12029 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road be increased from 15-25 du/ac to 30-40 du/ac to make up for the difference in the number of projected units. In addition, the owner of the commercial property at 12333 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road is requesting that the density of the parcel be changed from 30- 40 units/acre to 15-25 units/acre because the shape and size of the property makes it challenging to build at the target density. The property owner shared that it is more realistic to develop townhomes on the property at 15-25 units/acre. It is requested that the Planning Commission consider these suggestions and provide a recommendation to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to make the first draft of the Housing Element available for public comment for a minimum of 30 days before submittal to HCD for review. The public comment period began on June 3, 2022 and notice of availability of the draft was advertised through the City’s communication channels, including the City’s web page, social media accounts, and Housing Element email list. The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be presented to the City Council on July 6th. The initial draft of the Housing Element will then be submitted to HCD for a 90-day review. Once comments are received from HCD, staff will make the necessary edits to the document. HCD has advised jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of two review cycles before a Housing Element is deemed sufficient to move forward with adoption and certification. The deadline to submit an adopted and compliant housing element to HCD is January 31, 2023. The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is currently being prepared and will be available for public review along with an updated draft Housing Element in late Fall/early Winter 2022. Once the draft Housing Element has been updated to address all HCD comments, public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be scheduled for final review and adoption of the plan. ATTACHMENT 1. Draft Housing Element 59 City of Saratoga General Plan 2040 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Prepared for: City of Saratoga June 2022 2023 - 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 60 61 City of Saratoga General Plan Update HOUSING ELEMENT | i Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Content .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Housing Element Update Process ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 State Law and Local Planning ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.5 Housing Element Organization .................................................................................................... 1-4 1.6 Public Participation ........................................................................................................................ 1-7 2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Community Profile ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 3. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING ................................................................... 3-1 4. CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Governmental Constraints ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Non-Governmental Constraints ................................................................................................ 4-27 5. RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Institutional Resources ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Financial Resources ....................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 Non-Profit Resources .................................................................................................................. 5-10 5.4 Regulatory Resources ................................................................................................................. 5-11 5.5 Energy Conservation Opportunities.......................................................................................... 5-15 6. ADEQUATE SITES ................................................................................................................. 6-1 7. POLICY PROGRAM ............................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Goals and Policies .......................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Programs ........................................................................................................................................ 7-3 7.3 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives .............................................................................................. 7-18 APPENDICES Appendix A: Community Outreach Appendix B: Housing Needs Data Report Appendix C: Past Performance Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Appendix E: Glossary of Terms 62 City of Saratoga General Plan Update HOUSING ELEMENT | ii List of Figures Figure 2-1: Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-2: Population By Age 2000-2019 ................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3: Population By Race 2000-2019 ................................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2-4: Housing Tenure ........................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-5: Household Income Level by Tenure ......................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-6: Residents Employment by Industry ......................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-7: Households By Household Income Level ................................................................................ 2-8 Figure 2-8: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ........................................................................................ 2-9 Figure 2-9: Housing Type Trends................................................................................................................ 2-10 Figure 2-10: Housing Units By Year Structure Built ................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-11: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units .............................................................................. 2-12 Figure 2-12: Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units .......................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-13: Cost Burden by Income Level ............................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-14: Senior Households by Income and Tenure ......................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-15: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County ................. 2-18 Figure 4-1: U.S. Average Interest Rates - February 2019 – January 2022 .............................................. 4-30 Figure 6-1: ADU Building Permits Issued 2018-2021 ................................................................................. 6-6 Figure 6-2: Adequate Housing Sites Inventory Map ................................................................................ 6-10 Figure 6-3: Fellowship Plaza Housing Site ................................................................................................. 6-19 Figure 6-4: Gateway Housing Sites ............................................................................................................. 6-21 Figure 6-5: Gateway Housing Sites ............................................................................................................. 6-23 Figure 6-6: Saratoga Avenue Housing Site ................................................................................................ 6-25 Figure 6-7: Village East Housing Site .......................................................................................................... 6-27 Figure 6-8: Prospect Lawrence Housing Site ............................................................................................ 6-29 Figure 6-9: Wardell Housing Site ................................................................................................................ 6-32 Figure 6-10: Allendale/Chester Housing Site ............................................................................................ 6-33 Figure 6-11: Quito/Pollard Housing Site .................................................................................................... 6-34 63 City of Saratoga General Plan Update HOUSING ELEMENT | iii List of Tables Table 2-1: Regional Population Trends 2010-2020 .................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2: City and County Population Growth 2000-2020 ...................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-3: Publicly Assisted Rental Housing ............................................................................................. 2-15 Table 2-4: City of Saratoga RHNA and Proposed Housing Units Across Income Categories ............. 2-20 Table 3-1: Fair Housing Action Plan ............................................................................................................. 3-4 Table 4-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Designations .................................................................... 4-4 Table 4-2: Residential Uses – Permitted and Conditionally Permitted by Zoning District .................... 4-6 Table 4-3: Summary of Residential Zoning District Development Standards ........................................ 4-7 Table 4-4: Summary of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Requirements ......................................... 4-10 Table 4-5: Summary of Mixed-Use Development Standards ................................................................. 4-10 Table 4-6: Parking Requirements by Facility ............................................................................................. 4-13 Table 4-7: Street Widths .............................................................................................................................. 4-16 Table 4-8: Comparative Development Fee Summary 2021-2022 (Including Updates Effective July 1, 2022 for Saratoga) .......................................................................................... 4-17 Table 4-9: Typical Development Fees Comparison Single-Family and Multiple-Family ...................... 4-22 Table 4-10: Local Development Processing Time .................................................................................... 4-22 Table 4-11: Typical Development Processing Timelines by Development Type .................................. 4-23 Table 4-12: Construction Cost Estimates .................................................................................................. 4-28 Table 4-13: Home Purchase and Improvement Loans – 2020 ............................................................... 4-29 Table 5-1: Santa Clara County CDBG and HOME Funded Programs ....................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2: Measure A Bond Funded Projects as of September 2021 ...................................................... 5-5 Table 5-3: Other Federal and State Funding Programs ............................................................................. 5-7 Table 5-4: Homeless Facilities near Saratoga ........................................................................................... 5-12 Table 5-5: PG&E Energy Savings Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties ...................... 5-17 Table 6-1: RHNA Affordability Levels in Saratoga ...................................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-2: Saratoga Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2023-2031) .................................................... 6-3 Table 6-3: Proposed Regional Housing Needs Allocation Buffer ............................................................. 6-4 Table 6-4: Approved Pipeline Units and Units Pending Approval............................................................ 6-5 Table 6-5: Approved Pipeline Units .............................................................................................................. 6-7 Table 6-6: Recent Multi-Family Developments ........................................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-7: Vacant Land Inventory ............................................................................................................... 6-12 Table 6-8: Saratoga Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2023-2031) .................................................. 6-15 Table 6-9: Non-Vacant/Underutilized Land Inventory ............................................................................. 6-16 Table 6-10: Fellowship Plaza Retirement Community Housing Site ...................................................... 6-20 Table 6-11: Gateway North Housing Site .................................................................................................. 6-22 Table 6-12: Gateway South Housing Site .................................................................................................. 6-25 Table 6-13: Saratoga Avenue Housing Sites ............................................................................................. 6-27 64 City of Saratoga General Plan Update HOUSING ELEMENT | iv Table 6-14: Village East Housing Sites ....................................................................................................... 6-28 Table 6-15: Prospect Lawrence Housing Sites .......................................................................................... 6-31 Table 6-16: Wardell Housing Site ............................................................................................................... 6-33 Table 6-17: Allendale/Chester Housing Site .............................................................................................. 6-34 Table 6-18: Quito/Pollard Housing Site ..................................................................................................... 6-35 Table 6-19: Sites Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-36 Table 7-1: Goals, Policies, and Proposed Programs .................................................................................. 7-4 Table 7-2: Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2023-2031 .............................................................. 7-18 65 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 1-1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 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 2023 through June 2031. 1.2 P URPOSE AND CONTENT The City of Saratoga’s Housing Element is the component of the City’s General Plan that addresses housing needs and opportunities for present and future Saratoga residents through 2031. It provides the primary policy guidance for local decision-making related to housing. The Housing Element of the General Plan is the only General Plan Element that requires review and certification by the State of California. The Housing Element provides a detailed analysis of Saratoga’s demographic, economic, and housing characteristics as required by State law. The Element also provides a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s progress in implementing the past policy and action programs 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. 1.3 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 (California Government Code Section 65580 et al.). It is intended that this Housing Element be reviewed annually and updated and modified not less than every eight years to remain relevant and useful and reflect the community’s FELLOWSHIP PLAZA, SARATOGA 66 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 1-2 changing housing needs including the State’s mandated housing needs allocation. The City will annually review its progress implementing the Housing Element through Annual Progress Reports required to be submitted to the State. The City is updating its Housing Element at this time to comply with the update required of all jurisdictions in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region, as well as to respond to the issues that currently face the City. This Housing Element update covers the planning period from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031. In January 2021, the City Council decided the Housing Element Update should be a community-driven process – outreach and engagement have been an integral factor in every phase. The community engagement program was divided into distinct phases to consult various stakeholders throughout the update process in a meaningful fashion. The community engagement process and results are described in Appendix A of the Housing Element. 1.4 STATE LAW AND LOCAL PLANNING 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. Changes in State Legislation Since Previous Update There have been substantive changes to State law since adoption of the City’s last Housing Element. Some of the most notable changes in housing legislation are described below. • Assembly Bill (AB) 68, AB 587, AB 671, AB 881, and Senate Bill (SB) 13. Further incentivize the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) through streamlined permits, reduced setback requirements, increased allowable square footage, reduced parking requirements, and reduced fees. SARATOGA 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE In February 2018, the City of Saratoga began a process to refresh and make minor policy updates to three elements of the City’s General Plan (Land Use, Open Space & Conservation, Circulation & Scenic Highways) and format elements to provide a cohesive document. The updated elements will be combined with the newly updated Housing Element and Safety Element and existing Noise Element to comprise the Saratoga 2040 General Plan. 67 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 1-3 • AB 1763. Requires jurisdictions to provide a larger density bonus and enhanced concessions to development projects that restrict 100 percent of their units as affordable to lower- and moderate-income households and provides greater bonuses for such projects when they are within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop. • AB 101. Increases tools for State enforcement of Housing Element requirements. Requires jurisdictions to allow low barrier navigation centers by-right in areas zoned for mixed uses and in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses if the center meets specified requirements. • AB 215. Requires local government to make the draft housing element available for public comment and incorporate comments into the draft before submitting to the Department of Housing and Community Development. • SB 35. Allows by-right development of qualifying projects in jurisdictions where housing development has not kept pace with State imposed housing targets. • AB 686. Require public agencies in California to affirmatively further fair housing, which is defined as taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity by replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns; transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. • AB 1255 and AB 1486. Identify and prioritize State and local surplus lands available for housing development affordable to lower-income households. • AB 2162. Requires that supportive housing be a permitted use without discretionary review, in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. • SB 330. Enacts changes to local development policies, permitting, and processes. These changes include establishing new criteria on application requirements and processing times for housing developments; preventing localities from decreasing the housing capacity of any site, such as through downzoning or increasing open space requirements; preventing localities from establishing non-objective standards; and requiring that any proposed demolition of housing units be accompanied by a project that would replace or exceed the total number of units demolished. • SB 9. Allows by-right development of up to four units on lots zoned for single family use. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The California Government Code (Section 65300.5) requires internal consistency among each Element of the General Plan. The General Plan Elements shall provide an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policy. The City of Saratoga continuously 68 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 1-4 reviews the General Plan for internal consistency when updates or amendments occur. The City has reviewed the other Elements of the General Plan as it will be updated in conjunction with the Housing Element and determined that the Housing Element and other elements of the General Plan are internally consistent. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND PROGRAMS The Housing Element identifies goals, objectives, policies, and actions for the 2023-2031 Planning Period that directly address existing and future housing needs in Saratoga. City plans and programs work to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element. 1.5 HOUSING ELEMENT O RGANIZATION Consistent with State law, this Housing Element consists of the following major components: 1. Introduction [Section 1]: Explains the purpose, process, and contents of the Housing Element. 2. Housing Needs Assessment [Section 2]: Includes an analysis of population and employment trends, the City’s fair share of regional housing needs (RHNA), household characteristics, the condition of housing stock, and units at-risk of conversion that may impede the development, preservation, and maintenance of housing. 3. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing [Section 3]: Summarizes the ways the City is affirmatively furthering fair housing under the requirements of Assembly Bill 686. Affirmatively furthering fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” 4. Constraints [Section 4]: Reviews governmental constraints, including land use controls, fees, and processing requirements, as well as non-governmental constraints, such as construction costs, availability of land and financing, physical environmental conditions. 5. Resources [Section 5]: Identifies resources available for the production and maintenance of housing, including an inventory of land suitable for residential development and discussion of federal, State, and local financial resources and programs available to address the City’s housing goals. 6. Adequate Sites [Section 6]: Describes and maps the land suitable for residential development to accommodate the City’s RHNA. 7. Housing Policy Program [Section 7]: Details specific policies and programs the City will carry out over the Planning Period to address Saratoga’s housing goals. 69 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 1-5 Given the detail and lengthy analysis in developing the Housing Element, supporting background material is included in the following appendices: • Appendix A: Community Outreach • Appendix B: Housing Needs Report • Appendix C: Review of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Performance • Appendix D: Fair Housing Assessment • Appendix E: Glossary of 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 units per acre DU: Dwelling Unit EDD: California Employment Development Department 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 70 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 1-6 LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit 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 SJC: San Jose Water SNF: Skilled Nursing Facility SPA: Sectional Planning Area SRO: Single Room Occupancy 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 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 71 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 1-7 1.6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Government Code requires that jurisdictions demonstrate a diligent effort to achieve public participation from all economic segments of the community when updating the Housing Element. Additionally, as part of this Housing Element Update, the City of Saratoga recognizes that broad-based community participation is essential to prepare meaningful and implementable housing policy and program. Community engagement efforts related to the City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle Housing Element are summarized below and more detail is provided in Appendix A. METHODS OF ENGAGEMENT Housing Element Update Webpage and E-Newsletter Webpage The City created a special projects webpage to serve as an online landing page for public participation efforts related to the Housing Element Update. The website provided relevant information such as materials for upcoming and past community meetings, next steps, and frequently asked questions related to the Housing Element Update process. Over the course of the update, the website was visited over 9,221 times and was the eighth most visited page on the City’s website. E-Newsletter In conjunction with the dedicated webpage, the City also created a Housing Element Update E-Newsletter that was frequently emailed to subscribed residents throughout the process and as major milestones occurred. This Newsletter provided subscribers with regular updates related to the Housing Element Update and informed them of upcoming community meetings, participation opportunities, and other available engagement tools related to the Housing Element. At the end of community outreach efforts, over 959 residents had subscribed to the E-Newsletter. Additionally, content from the Housing Element Update E- Newsletter was also regularly shared through the City’s general weekly e-newsletter, which has over 4,581 subscribers. Educational Video Series To provide residents and community stakeholders with background information related to Housing Elements such as a general overview, the relevant legal framework, and the RHNA, the City created an educational video series related to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. This 6-part series was posted to the City’s YouTube page to inform residents of relevant topics related to the Update. Cumulatively, these videos were viewed over 2,338 times. 72 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 1-8 Housing Element Values Survey The City of Saratoga publicly circulated a Housing Element Values Survey to city residents to gain an understanding of resident and community stakeholders’ community values and priorities regarding the housing element update process. The 14-question survey was made available to residents via the City’s website and advertised via city-wide postcard mailers as described below. Between June 1, 2021, and July 31, 2021, the survey received a total of 743 responses which are summarized within the Community Engagement Appendix of this Element. Citywide Postcards A physical postcard regarding the Housing Element Update was mailed citywide to over 12,000 residential and business addresses in March, June, September, and December 2021. Postcards were utilized to disseminate information to residents regarding housing element update activities including scheduled community meetings and the online Housing Element Value Survey. The March, June, and September postcards were also translated to Chinese. All postcards were made available online and in person at City Hall. The March and June postcards were all distributed in person at the local Farmer’s Market. Community Meetings, Study Sessions, Public Hearings The City also held a series of public meetings to inform the public of the Housing Element Update process and to solicit input from community members. These meetings included six informational and educational Community Meetings in the summer of 2021, Planning Commission Community Meetings in April, June, October, November, and December of 2021, as well as six City Council Meetings from December 2021 to February 2022. The City Council meetings garnered high levels of engagement with over 800 written communications received (comment forms and emails). Video Recordings of these meetings were provided on the City’s website for convenient viewing by the public. Small Group Meetings The City also met with Housing Choices, an advocacy group that enhances the lives of people with developmental and other disabilities and their families by creating and supporting quality, affordable housing opportunities. In addition, the City did targeted outreach to a variety of groups like the Saratoga Retirement Community, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council. Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, Saratoga Ministerial Association, St. Andrew’s Men’s Group, the Sister City Group, and several Neighborhood Watch groups. The City also held a series of meetings with property owners and developers that expressed an interest in developing certain housing opportunity sites. 73 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-1 2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT To successfully plan for housing needs, the demographic and socioeconomic variables of the community must be assessed. This section discusses the components of housing needs, which include population characteristics, household characteristics, and employment and housing stock conditions. The data for this section has been collected using the most current available data from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the 2010 U.S. Census, the 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS), the California Department of Finance (DOF), the Department of Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey. 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. The 2010 U.S. Census and 5-year ACS estimates were used as much of this work was done before the 2020 U.S. Census data was publicly available. Unless otherwise specified, the data in this section is specific to the City of Saratoga. This chapter summarizes the Housing Needs Assessment. Additional information and graphs can be found in Appendix B. For the Assessment of Fair Housing required under California’s Assembly Bill 686 of 2018, please see Appendix D. This analysis represents a summary of the City of Saratoga’s housing needs as provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). A full copy of ABAG’s Needs Assessment for the City is included as Appendix B. 2.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE Housing needs are generally influenced by an area’s population and employment trends. This section provides a summary of recent changes to the City of Saratoga’s population size, age, and racial composition. POPULATION TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS Historical, Existing and Forecast Growth The City of Saratoga is one of 15 cities in Santa Clara County. Between the years 2010 and 2020, Santa Clara County’s population has grown an estimated 9 percent, reaching 1,934,171 Single family-residence. 74 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-2 residents. Table 2-1 shows the population of other Bay Area counties relative to Santa Clara. Population growth at the County level is comparable to that of other Bay Area counties, as well as the overall region and State. TABLE 2-1: REGIONAL POPULATION TRENDS 2010-2020 TOTAL POPULATION POPULATION CHANGE 2010 2020 Change 2010-2020 % Change 2010-2020 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 1,781,642 1,934,171 152,529 9% ALAMEDA COUNTY 1,510,271 1,663,114 152,843 10% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1,049,025 1,149,853 100,828 10% MARIN COUNTY 252,409 260,388 7,979 3% NAPA COUNTY 136,484 139,000 2,516 2% CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 805,235 889,783 84,548 10% SAN MATEO COUNTY 718,451 771,061 52,610 7% SOLANO COUNTY 413,344 439,211 25,867 6% SONOMA COUNTY 483,878 491,354 7,476 2% BAY AREA TOTAL 7,150,739 7,714,778 564,039 8% STATE OF CALIFORNIA 37,253,956 39,466,855 2,212,899 6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and California Department of Finance, E-5 Series. In 2020, the population of Saratoga was estimated to be 31,030 (see Table 2-2). From 2000 to 2010, it increased by less than 1 percent. In the most recent decade from 2010 to 2020, the population increased by 3.7 percent. The population of Saratoga makes up 1.6 percent of Santa Clara County. TABLE 2-2: CITY AND COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH 2000-2020 TOTAL POPULATION 2000-2010 GROWTH 2010-2020 GROWTH 2000 2010 2020 Number Percent Change Number Percent Change SARATOGA 29,849 29,926 31,030 77 <1% 1,104 3.7% SANTA CLARA COUNTY TOTAL 1,682,585 1,781,642 1,934,171 99,057 6% 180,327 10.1% Universe: Total population. Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 Series. Figure 2-1 shows the population growth experienced in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area region using data from the California Department of Finance. 75 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-3 FIGURE 2-1: POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS Source: California Department of Finance, E-Series Age Composition Between the years 2000 and 2019, the City of Saratoga’s population has experienced several trends related to age distribution which may help inform housing needs for this latest Housing Element Update. These trends are illustrated in Figure 2-2 below. Over the last 20 years, the City’s population has exhibited an upward trend in residents aged 55-64, and 65- and-over, as well as downward trends in residents aged 5-14, and 35-44. These trends have led to the City’s median age rising from 42.1 years in 2000 to 49 years as of 2019. Race and Ethnicity The City of Saratoga has also experienced changes in terms of the racial and ethnic composition of its population since the last housing element update; this composition can also be analyzed over time to identify demographic changes and ethnic groups as a proportion of the City’s overall population over time. This analysis for the years 2000 to 2019 is contained below in Figure 2-3. 76 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-4 FIGURE 2-2: POPULATION BY AGE 2000-2019 Universe: Total population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001. FIGURE 2-3: POPULATION BY RACE 2000-2019 Universe: Total population Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. the Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. for the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. all other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002. 77 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-5 Between the years 2000 and 2019, the percentage of residents in the City of Saratoga identifying as White, Non-Hispanic has decreased dramatically from 66.5 percent to 44.8 percent. This decrease is accompanied by an almost equal increase (21.6 percent) in the total number of residents who identify as Non-White. As depicted in Figure 2-3 above, this increase is largely comprised of Asian/Asian Pacific Islander (API), Non-Hispanic residents which made up 29.7 percent of the City’s population in 2000 and equated to 47.7 percent of the City’s population as of 2019. Housing Tenure In addition to the age, and racial and ethnic composition, the City’s population can also be analyzed by housing tenure to help identify the level of housing insecurity. In Saratoga, there are a total of 11,013 housing units. Of these units, 84.6 percent are owner occupied and 15.4 percent are renter occupied. This low level of renting tenure is well below that of Santa Clara County and the larger Bay Area region, as shown in Figure 2-4 below. FIGURE 2-4: HOUSING TENURE Universe: Occupied housing units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003. Due to a large portion of Saratoga’s housing units being owner occupied, ownership rates remain uniformly high, at least 80 percent, across race and ethnic groups. Home ownership rates also remain much higher than rental rates across age groups in the City of Saratoga but are noticeably lower among younger households age 25-34. These households have an ownership rate of 56.7 percent, versus households age 60-64 who have an ownership rate of 94.6 percent. This disparity in homeownership rates across age groups can be attributed to the overall Bay Area’s expensive housing market and the challenge it places on younger households trying to purchase their first home. 78 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-6 Home ownership rates also outpace that of renters across nearly all income levels in the City of Saratoga, except for households earning less than 30 percent of AMI, which have equal rates of ownership and renting within the city (see Figure 2-5 below). Households earning upwards of 100 percent of AMI make up 73.5 percent of total households in Saratoga, indicating an overall lack of diversity in terms of income groups within the city. FIGURE 2-5: HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL BY TENURE Universe: Occupied housing units Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME TRENDS Evaluating the employment and income trends of the City of Saratoga area can also help inform the housing needs of the City by analyzing the relationship between jobs, residents, and housing opportunities in the city and larger region. Similar to Santa Clara County and the larger Bay Area, the City of Saratoga’s population is primarily employed in the Financial & Professional Services (33.1 percent), Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation (23.1 percent), and Health and Educational Services industries (21.9 percent). Saratoga’s resident population by industry employment is included in Figure 2-6 below. 79 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-7 FIGURE 2-6: RESIDENTS EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030. According to ACS data between the years 2002 and 2018, the City of Saratoga experienced a 7.8 percent increase in the total number of jobs within the city while also experiencing a 3.9 percent net-decrease in the city-wide unemployment rate between the years 2010 and 2021. These numbers indicate periods of sustained economic growth 1 for the City. This growth is also evident in the income levels of Saratoga’s population which are heavily skewed towards higher income households. Nearly three fourths of households (73.5 percent) in the City of Saratoga earn over 100 percent of the area median income (AMI).2 This percentage is substantially higher than Santa Clara County (55 percent) and the larger Bay Area (52.3 percent). The prevalence of high-income earning households within the City of Saratoga, is coupled by a lack of diversity of households at lower income groups as shown in Figure 2-7 below. Less than a quarter of the City’s population earns less than 80 percent of the AMI, and less than 1 This period of economic growth was partially impacted by a one-time spike in unemployment in 2020 related to the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, but just temporarily. 2 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area. 80 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-8 5 percent is considered “extremely-low income”, substantially lower than the County and larger Bay Area. FIGURE 2-7: HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVEL Universe: Occupied housing units Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. The lack of income diversity within the City of Saratoga can be partially attributed to the housing inventory and market conditions of the City, which are discussed later within this section. The University of California, Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project estimates that 100 percent of households living in Saratoga are in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. Jobs to Resident Ratio Saratoga’s predominance of higher-income households can also shed light on the City’s balance between jobs and workers within the community. According to the ACS, there were 7,676 jobs within the City of Saratoga and 13,464 employed residents. This equates to a job to resident ratio of 0.58. A job to resident ratio below 1.0 indicates that there are more residents in the city than there are jobs, which is typical of smaller jurisdictions like the City of Saratoga. These communities are considered “net exporter(s)” of workers, meaning most of their employed residents leave the city for work each day. A ratio above 1.0 indicates there are more jobs in a city than residents which is typical of larger jurisdictions where many workers commute from smaller jurisdictions for work. When analyzing Saratoga’s jobs to resident ratio further across income groups, it becomes clear that while the City is a “net-exporter” of total workers, the City is an importer of lower 81 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-9 income employees. As shown in Figure 2-8, Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group below, for jobs offering monthly wages less than $3,333 there is a significantly higher jobs to resident ratio than jobs offering monthly wages greater than $3,333. This further affirms that there are more lower-income job opportunities in the City of Saratoga than there are lower-income housing opportunities for those employees. This imbalance between lower-income jobs and lower-income housing options to serve employees of these jobs may indicate pent-up demand for the supply of housing at lower income levels within the City of Saratoga. This pent-up demand puts additional upward pressure on housing prices within Saratoga’s already limited housing inventory. FIGURE 2-8: JOBS-WORKER RATIOS, BY WAGE GROUP Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018. HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS Housing Inventory and Market Conditions The number of new homes built throughout the whole Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. A diversity of homes at all income levels is important to create opportunities for all Saratoga residents to live and thrive in the community. However, 82 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-10 the number of homes in Saratoga only increased 1.6 percent from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for both Santa Clara County and the Bay Area during this time period. This subsection further analyzes the housing stock and market conditions of the City to help inform present and future housing needs for Saratoga. Housing Stock Profile It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 83.8 percent of Saratoga’s housing stock was single-family detached homes, 7 percent was single-family attached homes, 5.8 percent was multi-family buildings (5 or more units), and 3.4 percent was multi-family buildings (2 to 4 units). Between 2010 and 2020, only 211 new housing units were added to the City’s housing stock. Most of this additional inventory was comprised of single-family detached homes (as shown in Figure 2-9 below). FIGURE 2-9: HOUSING TYPE TRENDS Universe: Housing units Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 Series. These numbers help illustrate how housing production within the Bay Area, including Saratoga, has not kept pace with housing demand over the last several decades. In fact, most of Saratoga’s existing housing stock was constructed prior to 1979 as shown in Figure 2-10 below. There are no known units in need of rehabilitation and replacement as explained further in Appendix B. However, most of the future development opportunity is on sites designated for multi-family and mixed use which will lead to an increase the availability of multi-family units in Saratoga. 83 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-11 FIGURE 2-10: HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT Universe: Housing units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034. As of 2019, only 3.8 percent of the City’s total housing stock is classified as “vacant”. Vacancy rates are an indicator of housing supply and demand and can influence price. Low vacancy rates influence greater upward price pressures, while a higher vacancy rate indicates downward price pressure. Saratoga’s relatively low vacancy rates suggest that competition for units may place upward pressure on rents and for-sale housing prices. Vacancy in the city is predominantly amongst rental units, and mostly categorized as “other vacant” which is likely to mean units are being renovated or remodeled prior to leasing or sale. Home and Rental Prices Analyzing home prices and rent values can help evaluate a city’s housing stock and the accessibility of housing across income levels. Home prices and rents are a direct result of market supply and demand, which can be heavily influenced by an area’s demographic profile, prevailing wages and job market, land and construction costs, interest rates, and several other factors. As of 2020 the typical home value in the City of Saratoga was $2,996,100, with a majority of homes valued above $2,000,000. This represents a 174 percent increase in home value since 2001, when the typical home value was $1,093,440. As shown in Figure 2-11 below, Saratoga’s home values are significantly higher than Santa Clara County ($1,290,970) and the Bay Area ($1,077,230), as is the City’s percent increase in home prices since 2001. 84 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-12 FIGURE 2-11: HOME VALUES OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS Universe: Owner-occupied units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075. The upward trend in home prices within the City of Saratoga is not limited to owner occupied units, and transfers to rising rents as well. The median rent as of 2019 in the city was $2,730 per month, representing a 71 percent increase since 2009. As shown in Figure 2-12, the County level median rent increased to $2,150 representing a 39.4 percent increase. At the regional level median rent increased to $1,850, a 54 percent increase over 2009. FIGURE 2-12: CONTRACT RENTS FOR RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056. 85 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-13 Overpayment Due to the Bay Area having some of the highest home prices in the nation, it is not uncommon for many households to be “cost-burdened.” A household is considered “cost- burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In the City of Saratoga, 15.3 percent of households spend 30 to 50 percent of their incomes on housing and are considered “cost burdened” while 13.6 percent spend more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing and are considered “severely cost burdened”. Degree and prevalence of cost burden can vary across income level and housing tenure in a community. In the case of housing tenure, it is common for renters to experience greater cost burden and effects of market increases in a competitive housing market versus homeowners who are often locked into fixed-rate mortgages and insulated from such increases. However, in Saratoga, not much variation exists in cost burden across housing tenure. While 14.9 percent of renters in the city are considered cost burdened, so are 15 percent of homeowners. Similarly, while 12.5 percent of renters are severely cost burdened, so are 15.5 percent of homeowners. However, cost burden in Saratoga is not experienced equally across income categories. Rather, cost burden is greatest on households earning less than 50 percent of AMI. For households earning less than 30 percent of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income, over 65 percent of households are cost burdened to some degree.3 While households earning between 31 and 50 percent of AMI, which is considered low-income, over 77 percent of households are cost burdened. The percentage of households that are considered cost burdened or severely cost burdened in the city significantly decreases as income level rises. Of the households with incomes exceeding 100 percent of AMI, just 15 percent of households are cost burdened while only 4.6 percent are considered severely cost burdened (see Figure 2-13). Overcrowding Similar to overpayment for housing, many households in the Bay Area also experience some degree of overcrowding due to high housing costs. Overcrowding occurs when a household is occupied by a greater number of people than a home was designed to hold. More than one occupant per room is considered “overcrowded” while more than 1.5 occupants per room is considered “severely overcrowded.” In Saratoga only 0.2 percent of homeowners experience overcrowding and 0.6 percent of renters, while 0.2 percent of homeowners experience severe overcrowding and 1.9 percent of renters. 3 Includes households that are cost burdened and severely cost burdened 86 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-14 FIGURE 2-13: COST BURDEN BY INCOME LEVEL Universe: Occupied housing units Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost- burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). In Saratoga, overcrowding is most prevalent among renter occupied households, households earning less than 30 percent of AMI (extremely low-income) and Asian/API (both Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) households. Units At-Risk of Conversion California 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 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 Saratoga Court Complex. 87 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-15 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 (see Table 2-3). 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. TABLE 2-3: PUBLICLY ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT/ NAME/ADDRESS HOUSING TYPE # UNITS OWNER NAME FUNDING SOURCE EARLIEST CONVERSION DATE RISK LEVEL FELLOWSHIP PLAZA 14520 FRUITVALE AVE. Senior 150 Odd Fellows Foundation (Non-profit) LIHTC; HUD 2071 Low SARATOGA COURT 18855 COX AVE. Senior 20 Mid-Peninsula Housing (Non-profit) HUD 3/2036 Low Source: California Housing Partnership, March 2022. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS Certain population groups within communities face unique challenges finding decent, affordable housing due to special needs, fixed incomes, and other factors described herein. This often make these groups of the population at a greater risk of housing insecurity. For resources available for these special needs populations, see Section 5, Resources. Seniors Seniors often face challenges finding quality, affordable housing as they often live on fixed- incomes and have chronic health conditions, disabilities, and/or reduced mobility. In Saratoga, seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups and high housing costs. The largest proportion of senior households who are renters make less than 30 percent of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners make more than 100 percent of AMI (Figure 2-14). 88 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-16 FIGURE 2-14: SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME AND TENURE Universe: Senior households Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. Persons with Disabilities Persons with disabilities may include individuals with any variety of physical, cognitive and/or sensory impairments such as hearing, ambulatory, or vision difficulties. Persons with disabilities may also include individuals with developmental disabilities connected to a mental or physical impairment that begins before the age of 18 such as autism, epilepsy, or cerebral palsy, among other conditions. Individuals with disabilities often live on fixed incomes and may require specialized care or resources due to their disability. Additionally, due to special needs and rising housing costs, many individuals with disabilities often rely on family members for housing, which makes persons with disabilities have an increased risk of housing instability once their loved one is unable to care for, or house them anymore. In Saratoga, 8.1 percent of the population reports having a disability of any kind. The majority of individuals with a developmental disability are over the age of 18, and most of them live with a parent, family member, or guardian. Developmental Disabilities People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and need specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care. When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for 89 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-17 independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 40, in Appendix B, shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Saratoga. State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe and chronic disabilities attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them. In Saratoga, there are 61 children under the age of 18 (35.9 percent) with a developmental disability, and 109 adults (64.1 percent). The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Saratoga is the home of parent/family/guardian. Table 6, in Appendix B, shows the population with developmental disabilities by residence Large Households Individuals with large households often face unique challenges finding adequate housing in communities if there is a lack of supply of larger apartments. This challenge can often lead to overcrowding among larger households. In Saratoga, most housing units with 5 or more persons, are owner occupied. Additionally, only 9.4 percent of larger households in the city are low income, earning less than 50 percent of AMI. These demographics are influenced by the sizes of homes available in a community. In Saratoga, of the 9,942 housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, nearly 85 percent are owner occupied. Female Headed Households Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity due to having one sole income provider. This risk is exacerbated among female-headed households who may also be supporting children or a family on one income. This is partially due to pervasive gender inequality which has historically precipitated lower wages for women than men, and the additional cost of childcare that many single-mother households face. In the City of Saratoga, female-headed households make up just six percent of all households and 84.5 percent live in owner-occupied units. Because of these unique challenges faced by female-headed households, in Saratoga, 18.3 percent of female-headed households with children fall below the federal poverty line versus female-headed households without children at 11.9 percent. 90 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-18 People Experiencing Homelessness Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs have resulted in an increased risk for community members that are housing insecure at becoming unhoused or homeless, either temporarily or longer term. Population groups who disproportionately experience homelessness include people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. The 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey identified 12 unsheltered individuals in Saratoga. The 2019 Census and Survey comprised a point-in-time count of homeless and a series of one-on-one interviews with about 1,335 homeless individuals. Twelve unsheltered homeless and no sheltered homeless residing in Saratoga were reported in 2019. In Santa Clara County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 87.1 percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure 2-15). FIGURE 2-15: HOMELESSNESS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND SHELTER STATUS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY Universe: Population experiencing homelessness Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019). Farmworkers Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs 91 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-19 and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market. In Saratoga, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year, which represents a continuation of past years’ trends. At the county and regional level, Santa Clara County and the larger Bay Area have significantly larger migrant worker student populations. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Santa Clara County has increased since 2002, totaling 2,418 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 1,757 in 2017. According to the ACS, there are no employees in Saratoga working in farming, fishing, or forestry. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process is mandated by California law and requires all local jurisdictions to plan for their ‘fair share’ of housing units at all affordability levels. The Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) is part of the ABAG 6th Cycle RHNA, sometimes referred to as the “Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area” covering the period from 2023 to 2031 and assigning housing need allocations to cities and towns within the nine-county region. These counties are Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. The City of Saratoga’s RHNA for the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element update is 1,712 residential units, categorized into four income groups as shown in Table 2-4 below. However, to ensure an ongoing supply of housing during this planning period and to comply with new “no net loss” provisions of SB 166, this RHNA is further buffered by an additional 194 housing units (approximately 10 percent), totaling 1,907 housing units. This buffer will help allow the City to remain compliant with SB 166 should a Housing Site be developed with non- residential uses, lower residential densities, or residential uses at affordability levels higher than anticipated by the Housing Element. 92 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 2-20 TABLE 2-4: CITY OF SARATOGA RHNA AND PROPOSED HOUSING UNITS ACROSS INCOME CATEGORIES RHNA PERCENT PROPOSED (WITH BUFFER) PERCENT BUFFER VERY-LOW-INCOME (0-50 PERCENT OF AMI) * 454 27% 504 11% LOW-INCOME (50-80 PERCENT OF AMI) 261 15% 309 18% MODERATE-INCOME (80-120 PERCENT OF AMI) 278 16% 317 14% ABOVE MODERATE-INCOME (120 PERCENT OR MORE OF AMI) 719 42% 777 8% TOTAL 1,712 100% 1,907 10% Source: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. 93 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 3-1 3. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING Assembly Bill (AB) 686, signed in 2018 and codified in Government Code Section 65583, establishes new requirements for cities and counties to take deliberate action to relieve patterns of segregation and to foster inclusive communities, a process referred to as affirmatively furthering fair housing. With these new requirements, housing elements are now required to include the following: • Summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; • Analysis of available federal, State, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk; • Assessment of the contributing factors for the fair housing issues identified in the analysis; • Identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to the greatest contributing factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance; • Concrete strategies and actions to implement the fair housing priorities and goals in the form of programs to affirmatively further fair housing; and • Meaningful, frequent, and ongoing public participation to reach a broad audience. The purpose of these requirements is to identify segregated living patterns and replace them with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, to transform R/ECAPs into areas of opportunities, and to foster and maintain compliance with Civil Rights and Fair Housing Law. This section provides a summary of the Assessment of Fair Housing found in Appendix D and calls out the most important findings and contributing factors of fair housing issues in the City of Saratoga. PRIMARY FINDINGS This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for Saratoga including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the City’s fair housing action plan. • The City of Saratoga has a proportionately larger Asian/Pacific Islander (API) population than both the county and Bay Area. At 54.3 percent of the City’s population, 94 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 3-2 this demographic group has grown exponentially over the years and is nearly double that of the Bay Area region (28.2 percent). • The City has a proportionately lower Latino population and Black population than both the county and Bay Area. The City’s Latinx population (3.6 percent) is roughly 6-7 times smaller than the county (25 percent) and Bay Area (24.4 percent) demographics and has not fluctuated much over the years. Similarly at just 0.3 percent of the City’s population, the City’s proportion of Black residents is nearly 7 times smaller than the county (2.8 percent) and 18 times smaller than the Bay Area region (5.6 percent). • Economic diversity is limited: 74 percent of households in Saratoga earn more than moderate income (>100 percent AMI) compared to 55 percent in the County and 52 percent in the Bay Area overall. Conversely, the City also has a disproportionately small percentage of its population classified as income groups other than “moderate income.” Whereas 25 percent and 26 percent of the County and Bay Area’s population is classified as “very low income”, just over 12 percent of the City of Saratoga’s population is classified as such; and where 11 percent and 13 percent of the County and Bay Area’s population is classified as “low income”, 9 percent of the City’s population is classified as such. • Countywide, communities of color are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, cost burden, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resources areas and be denied for a home mortgage loan. Similar disparities are not evident in Saratoga, however, in part due to the limited racial/ethnic and economic diversity. • There are disparities in housing cost burden in Saratoga by race/ethnicity but not much variation in housing tenure. American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 53.8 percent spending 30 percent to 50 percent of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened with 18.5 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. • Poverty in Saratoga is extremely low, with a rate close to zero. The more pressing issue faced by workers in Saratoga is being able to afford housing as home and rental prices have greatly increased over time. • No fair housing complaints were filed in Saratoga from 2015 to 2021. Even so, the City could improve both the accessibility of fair housing information on its website and the resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. The City currently distributes fair housing resources at the public counter; however, a new program proposes creating a webpage specific to fair housing on the City’s website identifying it as a resource for residents to understand and report housing discrimination. 95 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 3-3 • In Saratoga, seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups and high housing costs. The largest proportion of senior households who are renters make less than 30 percent of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners make more than 100 percent of AMI. • The composite opportunity score for Saratoga shows the City to be a “highest resource area” and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranks the City as “low vulnerability to a disaster” (based on four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation). • Saratoga is contained within eight census tracts—the standard geographic measure for “neighborhoods” in U.S. Census data products. The City does not contain any racial/ethnic concentrations, poverty concentrations, nor concentrations of housing problems. • Saratoga lacks a variety of housing types. In 2020, 83.8 percent of homes in Saratoga were single family detached, 7.0 percent were single family attached, 3.4 percent were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 5.8 percent were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). • Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the City’s high costs of housing and lack of affordable production. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for moderate and above moderate-income households. 43.4 percent of the City’s rental units rent for $3,000 or more, compared to 18.5 percent in Santa Clara County and 13.0 percent in the Bay Area region. • Owners are more likely to be occupying 2-, 3- to 4-, and 5-bedroom units. To the extent that larger renter households desire to live in Saratoga, the lack of rental housing stock to accommodate their needs could limit their access to housing in the city. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(v), the Housing Element includes several policies and programs to proactively address fair housing issues. Table 3-1 below summarizes the fair housing issues, contributing factors, and programs included in the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing in Saratoga. 96 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 3-4 TABLE 3-1: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN FAIR HOUSING ISSUES CONTRIBUTING FACTORS MEANINGFUL PROGRAM ACTIONS TARGETS AND TIMELINE Saratoga’s high housing costs limit housing choice and have a disproportionate impact on Black or African American and Hispanic households. Black or African American and Hispanic residents typically work lower wage jobs, stemming from historical employment discrimination and lack of access to quality educational environments. These jobs often do not support the City’s housing costs. As a result, Black or African American and Hispanic residents face very high levels of cost burden. The lack of housing in Saratoga to accommodate larger renter households can disproportionately impact households of color, which tend to be larger. • 1-2.1: New Zoning Districts with minimum densities ranging from 15-25, 30-40, and 80-150 du/acre • 3-1.2: Reduced Fees for ADUs or JADUs • 3-1.3: Reduced Parking for ADUs • 5-1.1: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance • 5-1.2: Partnerships with Affordable Development Community • January 2024 • January 2024 • January 2024 • January 2024 • Ongoing Seniors often face challenges finding quality, affordable housing as they often live on fixed-incomes and have chronic health conditions, disabilities, and/or reduced mobility. Senior residents in Saratoga who rent may be at a greater risk of housing challenges than those that own due to income differences between these groups and high housing costs. Affordable senior housing options are limited in Saratoga. • 2-1.1: Monitoring and Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing • 2-2.1: Community Education Regarding the Availability of Rehabilitation Programs • Ongoing • Ongoing Saratoga’s low production of affordable housing limits housing choices of Black or African American and Hispanic households who have lower incomes. Saratoga has had limited production of affordable housing. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households. Approximately 90 percent of the City’s home values are priced above $1 million. Santa Clara County has less than half the proportion of homes priced under $1 million than the City. Similarly, only 43 percent of • 4-3.2: Housing for Persons Employed in Saratoga and lower income residents who have historically not have had access to housing in Saratoga. • 5-1.3: Affirmatively Market Affordable Housing Developments to renters, low-income households, • January 2024 • Ongoing 97 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 3-5 FAIR HOUSING ISSUES CONTRIBUTING FACTORS MEANINGFUL PROGRAM ACTIONS TARGETS AND TIMELINE the City’s rental units rent for $3,000 or more whereas only 18.5 percent of rentals are priced over $3,000 in Santa Clara County. and seniors on fixed incomes and persons from these populations that do not currently live in Saratoga • Also see additional programs described above. Saratoga residents do not report experiencing fair housing discrimination. However, residents may not take action because they are not aware of resources for fair housing. Tenants’ and property owners’ lack of knowledge about fair housing laws. Property owners violating fair housing laws. Tenants fear of retaliation, few options to relocate. • 5-2.1: Promote Fair Housing Efforts • 5-2.2: Develop Comprehensive Outreach Strategy for Housing • 5-3.1: Fair Housing Webpage • 5-3.2: Fair Housing Training for Landlords and Tenants • Twice annually • Within one year of adoption • December 2023 • March 2024 98 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 3-6 This page intentionally left blank 99 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-1 4. CONSTRAINTS New housing development can be constrained by economic forces in the private market as well as regulations and policies imposed by public agencies. These constraints can limit the overall production of housing and/or increase its cost and affect the maintenance and/or improvement of existing housing stock. Governmental and non-governmental constraints that can affect the housing market and stock in Saratoga are discussed below. 4.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Governmental regulations, while intentionally regulating the quality and safety of development in the community, can also unintentionally increase the cost of development and thus the cost of housing. These governmental constraints include land use controls, such as development policies, standards, codes, requirements, fees, processing procedures, site improvement requirements and exactions required by developers. Land use controls may limit the amount of density of development, thus increasing the cost per unit. They may also require improvements and/or off-site mitigation that increase the cost of development. Processing procedures, including review by multiple agencies and permitting requirements, may delay the approval process and increase the cost of development. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was developed to protect the quality of the environment and the health and safety of the public from adverse environmental effects. Development projects are required to be reviewed consistent with CEQA standards to determine if there is potential for the project to cause significant adverse effect on the environment. Depending on the type of project and its potential effects, technical traffic, noise, air quality, biological resources, and geotechnical reports may be needed. If potential adverse effects can be mitigated, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is required. If potentially adverse effects cannot be mitigated, an Environmental Impact Report is required. These documents have mandated content requirements and public review times. Preparation of CEQA documents can be costly and, despite maximum time limits set forth in the Public Resources Code, can extend the processing time of a project by a year or longer. Recent amendments to CEQA seek to limits its applicability to infill and other types of housing development. 100 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-2 Prevailing Wage Laws Public works projects and affordable housing financed with public funds are required to pay prevailing wages, which create a significant cost impact on the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing units for low- or moderate-income persons and the infrastructure to support such housing. The rehabilitation of certain qualifying affordable housing units for low- or moderate-income persons is exempt from this requirement. Senate Bill (SB) 972 provided exemptions from prevailing wage requirements for the construction or rehabilitation of privately owned residential projects. The City has limited influence over state and federal requirements that may constrain housing, but the State affords local agencies considerable flexibility in establishing land use policies and regulations. Therefore, the discussion in this section is generally limited to the policies, standards, requirements, and actions at the local level. LOCAL Land Use Controls Land use controls are development standards included in the General Plan and implemented through the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of local governments. General Plan land use designations are a means of ensuring that the land uses in a community are appropriately located in relation to one another and that an adequate amount of land is designated for each type of development. Zoning regulations are designed to implement the intentions of the General Plan land use designations. Such regulations also control features of new development such as the height and bulk of buildings, allowable density and intensity, setbacks, lot area, and allowable specific uses. Therefore, if local zoning requirements limit the availability of land for a particular housing type, are significantly more rigid than standard architectural specifications, and/or do not allow reasonable land use flexibility, the land and development costs associated with the production of housing could increase, precipitating a decrease in housing production. The City does not currently have an inclusionary housing ordinance/policy (although a new policy is being proposed for this Housing Element Update) and open space requirements are limited to a park in lieu fee for subdivisions. Additionally, the City does not have growth controls in place that regulate the pace of growth in the city) Therefore, they are not mentioned as constraints in this section. 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. 101 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-3 In the Saratoga General Plan housing 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, access easements, Santa Clara Valley Water District easements, quarries, or areas that are classified by the City Geologist as "Md." 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. 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 4-1 summarizes Saratoga’s residential land use designations by total acres, permitted density ranges, and maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage. California Government Code Section 65583.2 establishes “default” density standards for the purposes of evaluating the adequacy of a Housing Element. 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. Saratoga is now considered a “metropolitan” jurisdiction with a “default” density of 30 dwelling units per acre with recent population data for the San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) showing more than 2 million people. Zoning Code The Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the City of Saratoga’s General Plan and is intended to guide development to protect and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. Zoning Codes typically contain more specific development standards than General Plans including distinct zoning districts that are intended to implement quality design and development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. The following subsection summarizes the City’s zoning and development standards pertaining to residential development. Pursuant to Government Code 65940.1(a)(1)(B) these development regulations are made available on the City’s website. Table 4-2 below 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. 102 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-4 TABLE 4-1: GENERAL PLAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION EXISTING ACREAGE PERMITTED DENSITY MAXIMUM BLDG. INTENSITY 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 sq. ft. or 25% 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% 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% 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 % 55 % 50 % 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% 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% 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 acres1 25% or 12,000 sq. ft. whichever is less 103 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-5 DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION EXISTING ACREAGE PERMITTED DENSITY MAXIMUM BLDG. INTENSITY 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/acre2 See note3 PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Professional offices; serves as a transition zone between commercial and residential areas. 34 20 du/acre See note 1 Based on a slope density formula subject to stringent criteria. 2 In the CN-RHD Zoning District there is no minimum density. 3 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 104 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-6 Mixed residential/commercial uses are permitted by right in the Commercial C-N(RHD) district. In 2014, with the adoption of Ordinance No. 324, the City amended the C-N(RHD) zoning district to increase the maximum height limit from 30 feet to 35 feet to reduce constraints to development on these sites, pursuant to the 5th Cycle Housing Element Update. Ordinance 324 -Amending C-N(RHD) Zoning District Height Limits Additional information on how the City of Saratoga plans for the accommodation of a variety of housing types within its land use regulations is included later in this section. TABLE 4-2: RESIDENTIAL USES – PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED BY ZONING DISTRICT 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* -- Notes: P=Permitted By Right; C= Conditional Use Permit Required; * = As Part of Mixed Use Development Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations Chapter 15. Table 4-3 below summarizes single-family residential zoning designations (A, R-1, and HR) and their development standards within the City of Saratoga. In all districts the maximum density may, of course, be exceeded if a project is entitled to a density bonus under the State density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915). 105 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-7 TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE MINIMUM LOT AREA MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK2,3 MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK2 A Average Slope 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 10% 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 10% or less 5.00 11% 5.20 12% 5.40 13% 5.60 14% 5.80 15% 6.00 16% 6.40 17% 6.80 18% 7.20 19% 7.60 20% 8.00 21% 8.60 22% 9.20 23% 9.80 24% 10.40 25% 11.00 26% 11.80 27% 12.60 28% 13.40 29% 14.20 30% 15.00 31% 16.00 32% 17.00 33% 18.00 106 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-8 ZONE MINIMUM LOT AREA MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK2,3 MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK2 34% 19.00 35% or more 20.00 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. 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) 1 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 floor); 30 ft. exterior (2nd floor) Corner lots: 12 ft. 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); Corner lots: 10 ft. 107 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-9 ZONE MINIMUM LOT AREA MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK2,3 MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK2 25 ft. exterior (1st floor); 15 ft. interior (2nd floor); 30 ft. exterior (2nd floor) 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) 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)7,9 30 ft.5; 30 ft. or 20% of lot depth, whichever is greater6 20 ft. interior and 25 ft. exterior 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) 5; 50 ft. (single- story structure); 60 ft. (multi-story structure) or 25% of lot depth, whichever is greater6 1 Exceptions may be granted in accordance with article 15-55 of the Zoning Code for parcels exceeding of the zoning code for parcels exceeding 20.000 sq. ft. 2 For any non-conforming site, the requirements provided in Section 15-65.040(b) of the Zoning Code applies to the site. 3 Setback areas for flag lots are determined according to Section 15-06.430(a) of the Zoning Code. 4 Minimum net site area depends on average slope, as identified in Section 15-13-060 of the Zoning Code.4 5 Excluding vacant lots and lots created after May 15, 1992. 6 Vacant lots and lots created after May 15, 1992. 7 No structure shall extend to an elevation within eight feet from the top of the nearest adjacent major ridge that does not have dense tree cover. 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 15-13.100 (a), (b).7 8 Minimum net site area depends on average slope, as identified in Section 15-11-05020-060 of the Zoning Code.8 9 A structure not limited by the provisions of Note 7 above, shall not exceed 26 feet; however, the Planning Commission may grant up to 4 feet of additional height. Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 15-12. 108 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-10 Additionally, Table 4-4 below summarizes development standards for multi-family zoning districts (R-M) within the city. The maximum density is 14.5 units per net acre or 27-45 people per acre. TABLE 4-4: SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS ZONE MINIMUM LOT AREA (SQ FT) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK2 MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK2 MIN REAR YARD INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT R-M-5,000 10,000 11,000 40 percent 30 ft or 2 stories1 25 ft 10% of site width3 25 ft R-M-4,000 12,000 14,000 40 percent 30 ft or 2 stories1 25 ft 10% of site width3 25 ft R-M-3,000 12,000 14,000 40 percent 30 ft or 2 stories1 25 ft 10% of site width3 25 ft 1 Does 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. 2 For any non-conforming site, the requirements of Section 15.65.040(b) applies to the site. 3 A side setback area of more than 25 feet shall not be required, and a side setback area of less than 10 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) 1 foot shall be added to an interior side setback area for each 2 feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within 30 feet 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. In addition to its single-family and multi-family zoning districts, the City of Saratoga also permits residential development, as a part of mixed-use development within its commercial zoning districts (P-A, CN. C-N(RHD), C-V, CH-1, CH-2). Table 4-5 below summarizes development standards for mixed-use development projects that may contain housing components within the City of Saratoga. TABLE 4-5: SUMMARY OF MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MAXIMUM DENSITY LOCATION OF DWELLING FLOOR AREA MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM 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. 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. Note: * Within the C-N(RHD) District, the minimum density is 30 dwelling units per acre. Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 15-58. 109 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-11 Planned Combined District Saratoga supports planned development through its Planned Combined District (P-C). This is a zoning district that may be combined with other zoning districts to provide for development that would not be feasible given strict application of the City’s standard zoning regulations. The P-C district is intended to allow for flexibility and innovation in design of development, not for any additional density or intensity above that allotted by the City’s General Plan. Regarding residential development, the P-C District permits residential development as follows: • Single-family, two-family, or three-family dwellings, or a combination thereof, together with all other permitted uses in an R-1 district, shall be permitted in an R-1 district which is combined with a P-C district. The dwelling units shall be single-story unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. • Single-family and multi-family dwellings, or a combination thereof, together with all other permitted uses in an R-M district, shall be permitted in an R-M district combined with a P-C district. The dwelling units shall be single-story unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. • Community centers, private recreational centers, social halls, lodges, clubs, restaurants, and medical centers to be used by the residents of P-C districts and their guests. Residential Design Review Articles 15-45 and 15-46 of the City of Saratoga’s Municipal Code establish design review standards and procedures for the development of single-family multi-family dwellings within the city. These sections outline both an administrative and public-hearing review process for new residential developments dependent on site/development characteristics. Single family standards are further described within the city’s Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook which is codified by reference within Article 15-45, and used to evaluate new single-family developments. The Handbook outlines specific design guidelines related to Neighborhood Context, Site Planning, Building Design and Landscaping. Guideline topics are intended to ensure new development occurs in a manner that is consistent with design regulations and the General Plan and include building massing, height, and scale; building features like porches, entries, roofs, windows, and exterior materials; and aesthetic concerns like community viewsheds, setbacks, and privacy. Design review approval requires consideration of specific design review findings set forth in sections 15-45.080 (for single family) and 15-46.040 (for multi-family) of the City’s Municipal Code. Design Guidelines Saratoga Village Specific Plan & Design Guidelines In 1988, the City of Saratoga adopted the Saratoga Village Specific Plan to preserve the neighborhood-scale downtown area located along Big Basin Way in the southcentral portion 110 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-12 of the city. This area has served as the heart of Saratoga since 1850 and contributes to the overall identity and aesthetic of historic Saratoga. The City adopted design guidelines to supplement the Specific Plan to ensure new development within the village area was compatible with the historic, pedestrian-scaled aesthetic of the existing area. These guidelines relate to streetscape design, land use, architecture and design, historic preservation, circulation, public improvements, and opportunity sites. Within the Village Specific Plan area, development is encouraged to be consistent with the general one- to two- story building heights of the predominate area and residential uses are encouraged to be incorporated as upper story uses in mixed-use developments. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Design Guidelines In 2003, the City of Saratoga adopted the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Improvement Master Plan to guide public right-of-way improvements in the area generally along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road between Prospect Road and the railroad tracks in the north central part of the city. This master plan includes design guidelines for anticipated future mixed-use developments envisioned by the City’s Housing Element to successfully build up the commercial business activity along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Corridor; enhance neighborhood quality of life; and maintain the rural character of Saratoga. Guidelines include specific details regarding the architectural massing and features of residential buildings within the Gateway Improvement area as well as specifics regarding commercial signing, landscaping, and buffering, screening, and lighting and street furnishes. Parking Requirements Article 15.35 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes parking standards for type of use (see Table 4-6), which have been interpreted as to how they apply to each zone in Table 4-5. Parking requirements can indirectly impact housing development and costs by reducing the total amount of lot area available for residential development. This means generally, that the more stringent local parking requirements are, the more lot area (and related costs) must be contributed to the development of parking uses rather than residential units. To address this potential constraint, the City of Saratoga does provide select exceptions to its parking requirements to promote the development of housing. These exceptions include: • The allowance of affordable housing developments located within the C-N(RHD) zoning district, to provide a reduced number of parking spaces pursuant to Section 15.35.030.c of the City’s Municipal Code, and • Applicable reductions in parking requirements for developments pursuant to the California State Density Bonus Law, which allows developers of affordable housing to request concessions to local parking requirements as part of streamlined, ministerial review of applicable projects, and 111 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-13 • Elimination of parking requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) that meet certain requirements as outlined within Section 15-56.025(a)(9) of the City’s Municipal Code. TABLE 4-6: PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY FACILITY FACILITY PARKING REQUIREMENT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING Two covered spaces within a garage. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT One covered space within a garage, except as otherwise provided in Article 15-56 of the Zoning Ordinance. MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS One covered space within a garage for each dwelling unit, plus one and one-half additional spaces on the site for each dwelling unit; with the following exceptions: for dwelling units containing no more than one bedroom and for housing developments occupied exclusively by seniors and students, the required parking shall be one covered space within a garage for each dwelling unit plus one-half additional space on the site for each dwelling unit; and for affordable housing developments located within the C-N (RHD) zoning district, the required parking shall be one covered space plus one additional space on site for each dwelling unit. SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY BUILDING One space for each unit plus one space for the on-site manager when required and one space for each additional employee. Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 15-35-030. Zoning for Diverse Housing Types Provisions of the City of Saratoga’s Zoning Ordinance includes various regulations intended to implement relevant State Housing Laws and facilitate development of affordable housing and diverse housing types. This includes the following measures which are described in more detail within Section 5, Resources: • Chapter 15-81 of the City’s Municipal Code implements Government Code Section 65915, referred to as the State Density Bonus Law which provides for a by-right density bonus for residential developments that provide a percentage of below-market rate housing units. • Pursuant to Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) the City provides a streamlined ministerial review of housing developments which propose at least ten percent affordability among their provided residential units. • Chapter 15-56 of the City’s Municipal Code implements the various state laws related to the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). This Chapter implements the streamlined, ministerial review procedure for ADUs and outlines objective design standards and reduced parking standards applicable to ADUs. • Pursuant to Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) the City permits transitional and supportive housing developments by-right in all zoning districts that permit residential uses by-right. As part of this Update, the City will update its Municipal Code to accommodate the by-right, 112 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-14 streamlined, ministerial review of supportive and transitional housing developments as mandated by Assembly Bill (AB) 2162 (2019). • Pursuant to SB 2 the City permits emergency shelters by-right in the CN(RHD) zoning district and within all single-family residential (R-1) zoning districts. Objective design and operational standards for emergency shelters developed within the CN(RHD) district are included within Section 15-19.035.I of the City’s Code. • The City permits Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units in the CN(RHD) zoning district. Development standards for SROs are included in Article 15-19.035(k) of the City’s Code. • Pursuant to State and federal laws, the City has adopted Reasonable Accommodation Measures within Section 15-80-025 of their Municipal Code to help in eliminating any potential regulatory constraints to the development of housing to serve persons with disabilities. These measures provide for reasonable flexibility in land-use/zoning, building regulations, policies, and practices as necessary to provide for the development of housing options suitable for disabled persons. See Section 5, Resources, for additional information on these local regulations intended to mitigate any constraints to the development of a variety of housing types serving a diverse population. Building Codes and Enforcement Building and safety codes are intended to preserve public health and safety within a community, and to ensure the construction of safe and decent buildings and residences. While these codes and standards and meant to protect the public, including special needs groups such as those with disabilities, they also have the potential to unintentionally increase the cost of housing construction or maintenance. Building Codes Per Section 16-15.010 of the Municipal Code, the City of Saratoga has adopted the 2019 California Building Code, which establishes construction standards for all residential buildings developed within the State. The City amends the Code as needed to further define requirements based on the unique local conditions of Saratoga. The Code is designed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of Saratoga’s residents and is enforced by the City’s Code Enforcement Department that performs enforcement checks proactively and operates on a complaint basis. 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 for all Americans. The FHA is intended to protect persons from facing discrimination in the housing industry due to their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. The ADA is intended to provide adequate housing options for persons with disabilities by requiring new 113 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-15 developments to design a minimum percentage of residential units to be fully accessible for persons with physical disabilities. While compliance with FHA and ADA regulations may increase the cost of housing construction and/or the cost of rehabilitating older units, compliance with these regulations is required by federal and state law to ensure all population groups have equal access to housing. Energy Conservation Energy conservation energy conservation remains a major priority to the City of Saratoga. The City requires compliance with title 24 of the California Code of Regulations which mandates the use of energy efficient appliances and insulation. The City of Saratoga also prioritizes energy conservation in its planning, zoning, and building processes by: • Adopting a green building reach code in 2019 that requires all new residential and non- residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating (natural gas is permitted as a fuel source for clothes drying, food cooking, and fireplaces, but these appliance connections must be “electric-ready”); • Participating in the CaliforniaFIRST Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program which provides property owners with long-term loans to fund green energy and energy efficiency improvements to their residences. The City maintains a website for the CaliforniaFIRST PACE Program which provides residents with information on the program and eligible improvements; and • Being a member of the Silicon Valley Community Choice Energy (CCE) Partnership, a joint public agency made up of Santa Clara County communities, in partnership with Pacific Coast Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) that provides clean/renewable electricity sources to the City of Saratoga. On- and Off-Site Improvements During the design review process, the City of Saratoga may require developments to complete on and/or off-site improvements dependent on the proposed development intensity, condition of existing infrastructure, and proposed impacts to existing infrastructure associated with the development. Required improvements may include the dedication and construction of public streets, alleys, utility infrastructure or other facilities 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 4-7 summarizes the City’s standards for roadway and right-of-way widths. While on or off-site improvements may increase the costs of developing housing, such improvements are necessary to adequately provide the infrastructure and public facilities needed to support housing development. This infrastructure and these facilities are critical 114 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-16 to balancing the health and safety of the public, with the development needs of the City, without unduly hindering housing development. TABLE 4-7: STREET WIDTHS TYPE OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH (FEET) PAVEMENT1 6-LANE THOROUGH-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 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 1 Total width between exterior curb faces or shoulder edges. 2 Required 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”. Development Fees As part of the development review process, the Community Development Department charges various development and permit fees to cover the administrative processing costs associated with development. These fees not only fund the Department but also ensure quality development review with an adequate provision of services. Often, developers relegate development fees down to renters or home buyers in the form of increased rents or purchasing prices, to recapture development fees. Therefore, development fees can affect the affordability of housing in the city. Table 4-8 compares the development fees in the City of Saratoga with that of neighboring cities to ensure development fees do not unduly hinder the production, maintenance, or rehabilitation of affordable housing. In compliance with Government Code 65940.1(a)(1)(A), these fees and others related to the development of housing within the City of Saratoga are uploaded and available on the City’s website for public viewing and convenience. 115 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-17 TABLE 4-8: COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEE SUMMARY 2021-2022 (INCLUDING UPDATES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022 FOR SARATOGA) DESCRIPTION SARATOGA CUPERTINO LOS GATOS PLANNING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Actual Costs Contract + 15% Admin. Fee Actual Cost / Consultant EIR PROCESSING Actual Costs + Initial Deposit Determined by Community Development Department Director Actual Cost / Consultant CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION Cost of Consultant $344 No fee GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Actual Costs + $3,500 initial deposit $302/hour Actual Cost + $5,000 deposit ZONE CHANGE w/out General Plan Amendment Actual Cost ($5,000 minimum) w/ General Plan Amendment Actual Cost ($7,000 minimum) TENTATIVE MAP Less Than 10 Lots: Actual Costs + $5,000 initial deposit; 10 or More Lots: Actual Costs + $5,000 initial deposit + $150 for each lot over 10; Subdivision Final Map: Actual Costs + $5,000 $31,603 (5 or more parcels) Actual Cost + $500 deposit and additional fees (Vesting Tentative Map) SITE PLAN REVIEW Administrative Design Review: $3,470; Planning Commission Design Review: $5,305 Minor Duplex/ Residential -$6,715; Minor4- $13,223; Major5 - $19,681 New Single Family (HR, DC Zones) (DRC Review) $13,129 New Single Family or Two-Unit (DRC Review) $10,336 New Two-Family Unit (PC Review) $13,588 New Multi-Family (PC Review) $13,996 116 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-18 DESCRIPTION SARATOGA CUPERTINO LOS GATOS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Administrative Review: $3,470; Planning Commission Review: $4,490 Major Use Permit6 - $16,036; Minor Use Permit7-$8,870; Conditional Use Permit $7,702 Combined w/other Permit $1,803 VARIANCE $2,755 $7,711 $6,022 BUILDING BUILDING PERMIT (BASED ON VALUATION) ≥ $2,000 $78 Minimum -- $1-$500 $32.99 $2,001 ≤ $25,000 $ 78 for the first $2,000 + $17.50 each $1,000 or fraction thereof to and including $25,000 $501- $2,000 $32.99 for the first $500 + $4.28 for each $100 to up to $2,000 $25,001 ≤ $50,000 $ 490 for the first $25,000 + $12.60 each $1,000 or fraction thereof to and including $50,000 $2,001 - $25,000 $97.23 for the first $2,000 + $19.66 for each $1,000 up to $25,000 $50,001 ≤ $100,000 $ 805 for the first $50,000 + $9.80 each $1,000 or fraction thereof to and including $100,000 $25,001- $50,000 $549.32 for the first $25,000 + $14.18 for each l $1,000 up to $50,000 $100,001 ≤ $500,000 $ 1,242 for the first $100,000 + $7 each $1,000 or fraction thereof to and including $500,000 $50,001 - $100,000 $903.83 for the first $50,000 + $9.83 for each additional $1,000 up to $100,000 $500,001 ≤ $1,000,000 4,042 for the first $500,000 + $5.90 each $1,000 or fraction thereof to and including $1,00,000 $100,001 - $500,000 $1,395.23 for the first $100,000 + $7.86 for each $1,000 up to $500,000 117 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-19 DESCRIPTION SARATOGA CUPERTINO LOS GATOS ≤$1,000,001 $ 7,010 for the first $ 1,000,000 + $4.56 each $1,000 or fraction thereof $500,001 - $1,000,000 $4,540.19 for the first $500,000 + $6.67 for each $1,000 up to $1,000,000 $1,000,001 ≤ $7,874.69 for the first $1,000,000 + $4.42 for each $1,000 PLAN CHECK 65% of the building permit fee Varies from $210 (800 sq. ft. apartment unit) + $0.34 for each 100 sq. ft. to $3,020 (2,500 sq. ft. custom home in hillside) + $40.26 for each 100 sq. ft. 65% of building permit fee ELECTRICAL $.18 / sq. ft. (minimum $145) $221/hour $80 - permit; 25% plan review fee; $.11/sq. ft. new residential construction only MECHANICAL PLUMBING SMIP (STRONG MOTION INSTRUMENTAT ION PROGRAM) Building valuation x 0.0013 (minimum 0.50) for residential structures (1-3 stories) -- residential ≤ 3 stories - $13.00 per $100,000; All other $28 per $100,000. ENERGY1 Addition to Residential Building - $205 New Residential Structure -$310/unit -- 15% of Building Permit ENGINEERING AND SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP $2,550 for first lot + $500 for each additional lot One to four lots -$19,000; Greater than four lots - $31,603 ≤ 4 lots $12,535 ≤ 4 lots (PD) $7,694 ≥ 5 lots $14,775 ≥ 5 lots (PD) $9,270 FINAL MAP Actual Costs + $5,000 initial deposit One to four lots -$7,421; Greater than four lots - $12,184 -- LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT/ PARCEL MERGING2 $1,530 $3,696 $5,699 118 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-20 DESCRIPTION SARATOGA CUPERTINO LOS GATOS STORMWATER DESIGN REVIEW Actual Costs + $2,500 deposit; $500 minimum Low-Density Residential (< 1 du/ac hillside zoning only) $3,972/ du Single-Family $4,228 Single-Family Residential (>1 du/ac and <5.2 du/ac) $5,395/ acre Multi-Family (Initial) $4,228 Multiple Family > 5.2 du/ac $3,871/ acre + $293/u nit8 Multi-Family (After Initial) $159 / du (Not to Exceed $4,622) STREET IMPROVEMENT First $50,000 Estimated Construction Cost - $5,100 minimum charge Over $50,000 Estimated Construction Cost - $5,100 plus 5% of Estimated Construction Cost over $50,0003 -- Sidewalks - $16 / l.f.; Curb & Gutter -$68 /l.f. SEWER IMPROVEMENT First $50,000 Estimated Construction Cost - $5,100 minimum charge Over $50,000 Estimated Construction Cost - $5,100 plus 5% of Estimated Construction Cost over $50,000 -- -- GEOTECHNICAL Actual Costs +$5,000 initial deposit; $850 minimum -- Staff Hourly Billing + $2,500 deposit ($4,500 for larger projects) GRADING ≤100 Cubic Yards: $510; >100 Cubic Yards: $510 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $125 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof; Plan Check Fee $545 <10,000 s.f. $1,250 App. Fee $490 <$20,000 15.5% of Valuation ≥10,000 s.f. Greater of $3,647 min. or 6% of cost of improv ement $20,000-$80,000 $3,100 + 9% of Valuation >$80,000 $8,500 + 8.5% of Valuation 119 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-21 DESCRIPTION SARATOGA CUPERTINO LOS GATOS CAPITAL FACILITIES AND CONNECTIONS WATER Single-Family $2,825.77 -- -- SEWER Multi-Family (2-4 Units) $2,259.74 Apartment/ Mobile Home $1,842.61 IN-LIEU PARK FACILITIES FEE Single-Family Detached $1,500 0-5 du/ac $105,000/DU Trail Improvements at $16/s.f. 5-10 du/ac $60,000/DU Single Family Attached $1,100 10-20 du/ac $60,000/DU 20+ du/ac $54,000/DU Duplexes, Multi- Family, Mobile Home $950 Senior Housing $30,000/DU ADU ≥ 750 s.f. $15,0009 1 Energy fee is waived for all deed restricted units that meet CAL GREEN requirements. 2 Lot line application fees are waived for projects with a minimum of 20% affordable housing units. 3 The 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. 4 Architectural approval of the following: minor building modifications, landscaping, signs and lighting for new development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where such review is required. 5 Architectural approval of all other development projects. 6 Up to 10,000 square feet commercial/office/non-residential/industrial; up to six residential units. 7 10,000 or more square feet commercial/office/non-residential/industrial; six or more residential units. 8 Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre. 9 Or proportional to the primary dwelling unit. -- Not listed in fee schedule Sources: City of Saratoga User Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2022/2023; City of Cupertino Summary of User Fees, Resolution 21-034, Fees effective July 3, 2021; Town of Los Gatos Comprehensive Fee Schedule FY 2020/2021. 120 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-22 Table 4-9 below summarizes the typical total of development fees associated with single- family and multi-family developments in the City of Saratoga. TABLE 4-9: TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT FEES COMPARISON SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FEE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY1 NEW MULTI-FAMILY2 DESIGN REVIEW Administrative Design Review: $3,470; Planning Commission Design Review: $5,305 ENGINEERING REVIEW $1,000 $1,000 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW $850 850 ARBORIST REVIEW Initial Deposit of $1,500 + Staff Time at Scheduled Billing Rate ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Cost of Consultant + Initial Deposit Determined by Community Development Department Director BUILDING PERMIT FEES $35,000 $51,000 IMPACT FEE SANITATION CONNECTION AND CAPACITY FEES $12,428 $96,220 SCHOOL FEES $9,000 $15,300 TOTAL $63,248 $169,675 ($16,967 per unit) 1 One single-family unit. 2 Based on an apartment development with 10 units. Source: City of Saratoga. Local Processing and Permit Procedures Delays in the review and processing of development and building permits can result in considerable holding costs, or other expenditures by developers, which may then be relayed down to renters or purchasers of homes and affect the price of housing. In the City of Saratoga, the level and duration of review and processing a project may be subject to is dependent on the type of entitlement required. Actual processing times can vary according to the size and scope of the proposed project, as well as the time taken by the developer to prepare plans and other project related documents. Table 4-10 summarizes the approximate processing time for development applications in the City of Saratoga. TABLE 4-10: 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3-4 months ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 10-12 months Source: City of Saratoga, Community Development Department. 121 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-23 The level and duration of review/processing of residential development projects within the City is dependent on the type of housing being proposed as bulleted below. It should be noted that to mitigate any potential for delays in review and processing procedures, the City does allow for the concurrent processing of related applications, so that projects requiring discretionary approvals, can have their permits approved in approximately the same timeframe as projects that do not require discretionary approvals. • Single-family residential units, residential additions and manufactured/modular housing are only required to be reviewed by City staff before proceeding to plan check for building permit issuance. • Pursuant to recent modifications in the City’s ADU Ordinance, in accordance with State law, ADUs are only required to be reviewed ministerially by staff, without discretionary review or a public hearing, in all single-family and multi-family districts. • Other projects requiring a use permit, parcel map, tract map and/or tentative map are subject to review by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. • All new development or additions (except for single-family residences not within a planned development district) are required to undergo design review, to promote harmonious and orderly development in the city. The Zoning Administrator may find additions to existing projects “minor.” Table 4-11 below summarizes the estimated processing timelines for planning application by development type. The City has not found the local development processing timeline to hinder the development of housing. TABLE 4-11: 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 10 to 12 months if EIR Required) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-6 months 4-6 months or 10-12 months if EIR is required 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. 122 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-24 SB35 and Ministerial Review of Affordable Housing In compliance with Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) (2018) the City of Saratoga provides a streamlined ministerial review of housing developments which propose at least ten percent of their units as affordable units. This review gives the City 60 days to review an application for eligibility of such ministerial process, 90 days if the project exceeds 150 units. The City then has 90 days from initial application submittal to review the application, this is increased to 180 days for projects exceeding 150 units. As part of the streamlined, ministerial review of housing developments providing at least ten percent affordability, the City only reviews applications against objective design standards. Objective design standards involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the City prior to submittal. The only SB 35 project processed to date by the City is the Quito Village Development project. The project proposes 90 residential units (with 10 percent affordable) in 17 buildings, nearly 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and 76,871 square feet of open space. The first phase of construction is expected to be completed by October 2022. Length of Time between Application Approval and Building Permit Application Housing Elements are now required to provide an evaluation of the length of time between receiving approval from the City and applying for a building permit. Once a project is approved by the City, such as the Planning Commission or City Council, it is the applicant’s responsibility to submit an application for a building permit. The time it takes can vary and is largely determined by the applicant. Factors include the time it takes to prepare the construction drawings and any necessary technical studies, preparation and recording of subdivision maps (if necessary), retaining contractors, and securing financing. Planning entitlements expires within 36 months and almost all submit an application for building permit within that timeframe. Most applicants submit building applications within 12 months of planning approval. Measure G The voters of Saratoga approved Measure G in March 1996, which reaffirmed and readopted until December 31, 2025, the residential and parkland designations of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. With certain exceptions, those land use designations can be amended only by a vote of the people. The measure includes an exception for amendments necessary to comply with State housing laws. The initiative does not apply to state mandated policies which allow increased density by-right such as the California State Density Bonus Law, and State ADU laws. The measure also does not apply to projects proposed pursuant to SB 35. 123 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-25 OTHER LOCAL CONSTRAINTS Community Development Block Grant and HOME Program To mitigate constraints on residential development related to the availability of financing and funding, particularly for housing to serve lower-income households, the City leverages resources available through partnerships with local public and non-profit partners. One of these partners is Santa Clara County’s Office of Supportive Housing which administers the County’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Urban County program, of which the City of Saratoga is a member. Through the Urban County program, the County administers both CDBG and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funding from the federal government to member communities to fund housing development activities serving lower- income and special needs populations. CDBG and HOME funds are a critical component in mitigating the constrained availability of financing and funding available at the local level for affordable housing development. A more detailed description of housing development activities funded through Santa Clara County’s Urban County program is included within Section 5, Resources. Additionally, as part of this update, new policy objectives are included within Section 7, Housing Policy Program to promote further coordination with local partners to utilize CDBG and HOME funds, as well as local funding sources as described within Section 5, to fund affordable housing development. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS To support growth, it is critical that public infrastructure can accommodate new development. The City of Saratoga does not anticipate that the provision of public services, such as water, sewer, and storm drains, will be a constraint on the production of new housing. Water The City of Saratoga receives its water supply from the San Jose Water (SJW) who obtains the 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 the City’s water supply. Imported surface water is provided by Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), the wholesale supplier. Surface water imported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and purchased from the Valley Water accounts for approximately 50 percent of the City’s water supply. Most of this water originates as Sierra snowmelt, and travels through the State and Federal water projects before treatment at Valley Water's three water treatment plants. A smaller portion is impounded in local reservoirs in Santa Clara County. The third source, local mountain surface water, is collected in the Santa Cruz Mountains and treated at SJW's two water treatment plants. Local mountain surface water accounts for 124 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-26 approximately 10 percent of the City’s water supply. These three sources are often blended in the City’s distribution system, and therefore different sources are dispersed day to day as customer usage changes. According to the 2022 Water Supply Assessment prepared for the 6th Cycle Housing Element 2040 General Plan Update (project), SJW expects to be able to meet the needs of the service area through at least the year 2045 for average and single-dry years without a call for water use reductions. The impact of this project is not consequential and SJW has the capacity to serve this project through buildout based on current water supply capacity and Valley Water’s proposed water supply projects. Valley Water is pursuing water supply solutions to meet the established level of service goal to provide 80 percent of annual water demand for drought years. SJW is committed to working with Valley Water to meet future demands and mitigate shortages. After comparing estimated demand associated with this project to water supplies, based on both the SJW and Valley Water Urban Water Management Plans, SJW has determined that the water quantity needed is within normal growth projections and expects for there to be sufficient water available to serve the project. However, due to factors that affect water supply and demand projections including climate change, there is no guarantee that the projections provided in Valley Water’s Urban Water Management Plan will be met, nor is there a guarantee that the water supply projects and programs identified by Valley Water will be implemented. Sewer The City of Saratoga is served by two sanitation districts: the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) and the West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD). The CSD service area is approximately 15 square miles and serves a population of over 50,000 persons. The district owns and manages over 1 million linear feet of sewer mains, 500,000 linear feet of sewer laterals, and 17 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, CSD discharges nearly 5 million gallons per day of the 8.6 million gallons per day that they have the right to; therefore, the district anticipates being able to accommodate anticipated growth within its service area. The WVSD service area covers approximately 28 square miles and serves a population of over 110,000 persons. The district’s facilities include over 415 miles of sewer mains and over 185 miles of sewer laterals. The WVSD has a fixed capacity allocation of 13.05 million gallons per day and based on population growth projections for the year 2030, the district would not exceed this allocation. 125 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-27 4.2 N ON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Several market and non-governmental factors contribute to the feasibility and cost of housing within the City of Saratoga. Non-governmental constraints analyzed within this subsection include land costs, construction costs, availability of financing, development of housing at lower than anticipated densities, duration between development approval and building permit submittal, and environmental constraints. Local mitigation efforts to address these constraints are also detailed below. DEVELOPMENT COSTS Land Acquisition According to the California Building Industry Association, the cost of land acquisition represents an ever-increasing portion of the total housing development costs across the State. These high costs can be attributed to a combination of factors including but not limited to inflation and the competitive market for available, developable land throughout the Bay Area which is in low supply. As the cost of land acquisition in residential development increases, this increase is usually passed down to renters and homebuyers in the form of increased rents or purchase prices. As such, increased land costs serve as a significant constraint to the overall development of housing, but especially the production of affordable housing. Since the mid-1960s, developable land costs in the State of California have remained significantly higher than the rest of the United States. Within the State, Bay Area land prices have consistently outpaced that of other regions. Based on a 2019 Appraisal Consulting Report prepared for Unencumbered Residential Land in Saratoga by Valbridge Property Advisors, there was inadequate information to estimate the value of higher density land in Saratoga in recent years. However, the comparable sales drawn from the surrounding area, along with a single sale from Saratoga in 2015 confirm that higher density, townhouse land would typically sell between $95 and $130 per square foot. Based on this report, the range of land values for most vacant, unentitled residential land sites (primarily used for single-family homes on large lots) was $45 to $55 per square foot. Construction and Labor Costs Construction costs can be strongly influenced by a variety of factors and have a direct influence on the cost of housing. Construction costs are primarily determined by the cost of materials, which can be complicated by supply-chain issues or contractor issues; and labor, which can fluctuate depending on market conditions and applicable regulations. The cost of construction can also depend on the type of housing being built or site characteristics. For example, a former industrial site that must deal with remediation, or a site near a freeway and needs to mitigate air quality impacts, may face an increase in construction costs. 126 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-28 According to a March 2020 report by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California at Berkeley titled, “The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California,” 63 percent of the total cost of producing a new residential building in California over the past decade is accounted for in hard construction costs, or materials and labor costs. By comparison, 19 percent of total development costs is accounted for in soft costs (e.g., legal and professional fees, insurance, development fees), 10 percent is accounted for in conversion (e.g., title fees, operating deficit reserve), and eight percent is accounted for in acquisition costs (e.g., land and closing costs). As a result, hard construction costs play a significant role in the financial feasibility of housing construction, even more than land costs. Between 2014 and 2018, construction costs in California rose nearly 44 percent, a large contributor being the cost of materials. The cost of wood, plastics, composites, finishes, and concrete have all increased since 2014, although the cost of metals has decreased. Wages have also increased over the last decade, although once accounting for inflation, wages have only risen 3.4 percent since 2006. However, the construction labor market has been tight since the recession in 2008 which shows in the mismatch between the growing number of permitted units (430 percent between 2009 and 2018) and the growth of the construction sector (32 percent between 2009 and 2018). The 2020 Terner Center report finds that prevailing wage requirements are associated with higher hard costs. The report also finds that affordable housing projects cost more on average than market-rate and mixed-affordability projects, although the statistical significance of the difference is lost once controlling for project size. Generally, funding complexity (including associated prevailing wage and local hiring requirements) and increased design requirements drive up the cost of affordable housing development. In 2018, the average hard construction cost was $222 per square foot, according to the 2020 Terner Center report on hard costs. Table 4-12 summarizes the estimated construction costs based on type of development in Saratoga. TABLE 4-12: CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES DEVELOPMENT TYPE COST PER SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL $277 TOWNHOMES/CONDOMINIUMS $352 Notes: Assumes $222 per square foot construction costs, $55 per square foot for single-family land costs, and $130 per square foot multi-family land costs. Source: Terner Center, 2020 and Valbridge Property Advisors, 2019. Local Mitigation Efforts The low supply of suitable and developable land in the City of Saratoga available for residential development ultimately contributes to rising land, and overall development costs in the city. To address these rising costs which serve as constraints to the development of housing, the City of Saratoga has compiled a list of sites that are suitable for potential future 127 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-29 residential development. This list is referred to as a Housing Sites Inventory and is required by State Law, as part of local Housing Element updates to identify sites which are suitable to meet the City’s regional housing needs assessment (RHNA). The City’s Housing Sites Inventory for this 6th cycle housing element update is included within Section 6, Adequate Sites of this update. Additionally, as part of this update, the City will adopt a series of rezonings and policy updates which intend to further increase the development potential of available sites, reducing the constraint of land availability on residential development. AVAILABILITY OF MORTGAGE AND REHABILITATION FINANCING The availability of mortgage and rehabilitation financing can also largely affect the production of new housing in a community as well as repairs to the existing housing inventory. The availability of financing in a community depends on several 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. The below subsection evaluates historic home loan and interest rate data to identify trends in the availability of financing. Home Loans Through analysis of 2020 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. HMDA data, for the San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara MSA is included in Table 4-13 below. TABLE 4-13: HOME PURCHASE AND IMPROVEMENT LOANS – 2020 INCOME GROUP LOAN APPLICATIONS LOANS APPROVED (ORIGINATED) LOANS DENIED # % # % >50% OF MSA AMI 9,757 4,518 46.3% 2,550 26.1% 50-79% OF MSA AMI 19,780 12,673 64.1% 2,683 13.6% 80-99% OF MSA AMI 8,535 5,775 67.7% 852 10.0% 100-119% OF MSA AMI 28,507 20,122 70.6% 2,361 8.3% ≥ 120% OF MSA AMI 87,715 59,930 68.3% 6,951 7.9% TOTAL 154,294 103,018 66.8% 15,397 10.0% NOTE: MSA 41940 – San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2020. Table 4-13 summarizes the total number of home loans applied for, approved (and originated), and denied within the San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara MSA. In 2020 a total of 154,294 applications for home loans were submitted within the MSA. Of these loan applications, over 65 percent were approved and originated while approximately ten percent 128 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-30 of applications were denied. This percentage of loan approvals and denials vary throughout the MSA by income group. As anticipated, there is a direct relationship between household incomes and home loan application approvals and denials. As depicted in Table 4-13 as household incomes rise, the percentage of home loans denied decreases and the percentage of loans approved increases. Similarly, as household income falls, the percentage of home loan applications denied increases and the percentage of loans approved decreases. This data suggests it is much more difficult for lower-income households in the MSA to obtain home loan financing than higher-income households. This difficulty has the potential to directly affect the production and rehabilitation of housing units serving lower- income households, throughout the MSA. Interest Rates Interest rates can influence the borrowing activity of those seeking to purchase a home or existing homeowners looking to repair their residences. When interest rates are relatively low, loans are considered more advantageous to borrow than when interest rates are higher. Figure 4-1 below shows the average federal interest rate between February 2019 and January 2022. During this time, interest rates have been at historic lows and likely have not been a significant constraint on constructing or purchasing housing. However, interest rates have been rising during that the time that this Housing Element is being prepared, meaning that interest rates may be added to the list of obstacles faced by lower-income households seeking to purchase a home due to the high home prices in the Bay Area and difficulty meeting down payment requirements. FIGURE 4-1: U.S. AVERAGE INTEREST RATES - FEBRUARY 2019 – JANUARY 2022 Source: Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey. 129 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-31 DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING AT LOWER DENSITIES The current Zoning Code has maximum densities of 20 du/ac; and the two most recent townhome developments have developed below the maximum permitted density. The first was a project located at 12250 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road that was developed at a density of 15-16 du/ac and the second project was Quito Village that was developed at a density of 14- 15 du/ac. However, as part of this Housing Element Update, the Zoning Code will be updated to include minimum densities for new multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts. For purposes of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, we have assumed projects developed in the planning period will be developed at the minimum density allowed. 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. Environmental constraints as they pertain to the City of Saratoga’s Housing Sites inventory are discussed in Section 5, Resources. Seismic Hazards The topography of Saratoga generally consists of the low-lying, relatively flat valley floor and the northwestern foothills. Outside the city limits, but within the city's Sphere of Influence, are the Castle Rock portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains. These mountains are very rugged, comprised of steep canyons and sharp rounded ridge tops. The dominant geologic feature within Saratoga's Sphere of Influence is the San Andreas Fault zone, which bisects the mountainous portion of the terrain. The fault zone determines the geology and topography of the area by separating two different rock assemblages and their associated erosion characteristics. A complex system of fault traces and fractured rock compose the fault zone. The location of the San Andreas Fault, along the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains, subjects the hillside region of the city to potentially severe lateral displacement and ground shaking should an earthquake occur. However, a major portion of the city is underlain by the relatively flat valley floor that is considered a geologic stability zone. There are two "potentially active" faults within the city limits. The Berrocal Fault belongs to the Sargent Fault zone, a complex system of interconnecting faults extending northwest between San Andreas and the Calaveras Faults. The fault trace crosses Congress Springs Residential development in the Saratoga foothills 130 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-32 Road and continues into the southeastern portion of the Sphere of Influence. The Shannon Fault, part of the Monte Vista fault system, closely parallels the Highway 85 corridor from Regnart Creek in Cupertino to the north, crosses Saratoga Avenue, and continues to Almaden Expressway in the southeast portion of San Jose. Although there is a remote chance that ground rupture could occur on either one of these fault traces, it is more likely to occur on the San Andreas Fault. However, little rural residential development has occurred within the San Andreas fault zone in Saratoga's Sphere of Influence, so the present risk of structural damage due to fault rupture is minimal. The San Andreas Fault zone is the only area within the city and its Sphere of Influence that the State has designated as a Special Studies Zone. Special Studies Zones are areas along faults considered to be active or potentially active as established by the California Division of Mines and Geology in compliance with the Alquist Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act. When development for human occupancy is proposed within these zones, special studies relating to seismic hazards are required and must be submitted to the City or County Geologist for review. As required by the State of California, the Saratoga General Plan contains policies regarding land instability and seismic hazards within the Safety Element. In addition, the General Plan identifies the general location of the areas of potential seismic hazards, as well as potentially active faults, 100-year flood areas, and hazardous fire areas in the Safety Element. The goal of the geologic and seismic policies is to protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage resulting from land stability, geologic and seismic hazards. To that end, the General Plan identifies specific policies that prohibit development without site- specific geotechnical investigations; prohibit development of structures for human habitation in areas proven to be unsafe (to the maximum extent permitted by law); and, enforce strict earthquake construction and soil engineering standards in order to select the most stable building sites, and to compensate for soil instabilities through the use of approved engineering and construction techniques. In addition, zoning regulations for residential development in hillside areas identify specific mandatory development criteria including the preparation of a site development plan and geologic and soils report; specific procedures for grading and siting structures; and additional studies (soil and foundation engineering investigation, slope stability studies, investigations addressing seismic hazards of nearby fault traces) as necessary. Landslides The hillside region of the city contains some rock formations conducive to landslides. These areas primarily lie west of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, pass through a portion of the Northwestern Hillsides Residential District, and continue past Big Basin Way. The zone is also present within the Sphere of Influence, along the city's northwestern boundary and across Bohlman Road. Landslides and unstable slopes may occur in this area and can create 131 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-33 hazards within the city limits as the slide debris and rock move down the incline toward the city's valley floor. Landslides and slope instability are the major non-seismic geologic hazards in Saratoga. Although most of the hillside areas experience these hazards to some degree, the most severe risks are found in the vicinity of the Congress Springs area and the upper Calabazas Creek watershed. As noted above, the General Plan includes specific policies to protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage resulting from land stability, geologic and seismic hazards. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance includes specific regulations for residential development in the hillsides designed to protect human life and property. Soil Creep and Expansive Soils Soil creep and expansive soils are most prevalent in the western hillside regions of the city. Soil creep is the slow, down slope movement of near surface materials. The rate of soil creep is a function of slope angle and soil thickness and texture. It can be regarded as a continuous process, and may cause retaining walls, foundations, and paved roads to fail over a period of time. Expansive soils contain high proportions of clay and alternatively absorb and release large amounts of water during wet and dry cycles. Structures built on expansive soils can experience rising foundations during the wet season, resulting in cracked foundations, distorted frameworks, and warped windows and doors. To address adverse effects associated with soil creep and expansive soils, the City requires geotechnical investigations and soil reports in areas where soil creep and expansive soils exist. The presence of soil creep should not have a prohibitive effect on land use but should alert the City to require appropriate geotechnical investigations to evaluate conditions and to impose engineering solutions to mitigate problems. Flooding Three major drainage basins lie within the city, the San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga, and Calabaza Creeks. Several tributaries of the San Tomas and Calabaza Creeks are located within the city, as well. These include Wildcat, Vasona, and Sobey Creeks, (tributaries of San Tomas Creek), and Prospect and Rodeo Creeks, (tributaries of Calabaza Creek). Areas adjacent to the San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga, and Calabaza Creeks are located within the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the Wildcat and Vasona Creeks are also subject to the 100- year flood hazard. Saratoga participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The City adopts and enforces certain floodplain management ordinances, and, in return, residents can purchase Federally backed flood insurance. In addition, the City has an extensive review procedure in conjunction with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which addresses flooding potential and the impact on development. 132 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-34 Toxic and Hazardous Waste 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 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. Fire Hazards 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. Much of these areas are considered hazardous due to their higher site elevations which prevents houses in these areas from providing the necessary water pressure (1,000 gallons per minute for two hours) as required by the City’s subdivision ordinance to provide adequate fire protection. In 2018, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed SB 901 (Dodd), which expanded the applicability of the regulations promulgated under Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290 to land in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). SB 901 also revised PRC 4290 to require the Board of Forestry and Fire to more frequently update regulations relating to fuel breaks and greenbelts near communities, and to preserve undeveloped ridgelines to reduce fire risk and improve fire protection. The regulations set certain minimum standards for structures, subdivisions, and developments in State Responsibility Area (SRA) and LRA VHFHSZ and provide for basic emergency access and perimeter wildfire protection, as well as standards for fuel breaks, greenbelts, and measures to protect undeveloped ridgelines. In 2021 PRC 4290 was updated with new standards for fuel breaks and greenbelts that protect communities; preserve undeveloped ridgelines; create clear, specific standards for where and when the regulations apply; amend the requirements for fire safe developments for consistency and clarity; provide clearer lines of authority Special building regulations exist for hazardous fire areas, including the requirement for fire retardant roofs and the installation of an electronic fire detection system (Early Warning Fire Alarm System) that consists of heat and smoke detectors which when activated, transmit a signal directly to a receiver panel in the Saratoga Fire District Station. Additionally, the City also requires anti-fire buffer areas and sufficient clearance around each house in the Northwestern Hillsides hazardous fire area. The minimum setbacks in this area are 30 feet 133 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-35 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. 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 Community Development 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. 134 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 4-36 This page intentionally left blank 135 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-1 5. RESOURCES This section analyzes the resources available to the City of Saratoga for the preservation, rehabilitation, and production of housing throughout the city. This includes a review of financial resources, programmatic resources, all of which can be utilized by the City to meet the housing demands of the community. The inventory of land resources suitable for housing is included within Section 6, Adequate Sites. 5.1 INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY The City of Saratoga does not operate its own housing authority but is served by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA). SCCHA provides rental subsidies and manages and develops affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities throughout Santa Clara County. Primarily funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), SCCHA has leveraged Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) financing to develop and/or rehabilitate 30 housing developments across the County. Additionally, SCCHA assists approximately 17,000 households in the County through the federal Section 8 / Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program and provides rental assistance through several other programs, many of which are associated with the HCV Program. These other programs are listed below. • Project Based Moderate Rehabilitation Program • Chronically Homeless Direct Referral (CHDR) Program • Mainstream Voucher Program for Persons with Disabilities • Non-Elderly Disabled Program (NED) • Family Unification Program (FUP) • Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program • Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) SCCHA is also a member of HUD’s Move to Work (MTW) Demonstration Program. MTW is a program for public housing authorities that provides member authorities with opportunities to design and test innovative, locally designed strategies that use federal dollars to increase the cost effectiveness of housing program operations, increase housing choices housing program participants, and promote employment and self-sufficiency among participants. The City does not currently have any direct coordination or collaboration with SCCHA. 136 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-2 SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING The mission of the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) is to increase the supply of housing and supportive housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income and/or special needs households throughout Santa Clara County. The OSH also operates the county’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Urban County Program which is a partnership between the county and several of its incorporated communities to jointly develop funding priorities and allocation of CDBG and Housing Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds across the Urban County. These programs, as well as others run out of Santa Clara County’s OSH are described in detail in subsection 5.2 below. CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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. 5.2 FINANCIAL RESOURCES The City’s housing programs are funded through a variety of State, and federal sources. These funds actively support fair housing choice, improving the housing stock, and protecting housing affordability in Saratoga. This section offers a summary of funding sources that are currently used in Saratoga, as well as additional funding sources that are potentially available to support various housing programs. HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM The Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) is a 100 percent federally funded rental subsidy made available to low-income households for residence in privately owned rental units. Section 8 is SCCHA’s largest rental assistance program, helping over 17,000 persons. As part of the Program, households pay thirty percent of their adjusted monthly income towards rent (or a minimum $50), and SCCHA pays the remaining balance of the monthly rent of Section 8 participants, directly to the landlord of the privately owned rental unit. For participants in SCCHA’s MTW Programs, households pay thirty-two percent of their adjusted monthly income to rent, with SCCHA paying the remaining balance to landlords of privately owned rental units. 137 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds, derived from HUD are meant to assist communities in addressing the housing and community needs of lower-income and special needs persons. While Saratoga does not have a large enough population to be a CDBG Entitlement City on its own (minimum population of 50,000), the City has joined with other smaller cities and unincorporated Santa Clara County to form an Urban County under the CDBG Program. Participating jurisdictions in the Urban County program jointly develop funding priorities together and assist the County Board of Supervisors in determining CDBG funding allocation across the Urban County. HOUSING INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM Participating jurisdictions in the CDBG Urban County Program also receive HUD funds as part of the federal Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). These funds are meant to support communities in providing of decent, safe, affordable housing to lower-income individuals. Table 5-1 below includes a list of the projects proposed to receive CDBG and HOME Funds per Santa Clara County’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Annual Action Plan, contained within the County’s 5-year 2020-2025 Urban County Consolidated Plan. TABLE 5-1: SANTA CLARA COUNTY CDBG AND HOME FUNDED PROGRAMS PROJECT LOCATION/SCOPE FUNDING SOURCE 1 HO-22-01 Housing Development Countywide HOME 2 CDBG-22-01 Rebuilding Together (RTSV) Home Repair/Maintenance Urban County Jurisdictions CDBG 3 CDBG-22-02 MF Acquisition/Rehab/Emergency Shelters/Transitional Housing Countywide CDBG 4 PS-22-01 Catholic Charities - Ombudsman Program Urban County Jurisdictions CDBG 5 PS-22-02 Boys and Girls Club - El Toro Youth Center Morgan Hill CDBG 6 PS-22-03 Life Moves - Opportunity Services Center San Jose CDBG 7 PS-22-04 Community Solutions - La Isla Pacifica Morgan Hill CDBG 8 PS-22-05 Family Supportive Housing - Bridges Aftercare San Jose CDBG 9 PS-22-06 Family Supportive Housing - SJ Family Shelter San Jose CDBG 10 PS-22-07 Live Oak Adult Day Services - Day Care Los Gatos and Morgan Hill CDBG 11 PS-22-08 Project Sentinel - Fair Housing Consortium Countywide CDBG 12 PS-22-09 Next Door Solutions - Domestic Violence Shelter Countywide CDBG 13 PS-22-10 Project Sentinel - Tenant Landlord Urban County Jurisdictions CDBG 138 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-4 PROJECT LOCATION/SCOPE FUNDING SOURCE 14 PS-22-11 Saratoga Area Senior Coord. Council (SASCC) - Adult Day Care Saratoga CDBG 15 PS-22-12 Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) - Campbell, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga Campbell, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, & Saratoga CDBG 16 PS-22-13 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) - Housing Persons with Disabilities Urban County Jurisdictions CDBG 17 PS-22-14 West Valley Community Center - CARE Urban County Jurisdictions CDBG 18 PS-22-15 YWCA - Domestic Violence Services and Shelter Urban County Jurisdictions CDBG 19 PS-22-16 Sacred Heart-Homeless Prevention Program Urban County Jurisdictions CDBG 20 FH-22-01 Project Sentinel - Fair Housing Consortium (Admin) Urban County Jurisdictions CDBG 21 SC-22-91 CDBG Planning and Admin N/A CDBG 22 HO22-91 HOME Admin N/A CDBG 23 LG-22-01 Los Gatos – Upgrades to Adult Recreation Center Los Gatos CDBG 24 CA-22-01 Campbell – Synthetic turf ay Campbell Community Center Track Campbell CDBG 25 H0-22-02 HOME-ARP Supportive Housing Services Countywide HOME 26 HO-22-03 HOME ARP Planning & Administration Countywide HOME Source: Santa Clara County 2020-2025 Urban County Consolidated Plan and FY 21/22 Annual Action Plan. COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT Through Saratoga’s Ongoing Community Service Support Grants, the City allocates General Fund monies to a variety of service organizations that support its commitment to the provision of a social service safety net for the most vulnerable members of the community. The City utilizes its Ongoing Grant Program to fund a variety of agencies and services including: • Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council’s (SASCC) Adult Day Care Program and Senior Center • West Valley Community Services • Catholic Charities Ombudsman Program • United Way 211 Funding • Santa Clara County FireSafe Council 139 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-5 MEASURE A – AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND In 2016, Santa Clara County voters approved Measure A, a $950 million bond intended to fund affordable housing throughout the county for vulnerable populations including veterans, seniors, disabled persons, unhoused persons, low and moderate-income households, victims of abuse, and individuals suffering from mental health and/or substance abuse illnesses. Over the term of the bond, funds are projected to construct 120 new affordable housing developments, including 4,800 new residential units for underserved populations. Funds are also scheduled to be used towards first-time home buying programs which are anticipated to help hundreds of county residents finance their first home purchase. Table 5-2 below includes a list of all projects funded by Measure A funds as of September 2021. TABLE 5-2: MEASURE A BOND FUNDED PROJECTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 2021 PROJECT LOCATION/SCOPE UNITS 1 The Veranda Cupertino 19 2 Villas on the Park San Jose 84 3 Crossing on Monterey Morgan Hill 39 4 Monterey Gateway Senior Apartments Gilroy 75 5 Markham Plaza I (Rehab) San Jose 153 6 Leigh Ave Senior Apartments San Jose 64 7 Curtner Studios (Rehab) San Jose 179 8 Quetzal Gardens San Jose 71 9 Iamesi Village a/k/a N. San Pedro Apt. San Jose 135 10 Calabazas a/k/a Corvin Apartments Santa Clara 145 11 Page Street Apartments San Jose 82 12 Markham Plaza II (Rehab) San Jose 152 13 Vela Apartments (Alum Rock Family Apts) San Jose 87 14 PATH Villas at 4th Street San Jose 94 15 Blossom Hill Senior Apartments San Jose 147 16 Gallup and Mesa Apartments San Jose 46 17 Agrihood Senior Apartments Santa Clara 165 18 Immanuel-Sobrato (Moorpark Apartments) San Jose 108 19 Kifer Senior Apartments Santa Clara 80 20 Vitalia a/k/a Bascom Apartments San Jose 79 21 Auzerais Apartments San Jose 130 22 Sango Court Apartments Milpitas 102 140 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-6 PROJECT LOCATION/SCOPE UNITS 23 The Charles San Jose 99 24 Roosevelt Park San Jose 80 25 Gateway Towers San Jose 300 26 Mariposa Place (W. San Carlos Housing) San Jose 80 27 Tamien Station TOD San Jose 135 28 Alum Rock Multifamily San Jose 60 29 Algarve Apartments San Jose 91 30 Dupont Family Apartments San Jose 141 31 Sunol-West San Carlos San Jose 154 32 La Avenida Mountain view 100 33 Hillview Court (Phase I - Rehab) Milpitas 134 34 Casa de Novo (Rehab) San Jose TBD 35 Royal Oak Village Morgan Hill 73 36 McEvoy Apartments San Jose 224 37 Hawthorn Senior Apartments San Jose 103 38 Bellarmino Place Apartments San Jose 116 39 Mountain View Lot 12 Mountain View 120 40 Orchard Gardens Sunnyvale 93 41 Residence Inn San Jose 102 TOTAL NEW UNITS 3,721 TOTAL RENOVATED UNITS 720 Source: Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing. OTHER FUNDING PROGRAMS In addition to the above funding resources, there are various State and federal resources available to local jurisdictions to aid in affordable housing activities, including but not limited to the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of housing units as well as homebuyer assistance programs. Table 5-3 below lists the various federal and State programs available that can be used towards the funding of development and rehabilitation of affordable housing. 141 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-7 TABLE 5-3: OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FEDERAL PROGRAMS BROWNFIELDS GRANT FUNDING PROGRAM Resources available for the cleanup of eligible publicly- or privately held properties to facilitate the reuse/redevelopment of contaminated sites. CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS IMPLEMENTATION GRANT PROGRAM Support the implementation of comprehensive plans expected to revitalize public and/or assisted housing and facilitate neighborhood improvements. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIRECT LOAN & GRANT PROGRAM Provides affordable funding to develop essential community facilities in rural areas. CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC) PROGRAM Funding is available on an annual basis through HUD to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families. FARM LABOR HOUSING DIRECT LOANS & GRANTS (SECTION 514) Provides affordable financing to develop housing for domestic farm laborers. HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS The government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford housing through rental subsidies that pays the different between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (i.e., 30% of their income). HOME OWNERSHIP FOR PEOPLE EVERYWHERE (HOPE) Provides grants to low-income people to achieve homeownership. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA) Funds are made available countywide for supportive social services, affordable housing development, and rental assistance to persons living with HIV/AIDS. HOUSING PRESERVATION GRANTS Grants to sponsoring organizations for the repair or rehabilitation of housing owned or occupied by low- and very-low-income rural citizens. LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) PROGRAM Tax credits for the for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing for lower-income households. Project equity is raised through the sale of tax benefits to investors. 4% and 9% credits available. RURAL RENTAL HOUSING: DIRECT LOANS Direct loans for construction or rehabilitation of affordable, rural multi-family rental housing. SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM Loans to CDBG entitlement jurisdictions for capital improvement projects that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. HUD SECTION 202 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAM Interest-free capital advance to private, non-profit sponsors to cover the costs of construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of very low- income senior housing. HUD SECTION 221(D)(3) AND 221(D)(4) Insures loans for construction or substantial rehabilitation of multi- family rental, cooperative, and single-room occupancy housing. SECTION 502 DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM USDA Section 502 Direct Loan Program provides homeownership opportunities for low- and very-low-income families living in rural areas. SECTION 811 PROJECT RENTAL ASSISTANCE Section 811 Project Rental Assistance offers long-term project-based rental assistance funding from HUD. Opportunities to apply for this 142 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-8 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION project-based assistance are through a Notice of Funding Availability published by CalHFA. STATE PROGRAMS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM (AHSC) Funds land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects that support infill and compact development and GHG emissions. CALHOME Grants to local public agencies and non-profits to assist first-time homebuyers become or remain homeowners through deferred- payment loans. Funds can also be used for ADU/JADU assistance (i.e., construction, repair, reconstruction, or rehabilitation). CALHFA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM Loans to cities for affordable, infill, owner-occupied housing developments. CLEANUP LOANS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE TO NEIGHBORHOODS (CLEAN) PROGRAM Department of Toxic Substances Control program that provides low- interest loans to investigate, cleanup, and redevelop abandoned and underutilized urban properties. CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS AND HOUSING (CESH) Grants for activities to assist persons experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. CALIFORNIA SELF-HELP HOUSING PROGRAM Grants for sponsor organizations that provide technical assistance for low- and moderate-income families to build their homes with their own labor. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT-CORONA VIRUS (CDBG-CV1) – CARES ACT FUNDING A subsidiary of the CDBG program that provides relief to eligible entities due to hardship caused by COVID-19. EMERGENCY HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EHAP) Funds for emergency shelter, transitional housing, and related services for the homeless and those at risk of losing their housing. GOLDEN STATE ACQUISITION FUND (GSAF) Short-term loans (up to five-years) to developers for affordable housing acquisition or preservation. HOMEKEY Grants to acquire and rehabilitate a variety of housing types (e.g., hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings) to serve people experiencing homelessness or who are also at risk of serious illness from COVID-19. HOMELESS EMERGENCY AID PROGRAM (HEAP) $500 million block grant program designed to provide direct assistance to cities, counties and CoCs to address the homelessness crisis. HOMELESS, HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND PREVENTION (HHAP) PROGRAM HHAP Round 1: $650 million grant to local jurisdictions to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address immediate homelessness challenges. Round 2: $300 million grant that provides support to continue to build on regional collaboration to develop a unified regional response to homelessness. HOUSING FOR A HEALTHY CALIFORNIA (HHC) Funding for supportive housing opportunities intended to create supportive housing for individuals who are recipients of or eligible for health provided through Medi-Cal. HOUSING NAVIGATORS PROGRAM $5 million in funding to counties for the support of housing navigators to help young adults aged 18 to 21 secure and maintain 143 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-9 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION housing, with priority given to young adults in the foster care system. HOUSING-RELATED PARKS PROGRAM Funds the creation of new park and recreation facilities or improvement of existing park and recreation facilities that are associated with rental and ownership projects that are affordable to very low- and low-income households. INFILL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT PROGRAM (IIG) Grant funding for infrastructure improvements for new infill housing in residential and/or mixed-use projects. JOE SERNA, JR., FARMWORKER HOUSING GRANT (FWHG) Grants and loans for development or rehabilitation of rental and owner-occupied housing for agricultural workers with priority for lower-income households. LOCAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING (LEAP) GRANTS Assists cities and counties to plan for housing through providing one-time, non-competitive planning grants. LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUND PROGRAM (LHTF) Lending for construction of rental housing projects with units restricted for at least 55 years to households earning less than 60% AMI. State funds matches local housing trust funds as down- payment assistance to first-time homebuyers. MOBILE-HOME PARK REHABILITATION AND RESIDENT OWNERSHIP PROGRAM (MPRROP) Low-interest loans for the preservation of affordable mobile-home parks. MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE (MCC) PROGRAM Income tax credits to first-time homebuyers to buy new or existing homes. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM (MHP) Low-interest, long-term deferred-payment permanent loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households. NO PLACE LIKE HOME Invests in the development of permanent supportive housing for persons who need mental health services and are experiencing homelessness or chronic homelessness, or at risk of chronic homelessness. OFFICE OF MIGRANT SERVICES (OMS) Provides grants to local government agencies that contract with HCD to operate OMS centers throughout the state for the construction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operation of seasonal rental housing for migrant farmworkers. PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PROGRAM (PLHA) Grants (competitive for non-entitlement jurisdictions) available to cities to assist in increasing the supply of affordable rental and ownership housing, facilitate housing affordability, and ensure geographic equity in the distribution of funds. PREDEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM (PDLP) Short-term loans to cities and non-profit developers for the continued preservation, construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of assisted housing primarily for low-income households. REGIONAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING (REAP) GRANTS Grant funding intended to help COGs and other regional entities collaborate on projects that have a broader regional impact on housing. 144 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-10 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SB 2 PLANNING GRANTS PROGRAM One-time funding and technical assistance to help local governments adopt and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. SUPPORTIVE HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM (SHMHP) Low-interest loans to developers of permanent affordable rental housing that contain supportive housing units. TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE COMMUNITIES (TCC) PROGRAM Competitive grants for planning and implementation of community- led development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in the state’s most disadvantaged communities. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PROGRAM (TOD) Low-interest loans and grants for rental housing that includes affordable units near transit. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM (THP) Funding to counties for child welfare services agencies to help young adults aged 18 to 25 find and maintain housing, with priority given to those previously in the foster care or probation systems. VETERANS HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (VHHP) Long-term loans for development or preservation of rental housing for very low- and low-income veterans and their families. WORKFORCE HOUSING PROGRAM Government bonds issued to cities to acquire and convert market- rate apartments to housing affordable to moderate-/middle-income households, generally households earning 80% to 120% of AMI. Source: Urban Planning Partners, 2022. 5.3 NON-PROFIT RESOURCES Several non-profit organizations and support agencies currently work in the City of Saratoga or in the larger Santa Clara County. These agencies provide additional resources in meeting the housing needs of the City by implementing activities for the preservation of assisted housing and development of affordable housing, as well as creating safe and healthy places for all economic segments of the community. These organizations include but are not limited to the list below. • United Way Bay Area • Charities Housing Development Corporation of Santa Clara County • West Valley Community Services • Silicon Valley Independent Living Center • Unity Care • Home First of Santa Clara County 145 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-11 5.4 REGULATORY RESOURCES In addition to the institutional and financial resources available to the City of Saratoga for the production, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing throughout the community, there are also existing housing policies in place at the local level, many of which that are required by the State of California, which encourage and contribute to the production and rehabilitation of housing units. These regulatory resources are described below. STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DENSITY BONUS Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, the City of Saratoga has adopted provisions for residential density bonuses and affordable housing incentives within Chapter 15-81 of their Zoning Ordinance to contribute to the economic feasibility and production of affordable housing in the city. These provisions allow a development that includes a certain percentage of affordable housing units as part of a market-rate residential development to request a housing density bonus ranging from 5 to 50 percent above that permitted within the underlying zoning district or general plan designation. As part of this request, the development can also request incentives and/or concessions related to design and development, dependent on the percentage of affordable units provided within the development. Developments requesting a density bonus pursuant to State law submit an application for preliminary review to the City of Saratoga Community Development, who’s Director then has 90 days from receipt of the application to notify the developer in writing regarding the status of the request. The application and all associated project approvals are considered first by the Planning Commission which makes a recommendation to City Council. SB35 AND MINISTERIAL REVIEW OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING In compliance with Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) (2018) the City of Saratoga provides a streamlined ministerial review of housing developments which propose at least ten percent of their units as affordable units. This review gives the City 60 days to review an application for eligibility of such ministerial process, 90 days if the project exceeds 150 units. The City then has 90 days from initial application submittal to review the application, this is increased to 180 days for projects exceeding 150 units. As part of the streamlined, ministerial review of housing developments providing at least ten percent affordability, the City only reviews applications against objective design standards. Objective design standards involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the City prior to submittal. 146 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-12 EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Throughout Santa Clara County, there are numerous facilities that provide emergency, transitional, and supportive housing options to residents near the City of Saratoga. These facilities provide housing options for a variety of targeted populations such as households with children, chronically homeless households, veteran households, and households comprised of unaccompanied youth. Throughout Santa Clara County these facilities provide over 7,000 permanent supportive housing beds, and over 700 transitional housing beds and emergency shelter beds. Table 5-4 provides a summary of emergency shelters, transitional and permanent supportive housing options by targeted population group near the City of Saratoga. TABLE 5-4: HOMELESS FACILITIES NEAR SARATOGA TARGET POPULATION EMERGENCY SHELTER BEDS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING BEDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING BEDS HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADULT(S) AND CHILDREN 205 144 466 HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADULT(S) ONLY 437 441 3,041 CHRONICALLY HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS 0 0 2,251 VERTERANS 50 149 1,315 UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH 23 0 0 TOTAL 715 734 7,073 Note: Data represents current and new beds within Santa Clara County. Source: Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan 2020-2025. Compliant with Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), the City of Saratoga encourages the development of emergency shelters as well as transitional and supportive housing options for persons in need. The City permits emergency shelters by-right in the CN(RHD) zoning district and within all single-family residential (R-1) zoning districts. The City has adopted objective design and operation standards for emergency shelters developed within the CN(RHD) district within Section 15-19.035(I) of their Municipal Code. These standards include: • Maximum shelter capacity. • Parking Requirements for Residents and Staff. • Required Intake waiting and intake areas. • Permitted common area facilities. • Required Staff and Security. • Concentration of emergency shelters. 147 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-13 Additionally consistent with SB 2, the City permits transitional and supportive housing developments by-right in all zoning districts that permit residential uses by-right. This permits transitional and supportive housing by-right, and consistent with standards for residential development in the same district, within the R-1, HR, R-OS, R-M, and C-N(RHD) districts. As part of this Housing Element Update the City of Saratoga will update its Municipal Code to accommodate the by-right, streamlined, ministerial review of supportive and transitional housing developments as mandated by Assembly Bill (AB) 2162 (2019). This is included as a program in Section 7, Policy Program. AB 2162 requires local jurisdictions to permit the development of transitional/supportive housing by right in any zoning district that permits multi-family and mixed uses. Additionally, jurisdictions must provide a ministerial review of transitional and supportive housing developments that only reviews these developments against standards for residential uses in that same district. As part of this streamlined, ministerial review, the City will be required to notify applicants of their eligibility for streamlining within 30 days of application submittal. Proposed developments of up to 50 supportive housing units must be reviewed completely within sixty (60) days while developments proposing more than fifty units must be reviewed within one hundred and twenty (120) days. Similarly, the City will update its Municipal Code to accommodate by-right applications for a low barrier navigation center in areas zoned for mixed-use as mandated by Senate Bill (SB) 48 and this is included as a program in Section 7, Policy Program. SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY UNITS (AND BUILDINGS) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residences are small, one-room units that are rented monthly, typically without deposit, which are occupied by a maximum of two (2) persons and may either have a shared or private kitchen and bathroom facilities. Recognizing that SROs provide housing opportunities for special needs populations such as extremely low-income individuals, formerly homeless, seniors, and/or disabled persons, the City of Saratoga encourages the development of SROs within the C-N(RHD) Zoning District. Development standards for SROs developed within the C-N(RHD) district are included in Article 15- 19.035(k) of the City’s Code and pertain to: • Minimum and maximum floor areas for SROs. • Maximum number of occupants per SRO. • Required kitchen, bathroom, and closet facilities for SROs. • Required common areas, laundry facilities, and cleaning/utility closets for SRO buildings. 148 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-14 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Pursuant to state law the City of Saratoga permits accessory and junior accessory dwelling units (ADUs and JADUs) within all zoning districts that permit residential uses (by right or conditionally). Development of ADUs and JADUs are regulated by Section 15-56 of the City’s Municipal Code which was modified in 2020 to further promote the development of accessory dwelling units throughout the city. These modifications include: • The establishment of a 60-day, streamlined, ministerial review procedure for ADUs and JADUs on lots with existing residential dwellings; • Drafting of objective design standards for this streamlined, ministerial review of ADUs and JADUs within Section 15-56.025 of the City’s Municipal Code; • Elimination of parking requirements for ADUs and JADUs in certain circumstances, compliant with state law; and • Elimination of minimum floor requirements and reduction of the minimum lot size for Second Dwelling Units to 90% or more of the standard lot size for the underlying zoning district. As part of the budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the City also recently eliminated planning, building, and public works permit fees for deed restricted ADUs and JADUs to further encourage the production of affordable housing. HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with State Law the City of Saratoga has adopted Reasonable Accommodation Measures within Section 15-80-025 of their Municipal Code to help in eliminating any regulatory barriers to disabled person’s access to housing options. These measures provide for reasonable flexibility in land-use/zoning, building regulations, policies, and practices as necessary to provide for the development of housing options suitable for disabled persons. Additionally, the City also incorporates the following measures through its regulatory and permitting procedures to encourage the development of housing for disabled persons: • 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 characteristics of the use. • 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. 149 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-15 • 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. • Per Section 15-06.260 of the City of Saratoga Municipal Code, 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 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. 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 providing educational, residential, or health care services to the community at large. The term includes residential developments and health care facilities operated by non-profit organizations and both public and private schools or colleges. The City’s Zoning Code defines a “Nursing home” as a residential structure in which nursing, dietary, and other personal services are rendered to six or more convalescents, invalids, or elderly persons residing at the facility, and in which surgery or other medical treatment customarily given in hospitals is not performed. The City deems a convalescent home or rest home as a nursing home. Institutional facilities and nursing homes are permitted in all residential districts, except for the Residential Open Space District, as well as in the Professional and Administrative Office (P-A) district, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Institutional facilities are also permitted in the Commercial district, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 5.5 ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNI TIES Providing energy conservation opportunities to residents can ultimately lead to a reduction in utility-related housing costs for many households. Accordingly, energy conservation measures related to existing and proposed residential development is a critical component included within the City of Saratoga’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) which was adopted in 2020. The CAP outlines several actions the City presently utilizes to promote and encourage energy conservation in residential development. These measures include: • Requiring new residential development to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations which mandates the use of energy efficient appliances and insulation; 150 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-16 • Requiring new commercial, mixed-use, community facility, and public buildings less than 5,000 square feet in floor area, to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15 percent; • Requiring public buildings greater than 5,000 square feet in floor area to be designed and certified at a minimum LEED Level Silver;1 • Adopting a green building reach code in 2019 that requires all new residential and non- residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating (natural gas is permitted as a fuel source for clothes drying, food cooking, and fireplaces, but these appliance connections must be “electric-ready”); • Requiring existing and new residential home construction projects to include a completed CalGreen checklist as part of the City’s Design Review process. The CalGreen checklist is produced by the California Building Standards Commission and details the green building features incorporated into the home; • Participating in the CaliforniaFIRST Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program which provides property owners with long-term loans to fund green energy and energy efficiency improvements to their residences. The City maintains a website for the CaliforniaFIRST PACE Program which provides residents with information on the program and eligible improvements; and • Being a member of the Silicon Valley Community Choice Energy (CCE) Partnership, a joint public agency made up of Santa Clara County communities, in partnership with Pacific Coast Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) that provides clean/renewable electricity sources to the City of Saratoga. INCENTIVES AND PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Additionally, PG&E, as the local electricity and gas provider to the City of Saratoga provides residents with information regarding energy saving measures including various incentives and programs available to developers and residential property owners. Remodeling rebates exist for projects installing three or more upgrades from a flexible menu of options including cool roofs, insulation, and water heaters among other improvements, which earn points towards incentives and rebates. This program’s incentives range between $1,000 and $4,500. Table 5-5 includes a description of the various financial and energy-related assistance that PG&E offers low-income customers: 1 LEED building certification standards are a coordinated green building program developed by the US Green Building Council which consider a broad range of issues including community design, energy efficiency, water conservation, resource-efficient material selection, indoor environmental quality, construction management, and building maintenance. LEED-certified buildings demonstrate energy and water savings, reduced maintenance costs and improved occupant satisfaction. There are 4 levels of LEED Certification (in ascending order): Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum 151 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-17 TABLE 5-5: PG&E ENERGY SAVINGS PROGRAMS AND INCENTIVES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ENERGY SAVINGS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance program offers free weatherization measures and energy-efficient appliances to qualified low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households through the same sliding income scale used for CARE. The program includes measures such as attic insulation, weather stripping, caulking, and minor home repairs. Some customers qualify for replacement of appliances including refrigerators, air conditioners, and evaporative coolers. ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR MULTI- FAMILY PROPERTIES The Energy Efficiency for Multi-Family Properties program is available to owners and managers of existing multi-family residential dwellings containing five or more units. MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES The Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties program is available to owners and managers of existing multifamily residential dwellings containing five or more units. The program encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving products. CALIFORNIA ALTERNATE RATES FOR ENERGY (CARE) PG&E offers this rate reduction program for low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. The CARE program provides a discount of 20 percent or more on monthly energy bills. REACH (RELIEF FOR ENERGY ASSISTANCE THROUGH COMMUNITY HELP) The REACH program is sponsored by PG&E and administered through a non-profit organization. PG&E customers can enroll to give monthly donations to the REACH program. Qualified low-income customers who have experienced uncontrollable or unforeseen hardships, which prohibit them from paying their utility bills may receive an energy credit. Eligibility is determined by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. To qualify for the program, the applicant’s income cannot exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. MEDICAL BASELINE ALLOWANCE The Medical Baseline Allowance program is available to households with certain disabilities or medical needs. The program allows customers to get additional quantities of energy at the lowest or baseline price for residential customers. Source: PG&E and Urban Planning Partners, 2022. As part of this Housing Element Update, the City of Saratoga will implement the following measures to continue to promote and encourage energy conservation in residential development: 1-3.1: Encourage Efficient Use of Energy Resources in Residential Development. In December 2020, the City adopted the Saratoga Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030 which identifies strategies to exceed the State’s goal of 40 percent below 1990 emissions in 2030. The plan identifies Energy Efficiency Programs including a Green Building Reach Code. The City encourages the efficient use of energy resources in residential development consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan. Strategies the City employs to encourage energy conservation measures in residential development include: 152 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 5-18 • The City’s participation in the CaliforniaFIRST Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program which provides property owners with long-term loans to fund green energy and energy efficiency improvements to their residences. The City maintains a website for the CaliforniaFIRST PACE Program which provides residents with information on the program and eligible improvements, and • The City is also a member of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) Partnership, a joint public agency made up of Santa Clara County communities that provides clean/renewable electricity sources to the City of Saratoga working closely with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E). The City shall review and update its CaliforniaFIRST website pertaining to dissemination of information for energy resources in residential development to ensure that links are appropriate and functional. 1.3-2: Encourage Green Building Practices in Home Construction. The City encourages the use of “green building” practices in existing and new home construction consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. This includes: • Creating a “Go Green in Saratoga” webpage that provides public information and offers related to low-cost permits as an incentive to install solar panels on residential buildings, • Offering low-cost permits as an incentive to install solar panels; and • Adopting a green building reach code in 2019 that requires all new residential and non- residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating (natural gas is permitted as a fuel source for clothes drying, food cooking, and fireplaces, but these appliance connections must be “electric-ready”) and requiring new commercial buildings to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15 percent. 153 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-1 6. ADEQUATE SITES State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3)) requires that jurisdictions demonstrate their availability of adequate land resources to accommodate their “fair share” of regional housing needs. Jurisdictions must demonstrate that these land resources have the appropriate site characteristics and development regulations required to accommodate their community’s housing needs as identified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Bay Area’s regional governing body, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Land resources identified as suitable for potential future accommodation of residential development throughout the planning period are referred to as a “Sites Inventory.” This section describes the land resources which have been identified for inclusion in the City’s Sites Inventory. The analysis in this section demonstrates that there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the City’s housing allocation of 1,712 units, including housing for very low- and low-income households. The chapter starts with a description of the City’s housing target for the 2023-2031 planning period, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It then provides an analysis of suitable sites, including residential units in the pipeline, anticipated Accessory Dwelling Units, and vacant and non-vacant sites where housing is or will become an allowed use. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) RHNA is the State-required process that seeks to ensure each California jurisdiction is planning for enough housing capacity to accommodate their “fair share” of the state’s housing needs for all economic segments of the community. The RHNA process for the nine- county Bay Area is described below. • Regional Determination. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provided the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) with a Regional Housing Needs Determination. HDC provided ABAG a regional determination of 441,176 units. This is the number the Bay Area must plan for between 2023 and 2031. It 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 uses, and to achieve a future vacancy rate that allows for healthy functioning of the housing market. The Regional Housing Needs Determination for the first time ever also included adjustments related to the rate of overcrowding and the share of cost-burdened households, which resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles. 154 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-2 • RHNA Methodology. ABAG developed a RHNA methodology to allocate the Regional Housing Needs Determination across all cities, towns, and counties in the region. The RHNA methodology must be consistent with State objectives, including but not limited to promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection; ensuring jobs-housing balance; and affirmatively furthering fair housing. The allocation also considers factors such as employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, and type and tenure of housing need. ABAG developed the RHNA methodology in conjunction with a committee of elected officials, staff from jurisdictions, and other stakeholders called the Housing Methodology Committee. More information about ABAG’s RHNA methodology is available at https://abag.ca.gov/our- work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation. • Housing Element Updates. Each jurisdiction must then adopt a Housing Element that demonstrates how it can accommodate its assigned RHNA for each income category through its zoning. HCD reviews each jurisdiction’s Housing Element for compliance with State law. Saratoga’s Housing Element must demonstrate capacity to accommodate 1,712 units as further described below. Saratoga’s “Fair Share” In determining a jurisdiction’s share of new housing needs, ABAG splits each jurisdiction’s allocation into four income categories: • Very Low-Income – 0 to 50 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) • Low-Income – 51 to 80 percent of AMI • Moderate-Income – 81 to 120 percent of AMI • Above Moderate-Income – more than 120 percent of AMI The Area Median Income (AMI) in Santa Clara County for a family of four is $151,300. How this breaks down into income categories for Saratoga is shown in Table 6-1. Where this Housing Element refers to housing that is affordable to the different income levels shown above, this means that a household spends no more than 30 percent of their income on housing. In December 2021, ABAG identified the City of Saratoga’s fair share of the region’s housing needs as 1,712 new housing units, as shown in Table 6-2. This allocation represents a planning goal by requiring the City to demonstrate sufficient development capacity through the identification of potential sites and zoning, and not a goal for actual production of housing within the planning period. 155 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-3 TABLE 6-1: RHNA AFFORDABILITY LEVELS IN SARATOGA AFFORDABILITY LEVEL PERCENT OF AMI SARATOGA HOUSEHOLD INCOME 1 VERY-LOW-INCOME 0 - 50 percent of AMI < $82,850 LOW-INCOME 51-80 percent of AMI $82,850 - $117,750 MODERATE-INCOME 81-120 percent of AMI $117,750 - $181,550 ABOVE MODERATE-INCOME > 120 percent of AMI > $181,550 Note: AMI = Area Median Income, Household incomes based on Santa Clara County’s 2020 AMI of $151,300 for a 4-person household Source: City of Saratoga. TABLE 6-2: SARATOGA REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (2023-2031) INCOME CATEGORY RHNA PERCENT OF RHNA VERY-LOW-INCOME (0-50 PERCENT OF AMI) 454 27% LOW-INCOME (50-80 PERCENT OF AMI) 261 15% MODERATE-INCOME (80-120 PERCENT OF AMI) 278 16% ABOVE MODERATE-INCOME (120 PERCENT OR MORE OF AMI) 719 42% TOTAL 1,712 100% Source: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. In addition, each jurisdiction must also address the projected need of extremely low-income households, defined as households earning 30 percent or less of AMI. The projected extremely low-income need is assumed to be 50 percent of the total RHNA need for the very low-income category. As such, there is a projected need for 227 extremely low-income housing units. RHNA Buffer In 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 166 was signed into law and included new “no net loss” provisions that require communities to provide an ongoing, adequate supply of land resources for housing development during the entirety of the housing element update planning period. These provisions mean communities face risks of non-compliance should a housing site be developed with non-residential uses, lower residential densities, or residential uses at affordability levels higher than anticipated by the Housing Element. To avoid non- compliance, HCD advises communities to “buffer” their assigned RHNA numbers. The City of Saratoga proposes a 10 percent buffer of 194 housing units, bringing the City’s proposed RHNA to 1,907 housing units. See Table 6-3 below. 1 Household incomes are for households/families of four (4). 156 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-4 TABLE 6-3: PROPOSED REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION BUFFER INCOME CATEGORY RHNA RHNA (WITH BUFFER) PERCENT BUFFER VERY-LOW-INCOME (0-50% OF AMI) 454 504 11% LOW-INCOME (50-80% OF AMI) 261 309 18% MODERATE-INCOME (80-120% OF AMI) 278 317 14% ABOVE MODERATE-INCOME (120% OR MORE OF AMI) 719 777 8% TOTAL 1,712 1,907 10% Source: City of Saratoga, 2022. CREDIT TOWARDS RHNA Pursuant to HCD guidance, in addition to vacant and underutilized land resources, a community may satisfy their RHNA requirements through “alternative means” which may serve as “credits” toward their RHNA. These alternative means include the consideration of proposed, pending, or approved development projects that have not received a certificate of occupancy prior to the 6th cycle June 30, 2022 – the projection period for the 6th cycle housing element update. The City of Saratoga’s pipeline projects are discussed in more detail below. Additionally, per HCD guidance, a community may also credit the number of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that are anticipated to be developed during the 6th cycle housing element planning period toward their RHNA requirements. The forecasted development of ADUs during the planning period must be based on an analysis of prior years’ building permit data and local development regulations that promote ADU development. The City of Saratoga’s anticipated ADU development over the course of the 2023-2031 planning period is discussed in more detail below. Pipeline Projects Residential projects that have been approved but have not received a certificate of occupancy prior to June 30, 2022, are referred to as “Pipeline Projects”. These projects will be developed during the 2023-2031 planning period and are included below in Table 6-4. These two developments include the Quito Village development and the Marshall Lane Subdivision, which are detailed below in Table 6-4. These developments total 99 residential units, 9 of which will be affordable to low-income households. The Quito Village development received City-issued approval on March 25, 2021. The Marshall Lane Subdivision development was approved on October 6, 2021. 157 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-5 Pending Projects Residential projects that have yet to be approved but will likely be developed during the 2023-2031 planning period are referred to as “Pending Projects” and are included below in Table 6-4. These two projects total 62 residential units, all of which will only be affordable to above moderate-income households. TABLE 6-4: APPROVED PIPELINE UNITS AND UNITS PENDING APPROVAL APN ADDRESS SITE NAME AFFORDABILITY CATEGORY TOTAL VERY- LOW INCOME LOW INCOME MODERATE INCOME ABOVE MODERATE INCOME APPROVED PIPELINE PROJECTS 38912019 19764-18850 Cox Ave. Quito Village - 9 - 81 90 39702110 39702111 18500/18520 Marshall Lane Marshall Lane Subdivision - - - 9 9 SUBTOTAL - 9 - 90 99 PENDING PROJECTS 39705028 14521 Quito Road Quito Vessing Subdivision - - - 10 10 39712012 39712019 39740006 14500 Fruitvale Ave.2 Saratoga Retirement Community - - - 52 52 SUBTOTAL - - - 62 62 TOTAL 9 152 161 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Accessory Dwelling Units In addition to pipeline projects, a community may also count ADU development projected to occur during the 2023-2031 planning period towards their RHNA requirements. To do so, communities must analyze historic building permit trends, over the last several years, to accurately identify a reasonable projection of ADUs to be developed over the planning period. This analysis considers the various California state laws passed since 2017 that are intended to encourage ADU development, as well as local efforts on behalf of the City of Saratoga to promote ADU development. 2 Please note that the Saratoga Retirement Community Site shares the same Street address as the Fellowship Plaza Housing Site identified within the “Existing Senior Housing SIte” Section of this Report. Both the Saratoga Retirement Community and the Fellowship Plaza Housing Development are owned by the Independent Order of the Odd Fellows (IOOF), but are two separate, distinct developments. Accordingly, while the two developments share the same street address, they have unique APN values. 158 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-6 Figure 6-1 below includes an analysis of the City of Saratoga’s issuance of building permits for ADUs between the years 2018 to 2021. In the year 2018, the year following significant state laws pertaining to ADUs, the City issued a total of 16 ADU building permits, in 2019 this number increased by 50 percent to 24 ADU building permits. In 2020 building permits for ADUs increased by 183 percent compared to 2019 with 68 ADU building permits being issued. In 2021 ADU permits leveled out at 69. Due to the City’s experienced trends in ADU building permits, as well as the various ADU policies and programs proposed as part of this update to encourage development of ADUs throughout the city, the City of Saratoga assumes an average of 60 ADU building permits to be issued each year of the 6th cycle planning period. This equates to a total of 480 dwelling units planned to be constructed over 8 years. For more information regarding the City’s existing and proposed policies intended to encourage and facilitate ADU development, please see Section 7, Policy Program. FIGURE 6-1: ADU BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED 2018-2021 Source: City of Saratoga. Affordability Levels of Projected ADU Development Due to their co-location on existing residential lots, and smaller building footprints, typically ranging in size between 400 and 1,000 square feet, ADUs are generally considered to serve as affordable-by-design housing options in communities. However, due to a variety of local market factors, the level of affordability of ADU development may vary by community. The City of Saratoga’s proposed distribution of anticipated ADU development across affordability levels is consistent with the Technical Memorandum “Affordability of Accessory Dwelling 159 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-7 Units” issued by ABAG on September 8, 2021 and detailed below in Table 6-5. 30 percent of anticipated ADU developments, or 144 ADUs are anticipated to be developed as affordable to “very low income”, “low income”, and “moderate income” households respectively, and 10 percent, or 48 ADUs are anticipated to be developed as affordable to “above moderate income” households. To encourage the development of ADUs at various affordability levels, the City has adopted a one-time 10 percent increase in site coverage and allowable floor area for deed restricted ADUs that are made available to lower income households. Additionally, as part of the City’s FY 2022-2023 budget, the City plans to further incentivize ADU production across a variety of income groups by modifying the City’s adopted Fee Schedule to eliminate all planning, public works, and building fees related to ADUs deed restricted for lower- income households. This elimination of fees for ADUs deed restricted to lower income households is included as a new policy and program within Chapter 7, Policy Program of this Update. RHNA Credits Summary A summary of the pipeline developments and projected ADU development which can serve as “alternative means” or credits toward the City of Saratoga’s RHNA requirements are included below in Table 6-5. Together these credits total 641 units. TABLE 6-5: APPROVED PIPELINE UNITS RHNA CREDIT AFFORDABILITY CATEGORY VERY LOW- INCOME LOW- INCOME MODERATE- INCOME ABOVE MODERATE- INCOME TOTAL PIPELINE PROJECTS 0 9 0 90 99 PENDING PROJECTS 0 0 0 62 62 ADUS 144 144 144 48 480 TOTAL 144 153 144 200 641 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. SITE INVENTORY METHODOLOGY The City has identified adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA and a buffer for all income categories after credits are applied. Consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2(a), the City of Saratoga’s vacant and non-vacant sites were identified according to the following standards: • Vacant sites zoned for residential use. • Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development. 160 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-8 • Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county. • Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site. From the remaining sites, the City and consultant team used HCD guidance and trends from recent projects to calculate the realistic capacity of sites, as described in this section. Recent Development Trends The City has experienced the development of multi-family housing developments in recent years. This includes the development of townhome projects along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, which were approved for development in 2013 and 2015. These projects are detailed in Table 6-6 below. TABLE 6-6: RECENT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ADDRESS APN ACRES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RETAIL/ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (SQ. FT.) HOUSING TYPE UNITS UNIT SIZE 12250 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD. 386-30-036, 037, 038 1.09 Townhomes 12 2,500 sq. ft. 1,835 sq. ft. 12260 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD. 386-30-035 1.20 Townhomes 12 2,833-2,856 sq. ft. 2, 297 sq. ft. TOTAL 24 4,312 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Realistic Capacity Realistic capacity of sites identified within the City’s Housing Sites Inventory was calculated using a combination of HCD guidance regarding minimum, default densities and lot sizes necessary to accommodate multi-family development for a variety of income groups, as well as input from City staff regarding development potential of sites, based on development trends experienced within the city. Densities and Affordability To make it feasible to develop housing that is affordable to very low- and low-income households, housing must be built at higher densities. HCD has published guidance that specifies the minimum residential densities deemed necessary to accommodate lower- income households. Per this Guidance, Saratoga is considered a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county and has a “default density” of 30 du/ac. This means that sites that allow denser development of at least 30 du/ac are considered able to accommodate lower-income units. Accordingly, the City has identified several sites included within their Sites Inventory which will be rezoned to newly created mixed-use zoning districts as outlined within the 161 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-9 “Rezoning Program” subsection below. These rezonings will provide for the development of housing at default densities identified by HCD during the 2023-2031 planning period. Site Size Consistent with HCD guidance, sites identified within the City’s Site Inventory to accommodate lower-income housing units are between 0.5 acres and 10 acres. While individual parcels comprising housing sites may be less than 0.5 acres, when consolidated with surrounding parcels also included within the Inventory, these parcels create housing sites exceeding 0.5 acres in size, but less than 10 acres in size. Lower-income sites do not fall within this size range are justified within the “Non-Vacant (Underutilized) Sites” subsection below. Utilities Realistic capacity also considered the location of many housing sites in existing urbanized portions of the city. These parts of the city offer the presence of existing infrastructure adjacent to housing sites. While some sites may require lateral connections or expansions of existing utilities, these improvements are considered standard improvements and routine of redevelopment projects in urbanized areas. Such improvements will be done at the expense of developers. ADEQUATE SITES Figure 6-2 shows all adequate housing opportunity sites within the City of Saratoga and Table 6-9 summarizes these sites according to how the City will utilize them to meet its RHNA. Based on pipeline and pending projects, projected ADU production, and the realistic capacity of the sites inventory, the city has capacity to accommodate 1,712 housing units, including 715 lower-income units. The development capacity within Saratoga illustrated in the sites inventory allows for a “no net loss” buffer for lower-income units, as explained at the beginning of this chapter under RHNA Buffer. Table 6-9 shows the realistic yield by zoning district. The City will accommodate its lower- income units on sites between 0.5 and 10 acres 3 in the R-35 zoning district, where a minimum density of 30 du/ac applies. As shown in Table 6-7, there are 57 sites totaling over 130 acres that are identified to housing extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households in the R-35 district. Moderate- and above moderate-income units are accommodated on sites that are less than 0.5 acres and/or sites that are zoned for medium-density residential uses (i.e., R-20 and R-25 zones). 3 Except for one 12.3-acre site (APN 074-080-026), as explained earlier under Large Sites. 162 Pipeline & Pending Projects Vacant Sites Non-Vacant Sites Saratoga Municipal Boundary Lorem ipsum dolo sit amet, consectetuer adipiscLorem ipsumLsorem ipsumLorem ipsum City of Saratoga Housing Element Update Figure Sites 6-2 Adequate Housing Sites Inventory Map Source: City of Saratoga, CA, 2022. 0 80 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gateway North Sites Wardell Site Saratoga Avenue Sites Prospect / Lawrence Site Allendale / Chester Site Quito / Pollard Site Fellowship Plaza Site Village East Site Gateway South Sites N Feet 2,300 4,600 Quito Village Project Quito Vessing Subdivision Project Saratoga Retirement Community Project Marshall Lane Sudivision Project 163 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-11 Vacant Land Most of the vacant land resources in the City of Saratoga are located in hillside areas of the city. Lands within the hillside areas of the city are typically constrained in terms of development intensity due to the steep slope of several hillside lots, unstable soils associated with sloped lots, and other environmental and safety concerns related to the city’s unique topography. The city’s vacant land resources identified as suitable for accommodation of portions of the city’s RHNA are listed below in Table 6-7. These sites total 165 acres and are anticipated to accommodate development of a total of 60 dwelling units, which will most likely be affordable to above moderate-income households. Please note several “vacant” parcels throughout the city that were identified as suitable for residential development are not included within this subsection and are instead included within the “Non-Vacant (Underutilized) Land” subsection of this Section due to their proposed consolidated development along with non-vacant parcels. Non-Vacant (Underutilized) Land The City of Saratoga’s non-vacant/underutilized land resources total 62.5 acres of land and are anticipated to accommodate a total of 1,206 residential units of the city’s RHNA. There are few opportunities for new housing as the city is built out with 95 percent single family homes. The most viable opportunities for new housing development on non-vacant lands would occur in commercial or professional and administrative parcels. These non-vacant land resources are categorized into nine housing sites throughout the city. While some sites are comprised of just one single parcel, others are comprised of several individual parcels that are anticipated to be eventually consolidated for future residential redevelopment. Nonvacant housing sites were identified based on a variety of factors including but not limited to: • Proximity to development trends of similar use and intensity, • Observed underutilization of sites, measured through an evaluation of consolidated, site- wide improvement-to-land ratios which compare the value of present physical improvements on a site to the present value of the land itself. In the commercial real estate market, when land costs are disproportionally larger than the value of physical improvements on a site, land is considered “underutilized.” For analysis purposes, improvement to land ratio values below 1.0 are considered to represent some degree of underutilization of sites. An improvement to land ratio value above 1.0 represents sites that are not considered “underutilized.” Additionally, a visual survey of Housing Sites was conducted in Spring of 2022 and identified several vacancies in non-vacant commercial sites included within the city’s Housing Sites Inventory. 164 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-12 TABLE 6-7: VACANT LAND INVENTORY APN ADDRESS ACRES GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY PERMITTED REALISTIC CAPACITY 39702109 Allendale Av 0.87 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 51004001 Bellecourt 1.12 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 51714086 Belnap Dr 0.19 RHC HR 0.5 1 51736002 Bohlman Rd 0.31 RHC HR 0.5 1 50375016 Congress Hall Ln 1.00 RHC HR 0.5 1 50312029 Edencrest Ln 2.00 RHC HR 0.5 1 50327081 Elva Av 0.34 M-10 R-1-10,000 4.35 1 51005034 Glen Una Dr 0.77 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 51714026 Kittridge Rd 0.55 RHC HR 0.5 1 50315045 Land Only 4.24 RHC HR 0.5 1 50313148 Mt Eden Rd 1.08 OS-H HR 0.05 1 50351005 Mt Eden Rd 0.12 RHC HR 0.5 1 50331078 Mt Eden Rd 0.77 RHC HR 0.5 1 51714081 Norton Rd 1.15 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 50315044 Old Oak Wy 0.20 RHC HR 0.5 1 50315079 Old Oak Wy 4.63 RHC HR 0.5 1 51722111 Peach Hill Rd 5.58 RHC HR 0.5 1 36631006 Prospect Rd 0.69 RHC HR 0.5 1 51714059 Quickert Rd 0.17 RHC HR 0.5 1 50329068 Saratoga Hills Rd 1.04 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 50329036 Saratoga Hills Rd 1.10 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 38604016 Scully Av 0.64 M-12.5 R-1-12,500 3.48 1 165 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-13 APN ADDRESS ACRES GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY PERMITTED REALISTIC CAPACITY 38652008 Seagull Wy 0.12 M-10 R-1-10,000 4.35 1 38919031 Sousa Ln 0.15 M-10 R-1-10,000 4.35 1 39704086 Spring Brook Ln 0.97 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 50326027 Wildwood Wy 0.08 M-10 R-1-10,000 4.35 1 50326026 Wildwood Wy 0.08 M-10 R-1-10,000 4.35 1 50331088 13947 Albar Ct 3.20 RHC HR 0.5 1 39701050 14171 Chester Av 0.99 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 50368002 14190 Palamino Wy 1.81 RHC HR 0.5 1 50372014 14805 Masson Ct 2.96 RHC HR 0.5 1 51001012 15139 Park Dr 0.67 RLD R-1-20,000 2.18 1 51003004 15230 Pepper Ln 1.20 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 51713030 16075 Cuvilly Wy 1.10 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 51713042 16080 Cuvilly Wy 3.43 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 39724105 18935 Hayfield Ct 1.39 RLD R-1-20,000 2.18 1 39708025 19020 Monte Vista Dr 1.76 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 51718048 20400 Hill Av 6.13 RVLD R-1-40,000 1.09 1 51714087 20888 Kittridge Rd 7.92 RHC HR 0.5 1 50331067 21794 Heber Way 5.96 RHC HR 0.5 1 50313117 22551 Mt Eden Rd 1.42 RHC HR 0.5 1 50310006 22700 Mt Eden Rd 11.73 OS-H HR 0.05 1 51001049 Hume Dr 0.48 RLD R-1-20,000 2.18 1 50315066 Old Oak Way 0.44 RHC HR 0.5 1 50315080 Old Oak Way 0.58 RHC HR 0.5 1 51738006 Peach Hill 2.38 RHC HR 0.5 1 166 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-14 APN ADDRESS ACRES GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY PERMITTED REALISTIC CAPACITY 51738007 Peach Hill 5.80 RHC HR 0.5 1 51738003 Peho Ln 1.04 RHC HR 0.5 1 50346005 Pierce Rd 72.68 RHC HR 0.5 12 TOTAL 165.0 60 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. 167 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-15 • Exhibited developer and/or property owner interest to develop residential uses at greater densities and intensities than currently permitted. • Presence of existing infrastructure adjacent or in proximity to sites due to the location of sites within existing urbanized portions of the city. While some sites may require lateral connections or expansions of existing utilities, these improvements are considered standard improvements and routine of redevelopment projects in urbanized areas. Such improvements will be done at the expense of developers. Individual parcels comprising housing sites may be “vacant” by definition (i.e., undeveloped with little to no physical improvements), but are grouped as “non-vacant” resources due to their anticipated consolidated development along with other parcels that are developed and “non-vacant.” A complete list of the City of Saratoga’s non-vacant land resources is included in Table 6-8 below. Rezoning Program Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c) several of the City of Saratoga’s non-vacant housing sites, as described above, will be included within a proposed rezoning program to allow for development potential consistent with the city’s RHNA requirements. This rezoning program will consist of the creation, and adoption of three new mixed-use zoning districts: “Mixed Use” (MU), “Mixed Use High Density” (MU/HD), and “Mixed Use Very High Density” (MU/VHD). These new zoning districts will allow for mixed-use residential development at greater densities throughout the city than currently permitted, require at least 50 percent of building floor area, and allow for up to 100 percent of building floor area, to be dedicated to residential uses. These new mixed use zoning districts are summarized below in Table 6-8. Sites which are proposed to be rezoned to one of the new zoning designations as part of this Update are indicated in the Non-Vacant Inventory included within Table 6-9. TABLE 6-8: SARATOGA REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (2023-2031) PROPOSED REZONING DISTRICTS ALLOWABLE DENSITY MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MIXED-USE (MU) 15-25 du/acre 2 Stories MIXED-USE HIGH DENSITY (MU/HD) 30-40 du/acre 3 Stories MIXED-USE VERY HIGH DENSITY (MU/VHD) 80-150 du/acre 10 Stories Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. 168 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-16 TABLE 6-9: NON-VACANT/UNDERUTILIZED LAND INVENTORY APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING USE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED REZONING PROPOSED DENSITY (DU/ACRE) REALISTIC CAPACITY VLI LI MI AMI TOTAL EXISTING SENIOR HOUSING SITE FELLOWSHIP PLAZA HOUSING SITE 39712016 14500 Fruitvale Ave.4 10.47 Senior Housing CFS R-1-40,000 - 20 80 0 0 0 80 MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SITES MIXED USE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SITES GATEWAY NORTH HOUSING SITE 36622022 12029 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 2.54 Commercial Center CR CN MU 15-25 0 0 19 19 22 36622023 12015 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 0.38 Gas Station CR CN MU 15-25 0 0 3 3 22 SUBTOTAL 2.92 0 0 22 22 44 HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SITES GATEWAY SOUTH HOUSING SITE 36612066 12361 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 0.32 Commercial Building CR CV MU/HD 30-40 3 2 1 5 10 36612065 12341 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 0.94 Funeral Home CR CV MU/HD 30-40 7 4 2 14 28 36612054 12333 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 1.01 Commercial Building CR CV MU/HD 30-40 8 5 2 15 30 36612072 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 3.08 Storage CR CV MU/HD 30-40 25 14 7 46 92 4 Please Note that the Fellowship Plaza Housing Site shares the same Street address as the Saratoga Retirement Community Site identified within the “Pending Projects” Section of this Report. Both the Saratoga Retirement Community and the Fellowship Plaza Housing Development are owned by the Independent Order of the Odd Fellows (IOOF), but are two separate, distinct developments. Accordingly, while the two developments share the same street address, they have unique APN values. 169 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-17 APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING USE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED REZONING PROPOSED DENSITY (DU/ACRE) REALISTIC CAPACITY VLI LI MI AMI TOTAL 38653031 12312 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 1.23 Office Building CR CV MU/HD 30-40 10 6 3 18 37 SUBTOTAL 6.58 52 30 16 98 197 SARATOGA AVENUE HOUSING SITE 38906017 13025 Saratoga Ave. 9.76 Vacant PA PA MU/HD 30-40 79 44 47 123 293 38906007 12961 Village Dr. 0.45 Office Building PA PA MU/HD 30-40 4 2 2 6 14 38906006 12943 Village Dr. 0.38 Vacant PA PA MU/HD 30-40 3 2 2 5 11 38906008 Village Dr. 0.49 Vacant PA PA MU/HD 30-40 4 2 2 6 15 38906016 12989 Saratoga Ave. 0.37 Vacant PA PA MU/HD 30-40 3 2 2 5 11 SUBTOTAL 11.45 93 52 55 144 344 VILLAGE EAST HOUSING SITE 39727028 14320 Saratoga Sunnyvale 0.46 Commercial Center CR CV MU/HD 30-40 4 2 2 6 14 39727029 20440 Arbeleche Ln. 0.83 Multi-Family RMF R-M-4000 MU/HD 30-40 7 4 4 10 25 39727001 Arbeleche Ln. (city parcel) 0.28 Parking Lot (City) CR CV MU/HD 30-40 2 1 1 4 8 39731020 14395 Saratoga Ave. 0.49 Office Building PA PA MU/HD 30-40 4 2 2 6 15 39731011 14375 Saratoga Ave. 0.56 Office Building PA PA MU/HD 30-40 5 3 3 7 17 39731008 14363 Saratoga Ave. 0.28 Office Building PA PA MU/HD 30-40 2 1 1 4 8 SUBTOTAL 2.90 23 13 14 37 87 170 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-18 APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING USE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED REZONING PROPOSED DENSITY (DU/ACRE) REALISTIC CAPACITY VLI LI MI AMI TOTAL VERY HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SITE PROSPECT LAWRENCE HOUSING SITE 38610043 18562 Prospect Rd. 2.14 Commercial Center CR C-N(RHD) MU/VHD 80-150 46 26 27 72 171 38610004 18560 Prospect Rd. 0.87 Carwash CR C-N(RHD) MU/VHD 80-150 19 10 11 29 70 38610055 18522 Prospect Rd. 0.30 Auto Repair CR C-N(RHD) MU/VHD 80-150 6 4 4 10 24 38610006 18506 Prospect Rd. 0.94 Auto Parts CR C-N(RHD) MU/VHD 80-150 20 11 12 32 75 38610007 18480 Prospect Rd. 0.87 Commercial Building CR C-N(RHD) MU/VHD 80-150 19 10 11 29 70 SUBTOTAL 5.12 111 61 66 172 410 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING SITES WARDELL HOUSING SITE 36614041 20851 Wardell Rd. 7.35 Non-Vacant RHC HR R-1-12,500 1.36 0 0 0 10 10 ALLENDALE/CHESTER HOUSING SITE 39701071 14001 Chester Ave. 12.13 Agriculture RVLD A 0 R-1-20,000 1.98 0 0 0 24 24 QUITO/POLLARD HOUSING SITE 40322016 14076 Quito Rd. 3.56 Vacant RVLD R-1-40,000 R-1-10,000 2.81 0 0 0 10 10 TOTAL 359 156 172 517 1,204 Notes: VLI = Very Low Income, LI = Low Income, MI = Moderate Income, AMI = Above Moderate Income Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. 171 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-19 Existing Senior Housing Site Fellowship Plaza Housing Site The Fellowship Plaza Housing Site is an approximately 10.5-acre parcel located south of Chester Avenue and west of Sobey Road in the southeastern portion of the city. See Figure 6-3 below. The Fellowship Plaza Housing Site was also identified within the city’s 5th Cycle Housing Element Update. The site is presently developed with an existing retirement community which provides independent living options for seniors, the site is presently developed with 150 one and two-bedroom dwelling units. In 2020 rehabilitation work was completed at the site that included complete interior and exterior improvements including the replacement of in-unit kitchens, bathrooms, and finishes, HVAC and ADA upgrades, common area upgrades, and exterior replacement of windows, doors, and decks. FIGURE 6-3: FELLOWSHIP PLAZA HOUSING SITE Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Fellowship Plaza Site was approved by the City Council on November 13, 2013 but has since expired. This CUP allowed for the development of an additional 75 residential units on the site, affordable to very low- and low-income households. In July 2021, as part of the Housing Element Update process, City staff met with Fellowship Plaza. Source: EAH Housing S EAH H i 172 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-20 the owners the property, and the director of EAH Housing who manages the affordable housing community to discuss their interest in developing additional housing at the Fellowship Plaza Site. Both the property owner and EAH are very interested in adding a fifth building to the existing housing site, which would be similar in size and shape to the site’s existing buildings which contain between 75 and 80 units each. As part of discussions the property owner and developer did note that original construction and renovation of the Fellowship Plaza Housing Site buildings was funded through HUD and obtaining additional funding for a new building has proved challenging. Since the Fellowship Plaza Housing Site was included within the city’s 5th Cycle Housing Element Update, as part of this Update the City will identify a program to allow for by-right development of 80 residential units on the Fellowship Plaza Site. It should be noted, for consistency with HCD Guidance regarding sites identified in previous Housing Elements, “by- right” development shall not include a conditional use permit, a planned development permit, or other discretionary local-government review. TABLE 6-10: FELLOWSHIP PLAZA RETIREMENT COMMUNITY HOUSING SITE APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING USE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING DENSITY (DU/ACRE) TOTAL CAPACITY 39712016 14500 Fruitvale Ave.5 10.47 Senior Housing Community Facility Sites (CFS) Residential Single Family (R-1-40,000) 20 80 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Multi-Family Housing Sites Mixed-Use Multi-Family Housing Sites Gateway North Housing Site The Gateway North Housing Site consists of two parcels totaling 2.92 acres in size and located at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Prospect Road and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road in the north central portion of the city. See Figure 6-4 below. 5 Please note that the Fellowship Plaza Housing Site shares the same street address as the Saratoga Retirement Community Site identified within the “Pending Projects” section of this report. Both the Saratoga Retirement Community and the Fellowship Plaza Housing Development are owned by the Independent Order of the Odd Fellows (IOOF), but are two separate, distinct developments. Accordingly, while the two developments share the same street address, they have unique APN values. 173 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-21 FIGURE 6-4: GATEWAY HOUSING SITES Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. The Gateway North Housing Sites are presently developed with existing uses including a gas station and a commercial shopping center comprised of real estate offices and a local restaurant. The Gateway North Housing Site parcels are all presently designated Commercial Retail (CR) on the City’s adopted Land Use Map and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) on the City’s adopted Zoning Map. The CN zoning district conditionally permits mixed-use residential development at a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. As part of this Update, the City of Saratoga will rezone the Gateway North Housing Site to a new “Mixed Use” (MU) zoning district pursuant to state law. This new MU zoning district will permit mixed- use residential development between 15 and 25 dwelling units per acre, require developments to provide a minimum of 50 percent of building floor area as residential uses, and allow developments to provide 100 percent residential uses. The Gateway North Housing Sites were identified for inclusion within the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory due to the site’s observed underutilization, as well as its location adjacent to existing public transit provided by Valley Transportation Authority along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road (Route No. 51). Underutilization of the Gateway North Site is evident in the consolidated improvement to land ratio of the two parcels comprising the site, which totals 0.65. This ratio 174 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-22 indicates that the present value of physical improvements on the sites are smaller than the present land value of the sites and the sites can be considered “underutilized” by industry definition. This underutilization is evident in various “For Lease” signs present along the sites, as well as the City’s Community Development Director being approached by a residential developer that is active in the South-Bay region, who has expressed interest in potential redevelopment of the Gateway North Housing Site at higher densities and intensities than currently permitted by the City. Through the rezoning of parcels to the City’s newly created MU zoning district, the Gateway North Housing Site is determined to be suitable to accommodate the development of 44 residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period. This realistic capacity was calculated using the minimum density of 15 dwelling units per acre as proposed to be permitted within the city’s newly created Mixed Use zoning district. TABLE 6-11: GATEWAY NORTH HOUSING SITE APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING IMPROV/ LAND RATIO REZONING DENSITY (DU/ ACRE) TOTAL CAPACITY 36622022 12029 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 2.54 CR CN 0.77 MU 15-25 38 36622023 12015 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 0.38 0.14 MU 15-25 6 TOTAL 2.92 0.65 44 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. For Lease Signs at the Blue Hills Shopping Center located on the Gateway North Housing Site 175 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-23 High Density Multi-Family Sites Gateway South Housing Site The Gateway South Housing Site consists of five parcels totaling 6.9-acres, located directly north of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks along both the east and western side of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road in the north central portion of the city. See Figure 6-5 below. The site was acquired by Southern Pacific Railroad in 1996. FIGURE 6-5: GATEWAY HOUSING SITES Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. The Gateway South Housing Site is currently developed with existing single-story, ranch-style office buildings constructed in the mid 1960’s and 1980’s. On-site uses include office uses, commercial retail storefronts, self-storage, and a funeral home. The Gateway South Housing Site parcels are all presently designated Commercial Retail (CR) on the City’s adopted Land Use Map and Visitor Commercial (CV) on the City’s adopted Zoning Map. The CV zoning district conditionally permits mixed- use residential development at a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. As part of this Update and required by State Law, the City of Existing development at Gateway Site. 176 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-24 Saratoga will rezone the Gateway South Housing Site to a new “Mixed Use High Density” (MU/HD) zoning district, to be created by the City. This new MU/HD zoning district will permit mixed-use residential development between 30 and 40 dwelling units per acre, require developments to provide a minimum of 50 percent of building floor area as residential uses, and allow developments to provide 100 percent residential uses. The Gateway South Housing Sites were identified for inclusion within the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory due to the sites’ observed underutilization, as well as its location adjacent to existing public transit provided by Valley Transportation Authority along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road (Route No. 51). Underutilization of the Gateway South Site is evident in the consolidated improvement to land ratio of the five parcels comprising the site, which totals 0.87. This ratio indicates that the present value of physical improvements on the sites are smaller than the present land value of the sites and the sites can be considered “underutilized” by industry definition. This underutilization is evident based on a number of “For Lease” signs present at the Gateway South Housing Sites, and further affirmed by the City’s Community Development Director being approached by a real estate developer who has expressed interest in developing residential units on the Gateway South Site at higher densities and intensities than currently permitted by the City. Based on the proposed rezoning of parcels to the City’s newly created MU/HD zoning districts, the Gateway South Housing Site is determined to be suitable to accommodate development of 197 residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period. This realistic capacity was calculated using the minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre as proposed to be permitted within the City’s newly created Mixed-Use High-Density zoning district. For Lease Signs at the Gateway South Housing Site For Lease Signs at the Gateway South Housing Site 177 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-25 There are vacant tenant spaces at 12333 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and the owner of the property is in active discussion with the City to develop the site into a mixed-use project. TABLE 6-12: GATEWAY SOUTH HOUSING SITE APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING IMPROV/ LAND RATIO REZONING DENSITY (DU/ACRE) TOTAL CAPACITY 36612066 12361 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 0.32 CR CV 2.45 MU/HD 30-40 10 36612065 12341 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 0.94 CR CV 0.15 MU/HD 30-40 28 36612054 12333 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 1.01 CR CV 0.42 MU/HD 30-40 30 36612072 12299 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 3.08 CR CV 1.85 MU/HD 30-40 92 38653031 12312 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. 1.23 CR CV 0.41 MU/HD 30-40 37 TOTAL 6.9 0.87 197 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Saratoga Avenue Housing Site The Saratoga Avenue Housing Site consists of five parcels, totaling 11.45 acres, located at the northern quadrant of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and the West Valley Freeway in the northeastern portion of the city. See Figure 6-6 below. FIGURE 6-6: SARATOGA AVENUE HOUSING SITE Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. 178 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-26 The Saratoga Avenue Housing Site is largely vacant (and underutilized); however, one parcel is developed with limited existing uses including a single-story office building constructed in 1966, and outdoor vehicular storage uses. While four parcels comprising the Saratoga Avenue Housing Site are undeveloped, “vacant” acreage, they are included as “non-vacant” land resources within this chapter due to their proposed consolidation and development with an adjacent non-vacant parcel developed with office uses. The Saratoga Avenue Housing Site parcels are all presently designated Professional Administrative (PA) on the City’s adopted Land Use and Zoning Maps. The PA zoning district conditionally permits mixed-use residential development at a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. As part of this Update, pursuant to State law, the City of Saratoga will rezone the parcels comprising the Saratoga Avenue Housing Site to a new “Mixed Use High Density” (MU/HD) zoning district. This new MU/HD zoning district will permit mixed-use residential development between 30 and 40 dwelling units per acre, require developments to provide a minimum of 50 percent of building floor area as residential uses, and allow developments to provide 100 percent residential uses. The Saratoga Avenue Housing Sites were identified for inclusion within the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory due to the sites’ underutilization, and location adjacent to existing public transit provided by Valley Transportation Authority along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road (Route No. 26). Underutilization of the Saratoga Avenue Site is characterized by a very low consolidated improvement to land ratio of the five parcels comprising the site of 0.11. This low consolidated ratio can be attributed to the relative vacancy of a majority of the site, but also the underdevelopment of the one (1) parcel within the site that is developed (APN 389-060- 07) which has an improvement to land ratio on 0.36. This, along with the low consolidated improvement to land ratio of the entire housing site, indicates that the present value of physical improvements on the sites are smaller than the present land value of the sites and the sites can be considered “underutilized” by industry definition. Additionally, the City’s Community Development Director has recently been approached by various residential developers that are active in the South-bay area who have expressed interest in potential redevelopment of the Saratoga Avenue Housing Site at higher densities and intensities than currently permitted by the City. Support for residential development was also expressed by the majority property owner of the site. Based on the proposed rezoning of parcels to the City’s newly created MU/HD zoning districts, the Saratoga Avenue Housing Site is determined to be suitable to accommodate development of 344 residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period. 179 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-27 TABLE 6-13: SARATOGA AVENUE HOUSING SITES APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING IMPROV/ LAND RATIO REZONING DENSITY (DU/ACRE) TOTAL CAPACITY 38906017 13025 Saratoga Ave. 9.76 PA PA 0.0 MU/HD 30-40 293 38906007 12961 Village Dr. 0.45 PA PA 0.36 MU/HD 30-40 14 38906006 12943 Village Dr. 0.38 PA PA 0.00 MU/HD 30-40 11 38906008 Village Dr. 0.49 PA PA 0.00 MU/HD 30-40 15 38906016 12989 Saratoga Ave. 0.37 PA PA 0.00 MU/HD 30-40 11 TOTAL 11.45 0.11 344 Note: PA = Professional Administrative Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Village East Housing Site The Village East Housing Site consists of six parcels, totaling 2.9 acres, located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road in the southcentral portion of the city. See Figure 6-7 below. FIGURE 6-7: VILLAGE EAST HOUSING SITE Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. 180 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-28 The Village East Housing Site is presently developed with two-story office buildings constructed in the 1950’s, 60’s and 80’s, a small commercial center, and lower-density multi- family uses constructed in 1946. The Village East Housing Site parcels are presently designated Commercial Retail (CR), Residential Multi-Family (RMF), and Professional Administrative (PA) on the City’s adopted Land Use Map and Visitor Commercial (CV), Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Residential Multi-Family (R-M-4000), and Professional Administrative (PA) on the City’s adopted Zoning Map. These designations allow for residential development conditionally, at a maximum of only 20 dwelling units per acre. As part of this Update, pursuant to State Law, the City of Saratoga will rezone the parcels comprising the Village East Housing Site to a new “Mixed Use High Density” (MU/HD) zoning district. This new MU/HD zoning district will permit mixed-use residential development between 30 and 40 dwelling units per acre, require developments to provide a minimum of 50 percent of building floor area as residential uses, and allow developments to provide 100 percent residential uses. The Village East Housing Sites were identified for inclusion within the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory due to the sites’ observed underutilization, as well as its location adjacent to existing public transit provided by Valley Transportation Authority along Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue (Route No. 51). Underutilization of the Village East Site is evident in the consolidated improvement to land ratio of the six parcels comprising the site, which totals 0.58. This ratio indicates that the present value of physical improvements on the sites are smaller than the present land value of the sites and the sites can be considered “underutilized” by industry definition. TABLE 6-14: VILLAGE EAST HOUSING SITES APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING IMPROV/ LAND RATIO REZONING DENSITY (DU/ACRE) TOTAL CAPACITY 39727028 14320 Saratoga Sunnyvale 0.46 CR CV 1.62 MU/HD 30-40 14 39727029 20440 Arbeleche Ln. 0.83 RMF R-M-4000 0.00 MU/HD 30-40 25 39727001 Arbeleche Ln. (city parcel) 0.28 CR CV 0.00 MU/HD 30-40 8 39731020 14395 Saratoga Ave 0.49 PA PA 1.91 MU/HD 30-40 15 39731011 14375 Saratoga Ave. 0.56 PA PA 0.64 MU/HD 30-40 17 39731008 14363 Saratoga Ave. 0.28 PA PA 0.62 MU/HD 30-40 8 TOTAL 2.9 0.58 87 Note: PA = Professional Administrative. Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. 181 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-29 Based on the proposed rezoning of parcels to the City’s newly created MU/HD zoning district, the Village East Site is determined to be suitable to accommodate development of 90 residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period. Very High-Density Multi-Family Housing Site Prospect Lawrence Housing Site The Prospect Lawrence Housing Site consists of five parcels, totaling 5.12 acres, located along the southern side of Prospect Road between Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway in the northeastern portion of the city. See Figure 6-8 below. FIGURE 6-8: PROSPECT LAWRENCE HOUSING SITE Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. A visual survey of the opportunity sites conducted on May 19, 2022 shows vacant tenant spaces in this commercial center built in the late 1960’s. The Prospect Lawrence Housing Site is presently developed with existing uses including single-story retail commercial, fast food restaurant and carwash uses that were constructed between the 1960s and 1980s. These uses have undergone minimal renovations since their original construction and have hosted a number of tenants over the years with frequent turnover. The site parcels are currently designated Commercial Retail (CR), on the City’s adopted Land Use Map and Commercial Neighborhood Residential High-Density (C-N(RHD)) on the City’s adopted Zoning Map. The C-N(RHD) zoning district allows for mixed-use residential development at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Lands south of the Prospect Lawrence Site in the City of Saratoga, opposite the Lawrence Expressway, are presently developed with single-family residential uses and a public high school. 182 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-30 As part of this Update and pursuant to State law, the City of Saratoga will rezone the Prospect Lawrence Housing Site parcels to a new “Mixed Use Very High Density” (MU/VHD) zoning district. This new MU/VHD zoning district will permit mixed-use residential development between 80 and 150 dwelling units per acre, require developments to provide a minimum of 50 percent of building floor area to residential uses, and provide 100 percent of building floor area to residential uses within this District. The Prospect Lawrence Housing Sites were identified for inclusion within the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory due to the sites’ location adjacent to several public transit options provided by Valley Transportation Authority which converge around the Prospect Lawrence Housing Site. These transit options include frequent bus service via routes 26 and 57, local bus service via route 56, and express bus service via route 101. Additionally, these bus route options assist in connecting the Prospect Lawrence Housing Site to VTA’s light rail system, further connecting the housing site to the larger region. In addition to sufficient access to public transportation options at the Prospect Lawrence Housing Site, there was also an observed level of underutilization of the sites, relative to their present land values that informed inclusion of the sites in the City’s Housing Sites Inventory. This underutilization is evident in the consolidated improvement to land ratio of the six parcels comprising the site which totals 0.53. This ratio indicates that the present value of physical improvements on the sites are smaller than the present land value of the sites, in aggregate. Underutilization is also evident through evaluation of adjacent development trends, which can help inform what development potential is achievable in the general area, in comparison to present land values. Lands directly southeast and tangent of the Prospect Lawrence Site, located within the City of San Jose are presently developed with similar commercial uses including a large “big-box” department store, other standalone commercial The commercial strip center at the Prospect Lawrence Housing Site was developed in the late 1960’s. Based on a visual survey of the site in 2021, several “for lease” and vacant sites within the commercial center. 183 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-31 retail uses, and a church. However, several of these parcels, located at 1312 El Paseo De Saratoga and 1777 Saratoga Avenue are currently being planned for redevelopment into a high-intensity mixed use development referred to as the “El Paseo/Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Village”. This proposed development totals 10.6 acres, proposed on either side of Saratoga Avenue, to include a total of 165,949 square feet of commercial sq. ft. and up to 994 residential units. The gross proposed residential density of the project equates to approximately 94 dwelling units per acre. This development is currently undergoing CEQA review with public hearings planned for May and June 2022. Based on the nearby development trends, as well as the proposed rezoning of parcels within the Prospect Lawrence Site to the City’s newly created MU/VHD zoning district, the site is determined to be suitable to accommodate development of 410 residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period. TABLE 6-15: PROSPECT LAWRENCE HOUSING SITES APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING IMPROV/ LAND RATIO REZONING DENSITY (DU/ACRE) TOTAL CAPACITY 38610043 18562 Prospect Rd. 2.14 CR C-N(RHD) 1.08 MU/VHD 80-150 171 38610004 18560 Prospect Rd. 0.87 CR C-N(RHD) 0.07 MU/VHD 80-150 70 38610055 18522 Prospect Rd. 0.3 CR C-N(RHD) 1.62 MU/VHD 80-150 24 38610006 18506 Prospect Rd. 0.94 CR C-N(RHD) 0.17 MU/VHD 80-150 75 38610007 18480 Prospect Rd. 0.87 CR C-N(RHD) 1.94 MU/VHD 80-150 70 TOTAL 5.12 0.53 410 Note: CR = Commercial Retail Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Single Family Housing Sites Wardell Housing Site The Wardell Housing Site consists of one, 7.35-acre parcel located northeast of the intersection of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Wardell Road in the northwestern portion of the city. See Figure 6-9 below. 184 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-32 FIGURE 6-9: WARDELL HOUSING SITE Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Presently the Wardell Housing Site is mostly vacant but is developed with an existing structure. The Wardell Housing Site is presently designated Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) on the City’s adopted Land Use Map and Hillside Residential (HR) on the City’s adopted Zoning Map. These designations are largely due to the western portion of the property being located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). As part of this Update, the City of Saratoga will rezone only the eastern portion of the Wardell Housing Site which is not located within the VHFHSZ to one of the City’s existing single-family residential zoning districts (R-1-12,500). This new zoning will allow for the development of the eastern portion of the housing site with single-family residential uses, at higher densities than currently permitted within the HR District. To facilitate the rezoning of a portion the Wardell Housing Site, the City will also amend the Hillside Specific Plan to allow for development of the site, consistent with objective design standards that are being developed as part of the Housing Element Update. The Wardell Housing Site is identified for inclusion within the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory due to the site’s observed underutilization as a relatively vacant site in an existing urbanized area of the city surrounded by existing single family uses. The site has an improvement to land ratio of 0.004. As part of the housing element update process, the City’s Community Development Director has been approached by the property owner of the site who has expressed interest to include the parcel within the City’s Housing Site Inventory. Additionally, a residential developer that is active in the South-bay area has expressed interest in potential 185 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-33 redevelopment of the Wardell Housing Site at higher densities and intensities than currently permitted by the City. It is anticipated the Wardell Housing Site is suitable to accommodate the development of 10 residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period. TABLE 6-16: WARDELL HOUSING SITE APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING IMPROV/ LAND RATIO REZONING DENSITY (DU/ACRE) TOTAL CAPACITY 36614041 20851 Wardell Road 7.35 RHC HR 0.004 R-1-12,500 1.36 10 Notes: RHC = Residential Hillside Conservation, HR = Hillside Residential Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Allendale/Chester Housing Site The Allendale/Chester Housing Site consists of one, 12.13-acre parcel located at the intersection of Allendale Avenue and Chester Avenue, just west of Quito Road in the southeastern portion of the city. See Figure 6-10 below. FIGURE 6-10: ALLENDALE/CHESTER HOUSING SITE Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Presently the Allendale/Chester Site is utilized for active agricultural uses and includes existing structures accessory to these uses. The site is presently designated Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) on the City’s adopted Land Use Map and Agricultural (A) on the City’s adopted Zoning Map. As part of this Update, the City of Saratoga will rezone the 186 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-34 Allendale/Chester Housing Site to one of the City’s existing single-family residential zoning districts (R-1-20,000) to allow for increased development potential. The Allendale/Chester Site is identified for inclusion within the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory due to the site’s observed underutilization as a relatively vacant site in an existing urbanized area of the city surrounded by existing single family uses. The site has an improvement to land ration of 0.018. Based on the proposed rezoning of the site it is anticipated the Allendale/Chester Housing Site is suitable to accommodate the development of 24 residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period. TABLE 6-17: ALLENDALE/CHESTER HOUSING SITE APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING IMPROV/ LAND RATIO REZONING DENSITY (DU/ACRE) TOTAL CAPACITY 39701071 14001 Chester Ave. 12.13 Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) Agricultural (A) 0.18 R-1-20,000 1.98 24 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Quito/Pollard Housing Site The Quito/Pollard Housing Site consists of one 3.56-acre parcel located at the intersection of Quito Road and Pollard Road in the southeastern portion of the city. See Figure 6-11 below. FIGURE 6-11: QUITO/POLLARD HOUSING SITE Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. Presently the Quito/Pollard Site is vacant and designated Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) on the City’s adopted Land Use Map and Residential Single-Family (R-1-40,000) on the City’s 187 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-35 adopted Zoning Map. As part of this Update, the City of Saratoga will rezone the Quito/Pollard Housing Site to one of the City’s other existing single-family residential zoning districts with a smaller minimum lot size, (R-1-10,000) to allow for greater development potential on the site. The Quito/Pollard Housing Site is identified for inclusion within the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory due to the site’s observed underutilization as a vacant site in an existing urbanized area of the city surrounded by existing single family uses. The site has an improvement to land ratio of 0.0. As previously mentioned, for analysis purposes, improvement to land ratio values below 1.0 are considered to represent some degree of underutilization. Based on the proposed rezoning of the site, it is anticipated the Quito/Pollard Housing Site is suitable to accommodate the development of 10 residential units during the 2023-2031 planning period. TABLE 6-18: QUITO/POLLARD HOUSING SITE APN ADDRESS ACRES EXISTING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING ZONING IMPROV/ LAND RATIO REZONING DENSITY (DU/ACRE) TOTAL CAPACITY 40322016 14076 Quito Rd. 3.56 Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) Residential Single- Family (R-1-40,000) 0.0 R-1-10,000 2.81 10 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department. SITES SUMMARY State Housing Element Law requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites, sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning, public facilities, and services to these sites. The inventory of land suitable for residential development must be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period. Table 6-19 summarizes the City of Saratoga’s capacity to meet RHNA goals. 188 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-36 TABLE 6-19: SITES SUMMARY VERY LOW- INCOME LOW- INCOME MODERATE- INCOME ABOVE MODERATE- INCOME TOTAL 2022-2031 RHNA NEED 454 261 278 719 1,712 LAND RESOURCES PIPELINE & PENDING PROJECTS 0 9 0 152 161 PROJECTED ADU DEVELOPMENT 144 144 144 48 480 VACANT SITES 0 0 0 60 0 NONVACANT SITES FELLOWSHIP PLAZA SITE 80 0 0 0 80 GATEWAY NORTH SITE 0 0 22 22 44 GATEWAY SOUTH SITE 55 30 25 85 196 SARATOGA AVENUE SITE 93 52 55 144 344 VILLAGE EAST SITE 23 13 14 37 87 PROSPECT LAWRENCE SITE 111 61 66 172 410 WARDELL SITE 0 0 0 10 10 ALLENDALE/CHESTER SITE 0 0 0 24 24 QUITO POLLARD SITE 0 0 0 10 10 TOTAL UNIT POTENTIAL 503 309 316 777 1,906 Source: City of Saratoga. Qualified Entities The following lists qualified entities who are interested in purchasing government-subsidized multi-family projects within Santa Clara County. • Affordable Housing Foundation • BRIDGE Housing Corporation • EAH Housing • Cambrian Center, Inc. • Charities Housing Development Corporation • Christian Church Homes of Northern California, Inc. • Community Home Builders and Associates • Community Housing Developers, Inc. • Habitat for Humanity 189 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-37 • Matinah Salaam • Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition • Palo Alto Housing Corporation • Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc. • Satellite Housing, Inc. • South County Housing, Inc. 190 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 6-38 This page intentionally left blank 191 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-1 7. POLICY PROGRAM This section describes the City of Saratoga’s Policy Program for the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The Policy Program describes the specific policy actions necessary to address present and future housing needs and to meet the specific requirements of State law. 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 Section 2 and Appendices A and C). Three types of statements are included in this section: goals, policies, and programs. Goals express broad, long-term statements for desired outcomes. Each goal is followed by multiple policies. The policies are intended to guide decision makers, staff, and other City representatives in the day-to-day operations of the City. They are statements that describe the City’s position on specific housing issues. Some policies, but not all, require specific programs to ensure their effective implementation. 7.1 GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL 1 HOUSING PRODUCTION AND VARIETY. A housing stock comprising a variety of housing and tenancy types at a range of prices, within close proximity to services and opportunity, which meets the varied needs of existing and future City residents, who represent a full spectrum of age, income, and other demographic characteristics. Policy 1.1 Provide adequate capacity to meet the Sites Inventory for Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Policy 1.2 Allow more multi-family housing through rezoning, lot consolidation incentives, and other programs. Policy 1.3 Incentivize efficient buildings and conservation. GOAL 2 INCENTIVIZE AND PRESERVE HOUSING. Programs that conserve housing currently available and affordable to lower-income households, and programs that prevent or reverse deterioration in areas exhibiting symptoms of physical decline. Policy 2.1 Continue to monitor, track, and encourage preservation of affordable housing at-risk of loss or conversion to market rate housing. 192 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-2 Policy 2.2 Connect owners to resources to rehabilitate and improve the condition of existing affordable housing stock. GOAL 3 REMOVAL OF CONSTRAINTS TO THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING. Removal of governmental policies or regulations that unnecessarily constrain the development or improvement of market-rate or affordable housing. Policy 3.1 Reduce constraints to ADU development process. Policy 3.2 Periodically review and update the Zoning Ordinance that constrain development and stay abreast of updates to State law to reduce constraints to emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, and group homes. Policy 3.3 Establish objective design standards to facilitate streamlined project permitting and update existing design guidelines. GOAL 4 ACCESS TO HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. Promote through community outreach and education housing information and resources designed for persons with special housing needs. Policy 4.1 Incentivize affordable housing development by leveraging density bonuses. Policy 4.2 Address the special needs of persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, through provision of supportive and accessible housing that allows persons with disabilities to live independent lives. Policy 4.3 Support extremely low-income households and Saratoga workers through incentive programs. GOAL 5 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING. Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice regardless of their special characteristics as protected under State and federal fair housing law. Policy 5.1 Provide for the production of additional affordable housing through market incentives and improvements and developer partnerships. Policy 5.2 Improve awareness, access, and use of education, training, complaint investigation, mediation services of the fair housing service provider, particularly in areas sensitive to displacement, low-income, racial/ethnic concentration, disability, or other fair housing considerations. 193 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-3 Policy 5.3 Prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing with regard to characteristics protected under State and federal fair housing laws. 7.2 PROGRAMS Table 7-1 includes the proposed programs tied to each goal and policy. 194 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-4 TABLE 7-1: GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROPOSED PROGRAMS POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE Goal 1. Housing Production and Variety 1.1 1-1.1: Adequate Sites for Housing or RHNA Rezoning Rezone sites as identified within Section 6, Adequate Sites to accommodate 1,907 residential units, representing the city’s RHNA of 1,712 units and an 11 percent buffer to allow for compliance with No Net Loss Provisions of SB 166. The rezoning (and zoning text amendments referenced in Policy 1.1-2) will support housing development at the following income levels:  VLI: 504  LI: 309  MI: 317  AMI: 777  504 very low-income units  309 low-income units  317 moderate-income units  777 above moderate- income units 62.5 acres rezoned (as referenced in Section 6, Adequate Sites) If the Housing Element is found in compliance by Jan. 1, 2023, then rezonings will be completed within 3 years and 120 days. If it is not found in compliance, then the rezonings will be completed within 1 year of Jan. 1, 2023. CD General Fund 1.1 1-1.2: No Net Loss Monitoring Pursuant to SB 166 (No Net Loss – Gov; adopted in 201e), the City will develop a procedure to track:  Unit count and income/affordability assumed on parcels included in the sites inventory identified within Section 6, Adequate Sites.  Actual units constructed and income/affordability when parcels are developed.  Net change in capacity and summary of remaining capacity in meeting remaining RHNA. Adopt code amendments Development of the procedure by December 2023, ongoing maintenance thereafter. CD General Fund 1.2 1-2.1: New Zoning Districts Amend Zoning Ordinance to establish three new zoning districts with minimum densities ranging from 15-25, 30-40, and 80-150 du/acre to provide for development of housing at lower-income levels and 100 percent residential for certain sites and mixed use in others. Adopt code amendments If the Housing Element is found in compliance by Jan. 1, 2023, then rezonings will be completed within 3 years and 120 days. If it CD General Fund 195 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-5 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE is not found in compliance, then the rezonings will be completed within 1 year of January 1, 2023. 1.2 1-2.2: Development of Non-Vacant Sites Establish an outreach and coordination program to connect developers, builders, and owners of non- vacant sites. Program shall:  Emphasize reaching out to owners of non- vacant sites to discuss any interest in redeveloping and available incentives.  Establish annual meetings with developers and builders. Engage with 5 property owners of high-potential non- vacant sites each year. Initiate by July 2023 and maintain throughout planning period on a quarterly basis. CD General Fund 1.2 1-2.3 Encourage and Facilitate Lot Consolidation Consolidation of small lots allows a development to utilize the land more efficiently, achieve economies of scale, and offer opportunity for improved site design and amenities. The City encourages the consolidation of small lots to facilitate the development of mixed-use and multifamily developments, particularly for affordable housing by:  Assist developers in identification of parcels with lot consolidation potential.  Continue to utilize a ministerial process for lot consolidation unless other discretionary reviews are required as part of the project. Maintain City’s website with inventory of sites and engage with 5 property owners and developers each year to encourage and assist with lot consolidation and development. Develop inventory and post to the city’s website by July 2023 and maintain throughout planning period on annual basis. CD General Fund 1.2 1-2.4: Lot Consolidation Program To facilitate lot consolidation, the City may consider incentives to achieve orderly development, improve pedestrian activity, and implement the goals, policies, and objectives of the Housing Element. The following incentives may be considered at the discretion of the City Council: By the end of 2023, consider appropriate lot consolidation incentives to facilitate mixed use development. Promote the program through dissemination of December 2023 CD General Fund 196 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-6 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE  Parking Reduction: Required parking may be reduced subject to finding that due to lot consolidation adequate parking will be available to serve the subject project;  Alternative Parking: Tandem, shared, and off- site parking options may be allowed, subject to finding that due to lot consolidation adequate parking will be available to serve the project; and/or  Signage Bonus: Area of permitted signs within mixed use zones may be increased, subject to finding that the increased size of signs on one consolidated parcel will not adversely affect the visibility of signs on adjacent parcels. The City will advertise the lot consolidation provisions to existing property owners and prospective mixed-use and affordable housing developers. Advertisement actions may include preparation and distribution of a brochure with information about program incentives and an invitation to attend a working session to discuss opportunities for lot consolidation and mixed-use residential development, including affordable housing development. brochures at public counters and providing information on City website. 1.2 1-2.5: Rezone Argonaut Shopping Center as Commercial Retain the City’s only shopping center with a grocery store by rezoning the Argonaut Shopping Center comprised of assessor parcel numbers: 393-01-024, -025, -026, -028, and 393-01-041, -042 so that only commercial uses are allowed on these sites. Adopt code amendment January 2024 CD General Fund 1.3 1-3.1: Encourage Efficient Use of In December 2020, the City adopted the Saratoga Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030 which identifies Update CaliforniaFIRST website and publicize energy Investigate and develop, as CD General Fund 197 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-7 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE Energy Resources in Residential Development strategies to exceed the State’s goal of 40 percent below 1990 emissions in 2030. The plan identifies Energy Efficiency Programs including a Green Building Reach Code. The City encourages the efficient use of energy resources in residential development consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan. Strategies the City employs to encourage energy conservation measures in residential development include:  The City’s participation in the CaliforniaFIRST Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program which provides property owners with long-term loans to fund green energy and energy efficiency improvements to their residences. The City maintains a website for the CaliforniaFIRST PACE Program which provides residents with information on the program and eligible improvements, and  The City is also a member of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) Partnership, a joint public agency made up of Santa Clara County communities that provides clean/renewable electricity sources to the city of Saratoga working closely with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E). The City shall review and update its CaliforniaFIRST website pertaining to dissemination of information for energy resources in residential development to ensure that links are appropriate and functional. resources information and incentives via the City’s various communication channels. appropriate, incentive strategies and publicize the program at least once a year via the City’s communication channels. 1.3 1-3.2: Encourage Green Building The City encourages the use of “green building” practices in existing and new home construction Create a “Go Green in Saratoga” or similar webpage Update City website within one (1) year of CD General Fund 198 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-8 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE Practices in Home Construction consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. This includes:  Creating a “Go Green in Saratoga” or similar webpage that provides public information and offers related to low-cost permits as an incentive to install solar panels on residential buildings,  Offering low-cost permits as an incentive to install solar panels; and  Adopting a green building reach code in 2019 that requires all new residential and non- residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating (natural gas is permitted as a fuel source for clothes drying, food cooking, and fireplaces, but these appliance connections must be “electric-ready”) and requiring new commercial buildings to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15 percent. Housing Element adoption. Goal 2. Housing Conservation and Improvement 2.1 2-1.1: 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. The City shall ensure compliance with noticing requirements and provide for tenant education when a notice of conversion is received. The noticing and purchasing requirements Monitor and Preserve 170 “At-Risk” Units (Fellowship Plaza and Saratoga Court) Ongoing/Annual report of units. CD General Fund 199 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-9 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE will be updated to be consistent with AB 1521 adopted in 2017. 2.2 2-2.1: Community Education Regarding the Availability of Rehabilitation Programs The City will provide information regarding the availability of rehabilitation programs, including those through the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, to targeted groups such as very low-, low- and moderate-income homeowners, owners of older residences, and owners of rental units occupied by lower-income seniors, and other special needs households using available media channels and neighborhood and community organizations including but not limited to homeowners associations. The City will continue to disseminate information using the City’s website and social media platforms as well as advertisements in the local newspapers. Reach a minimum of 50 property owners each year Ongoing CD General Fund 2.2 2-2.2: Code Compliance Program The City will continue to use code compliance measures when required to ensure that the existing housing stock in the city is maintained and preserved in a safe and sanitary condition. City’s Code Compliance staff is responsible for ensuring compliance with building and property maintenance codes. The Code Compliance program is complaint- based. The City will continue to use Code Compliance, as well as Building Department staff to ensure compliance with building and property maintenance codes. The City will also develop an enforcement program to prevent displacement or mitigate through funding for rehabilitation assistance and assistance with relocation costs for lower-income households. Develop a program to reduce displacement risk as a result of code compliance within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption; conduct code compliance on an ongoing basis. Ongoing CD General Fund 200 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-10 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE 2.2 2-2.3: Historic Preservation Program and Mills Act The City will implement its historic preservation and Mills Act programs to offer property tax relief as an incentive to preserve, rehabilitate and maintain historic resources in Saratoga. The City’s goal is to conserve the historically significant residential structures identified in the City’s Heritage Resource Inventory and encourage additional property owners to pursue listing as a qualified historic property and associated Mills Act incentives for preservation. The City has processed five Mills Act preservation contracts over the past Housing Element cycle and expects to process an average of three per year over the course of this cycle. Preserve 16 additional historic structures by 2031 2031 CD General Fund Goal 3. Elimination of Governmental Constraints to Housing Production 3.1 3-1.1: Pre-Approved Plan Sets for ADUs The City will further streamline the permit process for ADUs by developing a Permit Ready ADU Program to offer property owners a selection of preapproved ADU building plans. Make a variety of example ADU plan sets available to facilitate reduced applicant cost and expedited review for ADUs. The City will ensure example plans provide choices and diversity in size to accommodate a variety of household sizes and types. Establish a Permit Ready ADU program with preapproved ADU plan sets for at least 3 models that varies in designs and sizes December 2023 CD General Fund 3.1 3-1.2: Reduced Fees for ADUs or JADUs As part of the budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the City recently eliminated planning, building, and public works permit fees for deed restricted, affordable ADUs or JADUs. Assess the production of affordable ADU and JADU annually. Ongoing CD General Fund 3.1 3-1.3: Reduced Parking for ADUs Reduce or eliminate parking requirements for deed restricted, affordable ADUs or JADUs pursuant to State law. Consider whether to further reduce off- street parking space. Adopt code amendments January 2024 CD General Fund 201 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-11 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE 3.1 3-1.4: Educational Campaign and Information Promote information and tools available to facilitate ADU construction. Provide easily accessible information on the City's website, at the Permit Center. Coordinate with the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative to utilize regional resources and adopt policies, procedures, and standards consistent with neighboring jurisdictions to streamline ADU applications. Encourage ADU production in high resource areas. Increase ADU production annually. Identify information resources and tools by July 2023 and provide information on an ongoing basis. CD General Fund 3.1 3-1.5: ADU Tracking and Monitoring Annually monitor the development and affordability of ADUs. If trends indicate a potential shortfall in meeting the estimated ADUs in the sites inventory, consider additional efforts to incentivize ADU production and reassess and revise the overall sites strategy for the RHNA within one year through adjusting ADU capacity assumptions with actual permitted units, and/or identifying additional sites to expand site capacity to the extent necessary to accommodate the RHNA. Annual Progress Report and ADU construction Ongoing CD General Fund 3.2 3-2.1: Increase C-H Height Limit Amend Zoning Ordinance to standardize height limits in the CH‐1 and CH‐2 districts by increasing the height limit in CH‐2 from 26 feet to 35 feet. Adopt code amendments January 2024 CD General Fund 3.2 3-2.2: Reduced Setbacks for Smaller Parcels Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce setback requirements for smaller parcels. Adopt code amendments January 2024 CD General Fund 3.2 3-2.3: Transitional and Supportive Housing Update the zoning ordinance to comply with changes to State law regarding Transitional and Supportive Housing, including allowing supportive housing by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, pursuant to Government Code Section 65651 (SB 745 (2013) and AB 2162 (2018)). Adopt code amendments January 2024 CD General Fund 202 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-12 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE 3.2 3-2.4: Low Barrier Navigation Center Update the zoning ordinance to comply with State law to allow a Low Barrier Navigation Center by- right in zones where mixed uses are permitted, pursuant to Government Code Section 65660 (SB 48 (2019)). Adopt code amendments January 2024 CD General Fund 3.3 3-3.1: Objective Design Standards: SB 330 for Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Developments Pursuant to SB 330, establish development standards and design guidelines for mixed-use and multi-family developments by the end of 2023 to ensure City requirements are objective, neutral, and feasible. This will include increasing story limits for multi-family development projects to accommodate the allowable density on opportunity sites. Prior to the adoption of objective standards, City will continue to apply current design standards. Adopt code amendments December 2023 CD General Fund 3.3 3-3.2: Maintain Community Design and Character The City recognizes the importance of maintaining the character of Saratoga’s neighborhoods while removing governmental constraints to the development of affordable housing. In order to ensure quality design of new housing units and modifications to existing housing units, the City will develop and adopt objective design standards for residential developments in accordance with State regulations which mandates streamlined, ministerial approval of residential developments meeting specified affordability thresholds. Adopt code amendments January 2024 CD General Fund 3.3 3-3.3: Preserve the Historic Character of Saratoga Village The City promotes preservation of the community’s historic downtown district referred to as “Saratoga Village,” and designated on the City’s adopted Land Use Map as the “Saratoga Village Plan Area.” The City’s preservation efforts include:  Adoption of detailed Village Design Guidelines in 2019 which regulate design, Review and update the Village Design Guidelines for compliance with SB 35. January 2024 CD General Fund 203 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-13 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE development, and land use in the Village Plan Area, and  Cooperative programs with the Saratoga Village Development Council, a partner to the Chamber of Commerce that funds minor improvements throughout the Village Area and promotes commercial and community activities. Goal 4. Access to Housing Opportunities 4.1 4-1.1: 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 up to 50 percent (depending on the affordability provided by the housing project) when requested by the project sponsor and must provide up to three development design incentives or concessions unless specific findings can be made. The City of Saratoga has adopted Density Bonus provisions within Section 15-81 of its Zoning Code consistent with State law. Annual assessment for consistency. Ongoing CD General Fund 4.2 4-2.1: Reasonable Accommodation Procedures To comply with State law (SB 520 (2001)), 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 provides informational brochures and includes information on the City’s website to inform residents of the Reasonable Accommodation Procedures. Every 3 years evaluate regulations and determine if changes are needed Ongoing CD General Fund 204 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-14 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE 4.2 4-2.2: 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. Many of their clients with developmental disabilities live with a parent or guardian. As these parents age and become frailer, their adult disabled children 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 further implement their existing outreach program informing Saratoga families of housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities, which currently includes a page on the City of Saratoga website that contains a list of service providers for residents. This page includes a description of the services offered by SARC and a link to contact SARC to obtain additional information. Provide informational flyers with service providers at the public counter for interested residents. Coordinate with the SARC to implement an outreach program for Saratoga families and provide information on the City’s website and at the public counter. Initiate by July 2023 and maintain throughout planning period on an annual basis. CD General Fund 4.3 4-3.1: Development of Housing for Extremely Low Income 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 encourages development of housing for extremely low-income households through a variety of activities that include: Meet with Santa Clara County’s Urban County Program annually to assess CDBG and HOME, and other programs to promote Initiate by 2023 and meet throughout planning period on an annual basis. CD General Fund 205 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-15 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE  Outreach to housing developers (refer to Policy Action 5-1.2),  Identifying grant and funding opportunities,  Offering additional incentives beyond the density bonus provisions, and/or  A one-time ten percent (10%) increase in site coverage and allowable floor area for accessory dwelling units deed restricted for below market rate households. development of housing for lower incomes. 4.3 4-3.2: Housing 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. As part of the proposed inclusionary housing ordinance (Policy 5-1.1), the City will implement a local preference program that prioritizes Saratoga workers and persons with special needs. The city will also continue to look for opportunities to increase public awareness of the City’s housing assistance programs such as partnering with West Valley College to explore student and faculty housing development and other employers in Saratoga (churches, etc.). Adopted code amendment and engage with 5-7 employers each year. January 2024 CD General Fund Goal 5: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 5.1 5-1.1: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Amend the Zoning Code to require new multi‐family housing developments consisting of five or more units will be required to dedicate 15 percent of the units as affordable housing to moderate income households. Adopt code amendment January 2024 CD General Fund 5.1 5-1.2: Partnerships with Affordable 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 Create mechanisms to collaborate further with these organizations. Evaluate partnerships meet throughout planning period on an annual basis. CD General Fund 206 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-16 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE 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 affordable housing developers and seek ways to expand and foster its partnerships as appropriate. 5.1 5-1.3: Affirmatively Market Affordable Housing Developments Require affordable housing developments be affirmatively marketed to households with disproportionate housing needs, including renters, low-income households, and seniors on fixed incomes and persons from these populations that do not currently live in Saratoga. This would include translation of materials and sharing information with community organizations that serve these populations, such as legal service or public health providers. All marketing plans would include strategies to reach groups with disproportionate housing needs. Affordable housing projects and available affordable units are advertised to at least 3 community organizations. Ongoing. Marketing plans are submitted at time of building inspection. CD General Fund 5.2 5-2.1: Promote Fair Housing Efforts The City currently disseminates fair housing information packets about Fair Housing Regulations and refers discrimination complaints to the Mid- Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing or to the County of Santa Clara County Office of Consumer Affairs. The City will continue to participate in the County’s mediation program and will continue to support these organizations which provide fair housing assistance including landlord/tenant counseling, homebuyer assistance, and amelioration or removal of identified impediments. Create mechanisms to collaborate further with these organizations. Meet with these organizations twice annually. CD General Fund 207 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-17 POLICY INDEX PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE/METRIC TIME FRAME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINANCING SOURCE 5.2 5-2.2: Develop Comprehensive Outreach Strategy for Housing To ensure the Saratoga community is provided the highest level of access to housing information, the City shall re-evaluate the effectiveness of existing outreach and community education efforts and update the City’s 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, as well as target the population groups that are most underserved in Saratoga such as renters, low-income households, and seniors on fixed incomes. Reach additional households, especially renters, low- income households, and seniors on fixed incomes. Re-evaluate existing outreach within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption. CD General Fund 5.3 5-3.1: Fair Housing Webpage Create a webpage specific to fair housing including resources for residents who feel they have experienced discrimination, information about filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD, and information about protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. Increase participants in fair housing programs. Establish webpage by December 2023 CD General Fund 5.3 5-3.2: Fair Housing Training Partner with Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing or the County of Santa Clara County Office of Consumer Affairs to publicize fair housing training for landlords and tenants. The training would include information on reasonable accommodation and source of income discrimination, as well as other fair housing information with emphasis on certain topics driven by housing complaint data and information from stakeholders. Participate in one workshops per year on fair housing rights and resources. Program design to track attendance completed by January 2024. Program launch March 2024. CD General Fund 208 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-18 7.3 2023-2031 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 7-2 shows Saratoga’s objectives for new construction, housing rehabilitation and preservation of at-risk housing. TABLE 7-2: HOUSING ELEMENT QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 2023-2031 PROGRAM QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE NEW CONSTRUCTION Extremely Low-Income1 227 Very Low-Income 227 Low-Income 261 Moderate-Income 278 Above Moderate-Income 719 Total 1,712 HOUSING REHABILITATION Very Low-Income 0 Low-Income 0 Moderate-Income Not Applicable Above Moderate-Income 16 Total 16 PRESERVATION OF AT-RISK RENTAL HOUSING Extremely Low-Income2 85 Very Low-Income 85 Low-Income 0 Moderate-Income 0 Above Moderate-Income Not Applicable Total 170 1 Extremely low-income assumed to be 50% of very low-income allocation. 2 As affordability in Saratoga’s 170 rent-restricted units is tied to Section 8 contracts (with subsidy levels based on tenant income), an estimated half of these units are assumed to be occupied by extremely low-income households, and half occupied by very low-income households. Source: County of Santa Clara Department of Planning & Development 209 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-19 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 812 units, where 715 units is the Quantified Objective. These will be addressed through: • Opportunity Sites providing 359 units (Very Low-Income). • Opportunity Sites providing 165 units (Low-Income). • Accessory Dwelling Units providing 144 units (30% for Very Low-Income of 480 units). • Accessory Dwelling Units providing 144 units (30% each for Low-Income of 480 units). The total sites capacity within the Moderate-Income category accommodates up to 316 units, where 278 units is the Quantified Objective. These will be addressed through: • Opportunity Sites providing 172 units. • Accessory Dwelling Units providing 144 units (30% of 480 units). The total sites capacity within the Above Moderate-Income category accommodates up to 777 units where 719 units is the Quantified Objective. These will be addressed through: • Pipeline Projects providing 90 units. • Pending Approval Projects providing 62 units. • Opportunity Sites providing 517 units. • Vacant sites providing 60 units. • Accessory Dwelling Units providing 48 units (10% of 480 units). 210 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | 7-20 This page intentionally left blank 211 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-1 APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY OUTREACH INTRODUCTION The Government Code requires that jurisdictions demonstrate a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community when updating the Housing Elements of their General Plan. Recognizing that broad-based community participation is essential to preparing meaningful and implementable housing policy and program, the City of Saratoga carried out comprehensive community outreach activities related to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update throughout the 2021 and 2022 calendar years. These activities, and the input gathered from the community from each activity, are detailed below by outreach method. Housing Element Update Webpage The City of Saratoga created a special projects webpage within the City’s official website to serve as an online landing page for information distribution and public participation efforts related to the Housing Element Update. The webpage provides relevant information such as State housing regulations, the update process, materials related to upcoming and past community meetings, the City’s RHNA, and housing sites. Over the course of the housing element update, the Housing Element Update webpage became the third most viewed page on the City’s website having been visited over 6,601 times. Additionally, “housing” was the sixth most searched term on the City’s website, searched 67 times, and “housing element update” was searched 51 times. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WEBPAGE 212 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-2 E-Newsletter In conjunction with the Housing Element Update webpage, the City also created a Housing Element Update E-Newsletter that residents could subscribe to on the City’s website. Subscribed residents received electronic newsletter correspondence every 1-2 weeks that provided regular updates related to the Housing Element Update. Information included general news regarding the update process, upcoming community meetings, and other available engagement tools related to the Housing Element. At the end of community outreach efforts, a total of 467 residents had subscribed to the E-Newsletter and newsletters had an average “open rate” of 61 percent among subscribers. This means 61% of newsletter recipients opened the newsletter email which is relatively high when compared to the 21- 29% open rate typical of government agency correspondence. Additionally, information from the Housing Element Update Newsletter was included in the City’s weekly Saratoga Source newspaper a total of 19 times, ensuring newsletter outreach was more far reaching than just online subscribers. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE NEWSLETTER 213 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-3 Community Meetings & Public Hearings Several community meetings related to the Housing Element Update were conducted. These meetings were advertised citywide and open to the general public for participation. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic that persisted throughout community outreach efforts, many of these meetings were conducted virtually. A summary of each meeting is provided below: Santa Clara County “Let’s Talk Housing” Community Meeting #1 On August 9, 2021, the City of Saratoga participated in one of five, Santa Clara County Countywide “Let’s Talk Housing” virtual community meetings hosted by the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative. This meeting series was intended to introduce the public to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The August 9, 2021, meeting also included participation on behalf of the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, and Monte Sereno. Planning Commission Community Meetings The City of Saratoga Planning Commission conducted a total of 4 community meetings in relation to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. A list of the meetings is included below. • October 27, 2021, Community Meeting • November 9, 2021, Community Meeting • November 22, 2021, Community Meeting • December 7, 2021, Community Meeting City Council Meetings The City of Saratoga City Council held a total of 6 community meetings in relation to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. A list of these meetings is included below. Meeting minutes for each of the below hearings are attached to this Appendix. • December 14, 2021, Planning Commission and City Council Joint Study Session • January 10, 2022, Special Meeting • January 19, 2022, Regular Meeting • January 20, 2022, Special Meeting • January 28, 2022, Special Meeting COMMUNITY MEETING ADVERTISEMENT 214 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-4 • February 16, 2022, Regular Meeting Small Group Meetings In addition to public community meetings, the City of Saratoga also created an online form which allowed residents and community members to request smaller group meetings related to the City’s 6th cycle update process. This form allowed residents, neighborhood watch groups, homeowner associations, and other community organizations to request more one-on-one discussions regarding the Housing Element Update. On March 29, 2022, Mayor Zhao and staff attended a small group community meeting regarding the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update coordinated by local realtor Coco Tan. The meeting was held t from 5:30 pm to 6:30 pm over Zoom with over 100 persons, predominately from the local Chinese community in attendance. Many had not participated in the City-hosted community meetings and were learning about the Housing Element Update for the first time. The attendees had questions for staff about RHNA and other State Housing laws including SB 35 and SB 9. The City also met with Housing Choices, an advocacy group that enhances the lives of people with developmental and other disabilities and their families by creating and supporting quality, affordable housing opportunities. In addition, the City did target outreach to a variety of groups like the Saratoga Retirement Community, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council. Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, Saratoga Ministerial Association, St. Andrew’s Men’s Group, the Sister City Group, and several Neighborhood Watch groups. The City also held a series of property owners and developers that expressed an interest in developing certain housing opportunity sites. SMALL GROUP MEETING REQUEST ONLINE FORM 215 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-5 Postcards A physical postcard regarding the Housing Element Update was mailed citywide to over 12,000 residential and business addresses in March, June, September, and December 2021. Postcards were utilized to disseminate information to residents regarding housing element update activities including scheduled community meetings and the online Housing Element Value Survey. The March, June, and September postcards were also translated to Chinese. All postcards were made available online and in person at City Hall. The March and June postcards were all distributed in person at the local Farmer’s Market. Housing Element Update Video Series To provide residents and community stakeholders with educational information related to the Housing Element Update process including a general overview, the relevant legal framework, and RHNA requirements, the City of Saratoga created a video series related to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The series plus two community meeting presentations were posted to the City’s YouTube page and viewed a total of 2,626 times over the course of the update process. The table below includes a list of the topics covered by the video series as well as the number of times each video was viewed: TABLE A-1: HOUSING ELEMENT VIDEO SERIES VIEWS VIDEO NUMBER OF VIEWS VIDEO 1: HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW 870 VIDEO 2: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION 424 VIDEO 3: HOUSING ELEMENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 274 VIDEO 4: PARTICIPATE IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 239 VIDEO 5: HOUSING ELEMENT PRIORITIES AND VALUES 406 VIDEO 6: HOUSING ELEMENT GLOSSARY 125 VIDEO 7: COMMUNITY MEETING PRESENTATION (APRIL 2021) 187 VIDEO 8: COMMUNITY MEETING PRESENTATION (JUNE 2021) 101 TOTAL 2,626 Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department as of June 2, 2022 HOUSING ELEMENT CITYWIDE POSTCARD 216 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-6 City Social Media Pages As part of community outreach efforts, the City of Saratoga utilized the City’s social media profiles on platforms such as Facebook and Nextdoor to compliment the City’s various other community outreach efforts. Using both Facebook and Nextdoor, a neighborhood-oriented social media platform, the City created various posts promoting housing element update activities including upcoming engagement opportunities like community meetings and next steps in the overall update process. In addition to providing for the distribution of information related to the housing element update process these social media platforms also allow residents to “react” and express their views related to the update process in a less formal setting such as a public community meeting. Housing Element Values Survey As part of community outreach efforts, the City of Saratoga also conducted a Housing Element Values Survey from June through July of 2021. The Survey was publicly circulated to city residents to gain an understanding of resident and community stakeholders’ community values and priorities regarding the housing element update process. The 14-question Survey was made available to residents via the City’s website and advertised via citywide postcard mailers. This Survey was intended to gauge the community’s values and priorities regarding key topics involved in the housing element update process. The City received over 743 survey responses, the results of which are detailed below CITY OF SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE FACEBOOK POST 217 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-7 218 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-8 219 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-9 220 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-10 221 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-11 222 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-12 223 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-13 224 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-14 TABLE A-2: RESPONSES TO HOUSING ELEMENT VALUE SURVEY QUESTION NUMBER 11 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 Mixed use development is the best way to get diverse living and working environments. Mixed use in shopping area formerly occupied by gene's grocery? Mixed use in village? Multi-family units adjacent to existing shopping areas & along major street routes (Saratoga Ave, Saratoga Sunnyvale rd.)? Mixed use in commercial area on west side of Saratoga Sunnyvale rd. In area including jake's pizza? Monte serena built what they call some affordable housing & they have not sold any of their units on the la hacienda property. Property is so expensive as in Saratoga that no one who needs affordable property can afford a property even with the discount. More update about density of hr Most residents of Saratoga moved to this community for a less crowded, peaceful environment. We made sacrifices to be able to live here. Building multi-unit complexes in what are now primarily single-family home areas affect our property values and lifestyles. This is unacceptable. Are woodside, Atherton and los altos hills being required to build the same proportionate number of housing units?!?!! My family moved to Saratoga because of the schools and small-town feel, with primarily single-family homes on larger lots. We did not choose downtown San Jose or San Francisco with their different types of housing. No apartment complexes No high-density housing No housing units on Saratoga avenue. El paseo is scheduled to have high density housing installed so Saratoga avenue will become unusable. No multi story buildings at all in the triangle. Multiple stories in the downtown like a Santana row type is okay. Make offices spaces smaller and incorporate housing into these places, like intersection of cox and Saratoga Ave, there is expansive office buildings, and in front of the fire station there is office space that 225 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-15 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 could be repurposed. The non-essential commercial real-estate downtown, can be changes to housing and add a plaza in downtown and have studios in a mixed use for young and seniors by the Wells Fargo where the old supermarket was. Only build small ADU in the wui but not multi housing units. One problem the City needs to solve is traffic, where to place the new housing and what street improvements are needed. One solution that may encourage building of additional housing would be to offer financial incentives to single-family homeowners to construct new accessory dwelling units on their existing properties. The rent for these units would be less than for a full-size house in the same location, and would be appealing to local tech workers, students, and other people seeking a smaller unit (1-2 bedrooms/1-2 baths) for long term rentals. Dap Optimal strategy to meet the housing unit number would be large condo/townhome developments near the wineries; if you destroy what we worked so hard for, we will vote all of you out first chance we get. Our neighborhood is already changing due to people flipping houses and building new homes that don’t fit the neighborhood. I’m concerned that the character of Saratoga is changing. Losing genes market and the future development on that lot is a great concern. Pacific retirement services have submitted a master plan to the City. City reduced the requested amount of new independent living units from 82 to 52 because of the "generally limited to two stories" zoning policy. I believe the SCCFD can handle taller fires with a modest increase in equipment costs. Please consider adding back the 30 units that have been cut from the expansion of Saratoga retirement community and broadening the zoning for other parts of the city. People chose to live in Saratoga due to its more rural character. The lack of sidewalks and streetlights are an important part of the character of our city. Larger lot sizes and more open space is one of our most desirable assets. No public transportation on most of our streets is in keeping with the character of our city. I am opposed to ADU built as rental dwellings but accept their use for family members, particularly elderly parents. This would not add more traffic or burden our resources. I also feel building smaller homes for seniors might encourage selling of many homes in our city occupied by only one senior citizen because they do not want to leave their hometown. This would make large homes available to families wanting to move to Saratoga. Builders would need to encourage in some way to build homes that are single story and geared to seniors and with services close by, i.e., grocery store, restaurants, services that would be in walking distance for seniors who just need to downsize but stay in their community. People come here for the great schools, but now there is declining enrollment because families can't afford to live here. We have many friends with young families who are dual income, had a desire to move to Saratoga, but could not afford to live in Saratoga, and instead moved to Sunnyvale and Campbell instead. They are smart, college educated, hard-working, and high-income families. Those cities are getting more and more of these families while Saratoga misses out by keeping with the status quo. Also, the many single- family houses in Saratoga look old and run-down. More & newer high-density housing - such as multi-family townhomes - would spruce up the look and feel and attract more businesses. Also, increases safety. When I look at the crime in Saratoga, it is mostly targeted at the sprawling single family homes. Meanwhile, my townhome community rarely has crime. All the neighbors know each other and look out for each other. There are many young families in our townhome community where kids play together outside. That's probably how Saratoga was 20 years ago when most the single-family homes contained children. Mixed use development could go a long way to bring new energy into Saratoga, the way Los Gatos and Los Altos have thriving and vibrant downtown districts without sacrificing the character of those cities. People want to live in Saratoga be of the rural, village look and feel; good schools; quality homes with yards large enough for families to gather and kids to play; peaceful neighborhoods; owners who take care of their 226 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-16 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 properties and thus retain the quality of the city. Thousands of housing units have been built within 10 miles of Saratoga and remain empty as rents are very high and not affordable for lower income people. Building a lot more of the same will not help house the most vulnerable and there is very limited public transportation or large shopping centers/amenities to support many incoming residents. If Santa Clara County is serious about affordable housing, then it should lower/subsidize the rents on the new vacant apartments already built-in public transportation corridors - don’t make cities build more of the same. Perhaps parts of the heritage orchard could be used for new housing (say, for seniors), in a strip between the library and sacred heart church. Quito village also seems eligible for some "dense" housing. (We sorely miss gene's) Planning the land use is not just a function of what price range of housing is provided, but transportation and other facilities. Low-income units are likely to require mass transit alternatives as well, with private cars being less likely. You can't plan one, without the other. Additionally, the only way you could get low-income housing in the area is to go straight up - way up. Please build more multibooting units in Saratoga rather than single family. Please consider building housing on the vacant lot near corner of Saratoga aver and Cox Ave. As well as at gene's quit market area. Less problematic going 3 stories there as there are tall trees and a creek adjacent. Hope newly approved dementia care facility near there will count as housing units as well. Please consider that residents have chosen to live in areas without a lot of traffic, including traffic from out of this area, and if in a single family home or a duplex, a truly residential uncongested area, that allowing a SFR to be replaced by a multi-unit housing / apt building with tenants that have no ties to the area or community standards & cause traffic is severely impacting the quality of life that people have chosen & paid for without regard for them. I know there are ca requirements coming, but there are areas within Saratoga that are more appropriate for such new housing than long established SFR areas. Please discuss covid19's impact on shifting work and commute patterns and push back on state mandates. Please do not allow the stringent rules to protect our trees to relax in any way. The character of Saratoga is based on its rural and wildlife community. Please do not make hillside and wildfire areas even more dangerous by increasing density in those areas. Please don’t add affordable housing as it increases crime rate Please don't ruin the character of our city. Please ensure that policies for below market rate will not house registered sex offenders. Please go with the public priorities Please keep Saratoga a primarily single-family residential area. The high-density housing does not fit Saratoga and. They are better suited for larger cities like San Jose. Please keep Saratoga semi-rural. It's a very beautiful city and natural areas should remain that way. If construction must be built, then please build over the shopping strips and churches (there are too many of them). Please keep the quality and the character of the community the same. Please respect our intelligence and don't tell us it won't change things. Even your list of priorities is filled with one-sidedness. Instead of asking us what we believe the priorities should be you give us 8 options 5-7 of which many, many people would not even consider if it was not listed as an option. You will then use the results to say what people want based on the preferences listed - - when they are your preferences, not the people's. For example, you phrase one priority as "limiting growth in hillsides and areas at risk for wildfire" without giving an option to build in the hillsides. Clearly the way it is phrased you are telling people they are bad if they want to build in the hills, so it 227 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-17 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 is not even an option. I am not necessarily saying that more growth in the hillsides would be a good idea, but by essentially saying if we do this they will most likely burn down (by phrasing it the way you did) rather than phrasing it "would you be willing to build on the hillsides if steps for fire prevention were taken" would be another way to phrase it. Clearly there are certain results you want from this survey based on the way you have phrased it. I did not complete the priority list because to do so would force me to place something in the #2 slot when i don't think anything should be in the number 2 slot. I would consider a couple of other options but by putting one of them in the number2 slot and a third in the number 3 slot would unduly emphasize its importance to me. So, I opted to only list one. I assume the argument is that all the proposed building/housing changes would be positive. If it was all positive, why would they (the state) must force us. In my opinion it should be the city's position to oppose the state mandate. Such a move by the state will bring down the property values and increase safety concerns here which constitutes a "taking" of property in violation of the constitution. The city should be fighting this mandate. The citizens of Saratoga have built and maintained this community for over 100 years without anyone telling us what to build or how to build. Push back on the state and insist that they build affordable housing themselves rather than force their will on us. There are many places where there is little to no housing. Build there. Those of us who have worked hard to afford to live here should not be cast to the side. Please keep the Safeway/CVS at argonaut center. There is no other nearby place for grocery shopping for people living on the west side of Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road. Please keep the same neighborhood as much as possible is there any way we reduce the number of new units Please please factor in traffic safety with all plans. These roads can barely handle the amount of traffic now. Also, with hwy 85, Lawrence expwy, hwy 9, and Quito rd. All serve as "cut throughs" for surrounding cities adding to our congestion. This would be #1 Please preserve the semi-rural upper scale neighborhood as much as possible and limit high-density development to protect the environment. Multi-family and townhouses should be limited to the villages by converting the area into a mixed-use community. Please stop adding housing to roads that are at or over capacity. If we are going to add this many houses, then the traffic situation must be addressed. There are already some severe problems with capacity and speeding. This is part and parcel of adding more people and cars. Please treat all Saratoga the same, not higher privileges for hill sides of Saratoga. Please we need another grocery store in town. Genes is missed. We have one actual grocery store excluding sprouts and to. Los Gatos has 4 excluding to. Please, please, please, please, do everything in your legal and lawful power as city of Saratoga staff and elected officials, to preserve the single family detached zoning of Saratoga, while complying with all state laws, but doing everything to preserve as much of the semi-rural appearance of Saratoga. Please follow the legal strategy of cities such as Portola valley, and woodside to keep Saratoga semi-rural looking. As for affordable housing, more and more people are leaving the San Francisco Bay area, for lower cost of housing cities, so housing costs will eventually start to level off in the San Francisco Bay area, as the population decreases. Preserve argonaut shopping center do not build high density housing there. We have already lost Quito shopping center. Preserve Saratoga characters. Preserve the character of Saratoga! That means keeping low profile buildings and as much foliage as possible. We don't want a big city feeling, but more of a small-town feeling. 228 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-18 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 Preserving the "character" of Saratoga that my family and I have enjoyed for over 50 years. Preserving the character of Saratoga village is essential. There is scope for more efficient use of space that could help accomplish the goal of the housing element but given the historic character of the village area, overdevelopment or zoning changes would destroy its uniqueness. Priority ranking not working properly. In order of ranking: #1 preserving current character of single-family neighborhoods. #2 retaining a practice of generally limiting buildings to 2 stories #3 requiring construction of significant affordable housing #4 preserving existing commercial locations, including providing grocery stores. Promote using the existing railroad track for commute traffic, with Saratoga stops, and prioritize building high density housing near these stops. Re the next question: I attended the; first small group presentation which was made to the St. Andrew's episcopal church men's group. Residents of Saratoga have paid a huge premium to live here because this community is exclusive with predominantly single-family homes and fewer commercial establishments. Let’s not dilute the residents' investment by turning the city into a high occupancy one that increases traffic and makes it more congested Retain quality education in public schools. Have an adequate transportation infrastructure and assessment of traffic in new housing areas. Retaining as much the single-family homes as possible (or at least townhomes with yards while working to retain the general character and skyline of Saratoga should be considered. Tall buildings will change the skyline for the worse...and this is unique to the character of Saratoga. Safety from crime, burglaries, muggings, thefts is a major priority for me. The more low-end rental properties you have, I worry, the more crime we will have. I am not biased against any group of any type. Just a fact of life. I value my family's and property's safety. I think multi-purpose buildings (commercial on the ground floor, residential above) in downtown Saratoga or in the way is a great idea. Sand hill properties lied to Sunnyvale and declared bankruptcy to get out of their commitments with the town center project, have lied and sued Cupertino over the Valdo mall redevelopment and want cities to provide them with tax breaks etc. For their profit over the true benefit of community partnership. Beware they will not be trustworthy concerning the Quito shopping Centre redevelopment. They also run dark Pac’s and try to manipulate council elections. Santana row type structures do not belong is Saratoga. Leave that for San Jose....... Saratoga (and the rest of the bay area) should seek 0 population growth and no increase in density. Increasing either of these will increase congestion, increase water requirements, negatively impact air quality, and generally reduce resident access to other cities, parks, natural resources, etc. Saratoga already has major traffic issues created by the hwy 85 on-ramp/exits, west valley college, and parents dropping off and picking up students from school. Adding mixed-use projects, and higher density housing just compounds the traffic issues and puts more strain on infrastructure and city resources. How does the housing element address these already existing issues? Saratoga avenue cannot take on more traffic burden. Saratoga should be allowed to remain a small, non- urbanized community. Saratoga has no room for so many units Saratoga is a small city and to add 1700 new units would be very challenging. Saratoga is at risk of being passed up by its neighboring communities for desirability. Intelligent and hard- working young families with high combined incomes are now moving into Campbell, San Jose, & Sunnyvale 229 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-19 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 and putting down roots there because a SFH in Saratoga costs $3.5 million and there aren't enough newer $2-2.5 million townhomes to live in. This problem has a network effect and unless we allow more newer development that young families can afford, neighboring cities will surpass Saratoga, leaving it in the dust as a declining retirement community. It may be worth pointing out that allowing for higher density (lot splits, re- zoning to allow multi-family development) increases the value of Saratoga residents' current properties. Being able to build multiple townhomes or 2 SFHs + ADU where one house currently exists makes the land much more valuable to a buyer. An average SFH in Saratoga is 50 years old and costs $3.5 million (before renovations). Most young families with combined incomes > $500k can comfortably afford a home in the $2- 2.5 million range and prefer newer construction. Young families are an asset to cities - they spend money downtown, are active in communities, reset property tax assessments when they move in, and bring a younger energy and watchful eye on safety to the city's streets, parks & libraries. I grew up in Saratoga when 6 of the 8 homes on my street had young kids in the school system. Today, that street only has 1 household with kids that are school age. Everyone else on that street is retiring in place. Saratoga could allow more multi-family townhome developments in areas currently zoned for single family - these areas can be safer because more families who know each other can look out for one other on their street. Provided development meets stringent fire safety codes, allowing higher density in the wildland urban interface area would be pragmatic. Saratoga could also allow for lot splits down to a minimum lot size (ex: 7500 sq ft lot), so larger lots could be better utilized. Lot splits that result in a new SFH + ADU (which would still cost $2.5m+ new) would be a great way to create new housing options for younger families while retaining Saratoga’s character and meeting the 1700+ home target. Saratoga is now already crowded and should not make it more crowded. Saratoga seems destined to miss the 2015-2023 housing element target. What will the consequence be? If it is to miss the 2023-2031 target again, will the consequence be worse? Saratoga should not comply with the state on adding 1,700 units. If the state withholds money from the city, then that is worth it to keep Saratoga’s semi-rural character. There is nothing to prevent the state from requiring Saratoga to build another 2,000 units once the 1,700 units are finished in the years to come. Cupertino sold its soul years ago and now they have a crime problem, a homeless problem and has now become a smaller version of San Jose. Saratoga shouldn't be a generic community. It has a personality needing to be maintained. Mixed income housing is lovely but should fit into the culture and look of the community. We can be diverse without losing our identity. See below. We must go up in certain locations. Condominiums multi story. Should allow some larger lot to be subdivided Should build 3 stories in village. More life downtown Some of the parts of the survey did not work. I use a mac. State should not dictate our city. State-mandated housing development in local communities is an overreach by state legislators. Local communities must retain local control over housing development. State legislators are pressuring massive, high-density development while ignoring massive climate change, declining water supply, degraded power supply, deteriorating infrastructure, adverse impact on local government and services. Prefer higher marginal state income taxes which can be redistributed to lower 50% income levels which would provide more housing choices to people vs. Forcing higher density housing upon communities. 230 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-20 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 Tell the state to wake up. State should not mandate housing units. The demand should promote construction! We have too many people in ca and forcing more housing units will increase costs, traffic, pollutions, congestions, accidents, etc. The argonaut shopping center is an essential resource for the Saratoga community in providing access to food, health care supplies, financial services, and more. In addition to this critical value, it adds to the community daily, as a commercial center, it drives business and long-term growth for the city. To sustain community access to essential resources and maintain a long-term perspective, the argonaut shopping center must be preserved as is. The building limits on existing homes and new homes should be revised. Expanding square footage and height restriction above 26 ft for large acre lots to modernize the existing neighborhoods and attract younger families. The planning commission is forcing home design like the 1960s and the needs/desires have changed. The current planning and development rules are quite archaic and restrictive causing Saratoga to deteriorate as a desirable community. The shared community infrastructure - downtown Saratoga, sidewalks, small parks, road medians, waste, setbacks/brush needs significant focus. Doesn't take a lot of funding, but rather just care, modernization, and pride of ownership. Highway 9 from big basin to monte Sereno should be a beautiful drive into downtown Saratoga. Downtown Saratoga is old and needs major improvements. Without a downtown, adding housing will not help. The city has a very difficult job in front of them. Some residents have resided here for decades because of the quality of life of a small town/village. More recently, high income families have moved here because Saratoga has maintained its high standards. Although there is not a lot of retail business in Saratoga, that has not negatively impacted the quality of life for its residents. I wonder how a town/village can maintain its high quality of life when it must conform to mandates by the state/federal governments. Nothing stays the same forever but preserving the attractive qualities of a town is imperative if we want to maintain the high quality of life for its residents. The city of Saratoga and the state of California’s housing element proposal will not only destroy the bucolic nature of the city, but it will also destroy our property values. Saratoga can't possibly accommodate in any appropriate way the unreasonable number of dwellings suggested. The city of Saratoga is called the tree city for a reason - creating a dense network of houses will really destroy the character of this beautiful city. The city should not increase the density in the way areas since there is limited access routes on winding, rural roads which could put lives at risk in an evacuation for fire or another emergency. A study by Berkeley researchers concludes that low density is necessary in the high fire areas. The city should try to spread out new housing in different parts of the city and avoid concentrating all the new housing in one location. The council should appeal the state's requirement for so much housing. Saratoga only has 6 square miles outside of the hillside areas and there are already too many homes in that small space. It is not a reasonable requirement for our small semi-urban community. The current limits on building height seem overly restrictive in areas on or near commercial zones, 4stories seems reasonable with current housing demand The current state politicians are concerned about pollution, and they want to add 3400 or more cars to the city. Doesn't make sense. The housing mandate has already adversely impacted the Quito neighborhood. Please try to spread the impact from an increase in population density and increase in traffic around by allowing for 20,000 sq ft and larger lots to be subdivided. I think adding mixed retail with housing above at argonaut is feasible. I don't 231 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-21 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 want to lose more commercial space to housing. Grocery stores, coffee shops, restaurants, dry cleaners, tailors, shoe repair, hair salons etc., must go somewhere. I do not want to see skyscrapers in Saratoga. It would completely ruin the character of our city. Part of the reason we live here is being able to see the hillside. The housing should be distributed across the whole city!!! Not just loaded into one corner because it is already having mixed housing. In other words, the "wealthy" areas of Saratoga should have additional housing too! "Preserving the current character" is a way of discriminating. The idea that Saratoga "needs" 1700 new housing units is completely unrealistic. With ever improving remote working options and the expectation of continued increases in the cost of living in the bay area, planning for even more (state-mandated) housing in Saratoga is clearly a fool's errand. This strategy of "forcing affordable housing" upon all communities ignores the immense public subsidies this will require. Additionally, the community infrastructure (roads, police & fire protection, etc.) Needed to support such an influx of newly housed residents never seems to be planned for (and realistically costed out) leading to permanent & significant degradation of the quality of life for all residents. My $0.02. The limited water supply is inconsistent with the city’s growth projections. The priority ranking survey (sort 1 to 8 in importance) should really be two surveys, one on values for what is important for Saratoga’s character, and the other on which strategies/tactics to meet the housing goals are most preferred. I like that Saratoga feels like a suburb to me, and not sprawl. I live on a street where kids can play on the street, where there are very few cars parked on the street, and where you can see the hills. The views, and trees, are important. None of the strategies must conflict with the above, but they all can. It all depends on how they are implemented. The property next to marshal lane elementary school, how many homes are slated for that huge piece of property? The quality of life in Saratoga is generally based on single family homes and I would prefer to see it remain that way. I understand the need to add housing and would prefer to see a Santana row model downtown. I have no problem with some development in the hills. This is a bedroom community and that's it's charm. I don't want that to be lost. I do like the idea of mixed-use housing and commercial.... It’s much like the European model and it works there. The ranking is difficult as some of the choices could work under certain circumstances. Older ADUlts and students are not the same and shouldn't be combined. I welcome additional senior housing, multistory units if required, as I feel it's important for seniors to be able to stay in the communities where they have friends and family and familiar surroundings or offer housing to seniors from surrounding communities. Preserving grocery stores isn't mutually exclusive to mixed use. We could possibly take the south end and north end of the argonaut shopping center for several 2story townhomes or condos, but leave the grocery store, CVS, ace. Then there is the little area across from argonaut which could be an entire row of 2 story townhomes or condos. The railroad section at stg/Sunnyvale, while being an opportunity for multiple units, it would be a detraction to the local area if there was anything over 3 stories, especially if garages were put under dwellings. While I am not opposed to affordable units being "considered" in all development projects, I do not believe it should be a requirement. E.g., would a developer who is developing two, adjoining, single family home properties be required to make one affordable, by the nature of splitting to make three? The state mandate for "affordable" (a euphemism for "low-income") housing is a thinly disguised leftist feel- good initiative aimed at destroying the quality of life for high-earning residents of the bay area. It is imperative that the Saratoga school district not be overwhelmed with low-income students or otherwise have its high standing diluted. 232 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-22 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 The state should not be able to dictate local zoning requirements. That is a matter for the citizens of Saratoga to decide. The states mandate is ridiculous and should be waived for small communities like Saratoga. The streets of Saratoga are already crowded without adding 1700 more homes. I don't know where the city is going to put that many houses. I don't like what's going to be built at Quito center or El paseo de Saratoga. The next big piece of land is at the corner of Saratoga and cox. I would rather have seen the senior housing built there than a sprawling bunch of homes or a large box store. The village is a great legacy, please reserve. The other commercial/shops are good to have in the city, but they do not add unique value to the city. Converting the commercial/shops (such as Quito Plaza, argonaut plaza) to residential might be a good idea. The wild land urban interface should be preserved, i.e., no intrusion allowed. There are several vacant houses in Saratoga. They have absentee owners that do not contribute to the neighborhoods and don't allow for families in need of housing. There are enough people here, there is no water, the streets are worn. And the quality of neighbors is awful, beautiful but horrid place to live. My family has lived here since 1954 and this place is in decline. There is a limit to how much housing Saratoga can tolerate while retaining its unique character. The abundance of traffic and the scarcity of water should also be factored in. There should be affordable housing for teachers and policeman, we need good teachers that live in the community. If policemen live in the community, they will feel a personal commitment and understanding for the community. This can be a great opportunity to be creative and build a more vibrant, exciting community. We can build on our heritage and provide a town that promotes and celebrates the old west. We could have horse and buggy rides, stagecoaches parked in front of banks for kids to climb on, tour guides, affordable restaurants promoting fun healthy foods to go along with horseback riding. Eat like a horse restaurant serving whole grains with fruits etc. A happy hog restaurant which has a smiling pig asking us to eat more vegetables, corn, phone baloney sandwiches, I’m envisioning a mixed-use town modeled on Santana row with residents living in town above retail stores. Merchants dressing in period costumes. Etc. Etc. Let’s make Saratoga exciting. Property values and businesses could soar. Let’s share ideas This doesn’t seem to take into consideration the logistics of road congestion. Saratoga has more limited in routes, than other cities. Thus, adding high density housing is unimaginable. This requirement of 1700 homes have the potential to ruin the reason why Saratoga is special. What a shame. This is a personal request/plea regarding density near the area of Saratoga and cox avenues: the vineyards of Saratoga (where I reside) have 165 units. Across the street at Quito center, 90 more dwelling units will be built. An Alzheimer’s facility is scheduled to be built at the northwest corner of the Abrams property. There is a full freeway 85 interchange at this location, with all the attendant traffic, pollution, and noise. Please do not consider the Abrams property (pumpkin patch/queen's Christmas trees lot) for housing. It would be more equitable to spread the 1,700 dwelling units throughout the city. This is an incredibly difficult task, and one that we do not envy your taking on - particularly in an active, vocal, and engaged community like Saratoga. We hope you will seek to be wise for the long-term benefit of our community and region. This is an unfair burden being placed on small cities like ours. The city of Saratoga needs to take a firm and strong position now to protect our cities character, otherwise we will lose forever the essence of what draws 233 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-23 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 people to Saratoga. Saratoga is highly desired and valued by existing residents and by people moving in for its semi- rural charm. This needs to be valued and preserved. This is just not right. It will destroy the appeal of Saratoga. How will the city handle the additional schools and facilities required? This is not directly related to the housing element update, but why is there no decent grocery story in Saratoga? We miss genes market. I must drive to los Gatos (Lunardi’s) or Cupertino (whole foods) to shop for groceries. This will harm the quality of life in Saratoga. To support having younger family afford to buy homes in Saratoga, we must increase the density where possible and move away from the need to preserving village look and feel to accept that Saratoga is a part for bigger challenge in the bay area for affordable housing. Traffic and crime are becoming bigger and bigger problem. Traffic congestion is #1 concern. Community character (the feeling of a village) and neighborhood safety are #2. Creative use of existing commercial zones that can also integrate mixed-use housing makes a lot of sense to me. Traffic implications, particularly for hillsides, needs to be addressed. Traffic. The only areas with the road infrastructure to support more dense housing are the de Anza corridor and the Saratoga Ave/Quito corridor north of why 85. Ultimately, this is a fool's errand. We either preserve Saratoga as the pleasant, low density, semirural community of mostly single-family homes it is (and has been since it was incorporated), or we join San Jose in the ****-inaction of the bay area. Congestion, gridlock, and rabbit-hutch housing we do not need. Your choice. (In California anything like this takes three times longer and is five times costlier than originally projected, so I’ll be 105 when the first 20-story high-density apartment house breaks ground.) Use as many accessory units as possible to meet the mandate Use the shopping plaza where genes foods werE located as a new hip mixed use residential development. Do something - anything! - to refresh big basin commercial strip without turning it into los Gatos. Very concerned that parking be assessed before housing added. Granny units (if allowed) must be limited to onsite parking and one unit per single family home per lot. Was the mandate for 1,700 du made by the state legislature, or by un-named bureaucrats? We are against any further residential or commercial construction in Saratoga. The small-town charm will be destroyed. We are fortunate to have a lovely place to live in. Building 1,700 new homes in a wonderful opportunity to share our good fortune with others. We must wholeheartedly embrace it, be open and inviting to all demographics and economic status into our city. We are not impressed with the current council’s response to housing. Rishi Kumar is the only member fighting to save and preserve Saratoga’s rural setting for our future. We should be banning together with bay area cities and fight these RHNA numbers and bills like sb9 and other insane housing bills coming from our state govt. Evan low does not support Saratoga and should be recalled as well as other reps. Who push these insane housing bills! We are not interested in new housing. It will create more crime and less safety for the elderly population. We don't want higher density. Saratoga is full. 234 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-24 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 We have a big lot 3/4 acre with a perfect spot for a smaller house. Is there any way to split the lot so we could build one and have the new owner own the land too? We have a water shortage; horrible traffic and the 'crisis' does not seem as critical as the state legislature is making it appear. There are other ways to address the issues without causing long terms problems that elevate the crisis to and create more problems. Saratoga, unlike Cupertino and other nearby towns just does not have the space for more housing. We have lived in Saratoga for 30+ years because of its classic village style and atmosphere. Arbitrarily driving state housing rules like those will detract from Saratoga’s values. Keep Saratoga a village! We have no infrastructure to support these additional homes. How many of the new 1700 homes will be truly affordable -what is the pricing structure? We like the small-town Saratoga feel. To put high rise and low income ruins the quality of living and the expensive homes we bought for the small-town feel We live in Saratoga and thank God we enjoy the neighborhood we also understand that even our children as they finish college, they want affordable housing 1. We suggest city of Saratoga allow building multiple stories for each family to provide housing for parents and children. Meaning parents who already own a home being able to build multiple stories to satisfy need of their family. If the land is big, divide the land to multiple parcels to build smaller homes for parents and children. 2. If you don’t want to have affordable housing in Saratoga, then help and improve other neighborhoods and schools so people don’t want to al come to Saratoga for good public school. And, no, private school is not a solution as their tuitions are outrageous. We need more housing in the bay area! Saratoga should do its part to increase both the amount and variety of housing available. We live near the Quito center, and I was disappointed when an earlier mixed use redevelopment project was rejected by the city. I think the concerns about traffic and changing character of the city are very overblown. I personally think a little more density for more amenities and diversity is a good trade off. We need more nice shopping centers with high end grocery stores and other conveniences close by. We need affordable water and utilities to accommodate these new houses. More shops, not more high-density homes. We should never try to convert Saratoga into a city like Sunnyvale or mountain view just want to squeeze in more people. Preserve city of Saratoga. In addition, city needs to improve general utility conditions, particularly road quality. We were attracted to Saratoga because of its charm and low-density housing. It feels like living in the country with access to higher density venues such as San Jose where high rises and high-density housing makes sense. We were very disappointed with the construction of multimillion dollar units in monte Sereno that are very congested. Hopefully Saratoga will not do the same thing? What is the concrete plant Lehigh contributions (air pollution) to building housing here? What about water? Older independent seniors want a walkable neighborhood, bring fewer cars What will 1700 more homes do to traffic? When I drive around Saratoga, it seems like most of the available land is built out. The exception are the hillsides. California is suffering from water shortage, fires, and drought. Adding population and housing doesn't make sense. We only have one grocery store now in Saratoga. In los Gatos with similar population, there are 5. Thinking about getting rid of existing commercial space hurts the businesses already here, and 235 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-25 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 the people who depend on them. This needs to go through the town's planning commission, not be fast tracked. When we are planning for more housing units in the city of Saratoga, its influence on traffic into and out of the city should also be considered. It gets congested already on Saratoga aver not sure how it can be resolved or stayed unaffected if the city needs to accommodate more housing. When you allow additional 1700 new housing units, are you going to redraw the Saratoga and Campbell school district boundary? Where are the builders going to fit in 1700 housing units? While we could replace them with mixed used buildings, we need to maintain our commercial businesses so that residents have easy access to necessities. Our downtown area seems to be an excellent choice for such development and with increased residents in that area could add life and more to it. We need to be considering how to manage the increased travel needs of these residents, both with improved public transit and roads. Expanding housing in the hillsides is certainly worth examining but would require major access improvements to facilitate the higher amount of traffic. While we might need more housing, we can't destroy the defining characteristic of Saratoga! Primarily single- family homes (less than 2 stories) with access to nature and green cover is important for us to preserve. Why does the city have to build so many homes, its b.s. how can we fight this? Why is Saratoga just rolling over and accepting that they must build 1700 houses? There is not much available land in Saratoga. Building on the hillsides would be showing poor judgement. Push back against the state. Show your initiative. It is not responsible to add these many homes when there is not enough water, much fire danger, and no room in the schools for that many additional kids. Wy is the location at Saratoga ave.? And Quito Road and hwy 85, have a one-story limit? I call it the Saratoga Bermuda triangle. Will the current water shortage have any effect on the requirement to build more housing? With continued shortages of water, electricity, and other necessities, how can anyone justify building 1,700 more homes here? This is insanity! We need to keep the state and federal idiots out of our local politics! With housing plan, need to consider roads, bike paths, and walking paths. Consider grocery stores, etc. Within walking distance of new housing (i.e., mixed use development). With the push from the abag, the charm of Saratoga will be lost---once done there is no going back. With the shortage of water and electricity, how can the state possibly impose this! It's insane. With water restrictions I don’t think any building should be added to Saratoga. I would resist building 1700 units for as long as possible. Would be ideal to utilize some of the large vacant parcels that are currently undeveloped - parcels like the Christmas tree lot/pumpkin patch over by 85. Allow for the redevelopment of the small shopping center in the village - the old buy and save market area redevelop the gene's Quito shopping center into housing with some retail component. Student housing on the west valley campus would be great. Find some large hillside parcels to build on. Lots of land in the hills and it's generally cheaper to buy. Would like to see house be owned, not rented. Encourage long term and discourage high changeover of people. Source: City of Saratoga Housing Element Values Survey 236 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-26 237 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-27 TABLE 6.3: RESPONSES TO HOUSING ELEMENT VALUE SURVEY QUESTION NUMBER 13 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 A front yard full of weeds is increasing at resident's homes throughout the city. What can be put in regulations for residents to maintain their yards vs. Creating blight such that we retain the beauty of all neighborhoods. •- how does the city ultimately decide on what direction to take? Are you looking for concrete suggestions on zoning changes? How will sentiment from the younger population count compared to other age groups, if there are fewer responses from younger folks? Many young families (I live amongst 20 of them) have strong views - nothing like raising a young family to sharpen your focus on housing needs - but are quite busy and don't have as much time to participate in these hearings as folks who may be retired and have more time. Population growth patterns - traffic growth patterns around each of potential housing inventory sites - k- 12 student growth - existing capacity & need for additional classrooms & schools 1 how much space do we have now to build on 2 what large tracts of land now exist to build on that need to be repurposed or otherwise acquired. 3 I would want to see apartments limited to developments like jakes pizza. In single family areas I think it would be too disruptive to wedge them in and they would ruin the character of many of the single-family areas - unless you can find a perfect spot for them. 4 what happens if we don't comply with the state’s requirements? 1) do the residents have inputs on the decision process? If they do, can you elaborate how? If they don't, why? 1) El paseo will become a major mixed-use project that will compound traffic issues in Saratoga how is this being addressed? 2) crime was rising pre-covid-19 but has subsided now that most people are working from home (will probably rise when people return to the office) - citizens have had to either install security systems or install neighborhood video monitoring systems at their own expense to protect themselves - what is the city doing to address this? 3) Quito center should have remained a neighborhood retail shopping center - this was a disaster. What has the city learned from this? 1) which commercial locations would be considered as possible housing locations (either mixed-use or other) 2) plans to deal with increased traffic 3) how clean energy; water conservation; and green spaces will be included in plans 1) why do we need more construction in Saratoga? 2) how are we going to organize to push back on the state's demands to build more housing. 1. Might the 1700+ number be modified if ca's population continues to decline post-pandemic? 2. What impacts could thE requirements have on our public schools? How might funding be provided to accommodate more students of e.g., lower financial status? (Might a wider range of family income levels avail our schools of more state & federal funding?) 1. Potential housing inventory sites, rational, methodology & personnel involved 2. Saratoga population growth patterns 3. Traffic flow patterns - for each of the potential housing inventory sites 4. K-12 schools existing capacity & additional needs over 2023 thru' 2031 5. What legal options available to city? Pls avoid repeating the same content again. 1. How can we limit the number of additional units that will be allowed as per the state directive (perhaps ~500 new units?)? What legal avenues do we plan to pursue 2? How can we look at options to preserve Saratoga’s unique characteristics for most of the areas -- consider specific and targeted areas to support new growth? 3. What kind of alternative housing can we consider counting towards this outcome (students, seniors etc.)? 1. Impact of housing projects on public school density 1. Please consider traffic management in and out of tight areas, such as the village and along hwy9 - putting substantially more housing units on these 238 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-28 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 narrow 2 lane streets is not a good idea for bikers or walkers. 2. What is happening with the old gene's foods complex on cox? That seems prime for 3-4 story mixed use and would feed into the existing traffic infrastructure well. 3. What is happening with the derelict strip mall in the village (next to Wells FARGO bank and across from rose into food store) - this also seems prime for a 3-story mixed use development. 4. Why not covert all our commercial properties into mixed use zoning? These function well in other ca towns. 1. The variation in zoning recommendations across the city -- what varies, how much, and why 2. How will traffic concerns be handled for the different areas -- sometimes not addressed, but more often whitewashed away based on unrealistic premises which are never reflected upon to make better assumptions next time. 3. How can downtown be revitalized. 1. What is the cities position? 2. What is the cities plan to preserve our existing cities semi- rural character 3. Can city appeal this undue burden? 4. How will hillside residential with its wildfire risk areas, get treated or protected in this? 5. Does the city plan to oppose hi- rise and hi - density development? 1. Where will the 1700 new units be built? 2. Does Saratoga have the infrastructure to support these new units? 3. How does the appeal process work? A map of where space is available for housing. A more convenient way to propose specific areas for consideration for satisfying RHNA. But I think Westgate west & gateway are two obvious choices. Incentives to add ADU and for builders to add mixed housing in commercial areas also make sense. Thank you for engaging with the community the way you have. I'm looking forward to hearing about the eir plans. Adapting existing shopping centers to accommodate more multi-use options, including moderate income residential units, while retaining the commercial land use that generates tax income to the city of Saratoga. Add more objective building requirements to fight overreaching state laws like what led us to the Quito village disaster. Please enforce existing quality of life laws. For example, I was woken by. Gas leaf blower yesterday at 7:30am even with the new rule against leaf blowers, and the long-standing rule limiting times of their use. I believe it was a commercial landscaper. Adding 1700 homes seems a bit nutty. How? Where? Why? Adu units to be allowed in properties. Are there towns in California that need improvement? Possibly areas that are so abandoned, run down, neglected that they have been rendered useless or even dangerous? I know of no areas like that in Saratoga, but I know there are cities that have benefited from development of that nature. Are we in California using our resources in the best way possible? I know sometimes one person's "charming old " is another person "dilapidated". Who said this would be easy or simple???? Are we considering changing zoning for 1 acre lots to subdivide lots? Areas of development. Areas that could accommodate high density housing and how developers would be charged to improve essential services and school district. The new housing should be very green and be in an area close to transit and without parking to encourage individuals to use public transportation and avoid air polluting high traffic density. Zoning should emphasize green building and use of public transportation. As applicable As they become available, please share details or summaries about the consultants' analysis of the potential/limitations of specific pieces of property. Also, consider factors that might allow higher density on specific pieces of property, based on public transportation or on-call services (uber, lyft, zip car, etc.) 239 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-29 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 Available land, without removing schools, parks, or pathways, like joe's trail. Ban the delivery of unrequested Saratoga news or any publication left in a driveway - make it by request subscription only. Besides the argonaut shopping sight what are the other options. What about re developing downtown Saratoga with stores on bottom houses on top. Downtown Saratoga currently has nothing to offer. Some stores went out and only wine places left. Why doesn't Saratoga make it more appealing like los Gatos. Can the unused property of a catholic church in Jewish synagogue on prospect avenue be used for housing? Is it large enough for a senior living center? Can we exclude wildfire areas from the RHNA requirements? Can you cover what steps you would take to preserve the character of the community? I'm sure many of us who live in Saratoga moved here for the quiet charm, safety, and access to nature. Having lived in Saratoga for nearly 40 years, I can tell you that much has changed, but thankfully much of the character has been preserved. I worry that the additional housing units will change the city for the worse. Can’t you folks fight the state on this idiotic plan. It makes no sense. They want to push inner city folks out into the suburbs and give them govt money to live in. What happened to working and saving your money so you could afford to move out of the crap hole cities and into the suburbs? City facts to put this in context: # existing housing units; expected population impact per housing unit; would rezoning require destruction of existing functional, usable housing or buildings? Clarification of the consequences if we don’t meet the state mandates, e.g., does the state take over the planning department? Come and visit the beautiful Saratoga retirement community and decide how best to expand and preserve the green space. Commercial districts and how they can achieve a large portion of the requirement. What are the potential revisions to c districts so that designs can begin now rather than wait another two years before we have revised criteria? The Saratoga gateway design guidelines and how this document completely undermines the cities requirements and goals. This doc looks more like a residential hoa design review than a commercial district. How compromises must be presented to longstanding residents, that the community is changing, and the Saratoga is no longer a rural town. How the c districts can absorb a large part of the mandate and possibly minimizing the idea of lot splitting, hillside development which just serves the upper incomes. How do ADU's really help when I suspect most are built to serve the upper-income homeowners who can afford to construct these units. Is there a requirement to rent these out? Does the city care or need to care at this level? Complete identification of all sites available for development including the possible number of homes or apartments that could be built there. The issues in condemning existing sites to meet the mandate. Like condemning all downtown Saratoga and rebuilding it a la Santana row. Consequences of not meeting the 1,700-home requirement Consider pushing back on the "mandate" of additional affordable housing. Many cities are pushing back, and we should too. Crime increase with low-income housing parking traffic additional schools and parks additional capacity at parks and rec classes and activities how can the city absorb 1700 households into the current infrastructure? Water, sewer, power, roads, schools, library, etc.? Crime prevention and law enforcement. 240 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-30 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 Current plans and activity for the Quito village and El paseo properties - let's get things moving!! That's some prime space sitting there doing nothing! Ditch the two-story ordinance to get lots of new units in small areas. We need our cities to be compact and affordable such that valuable and distant farmland is not carpeted with living/retail spaces Do not just build up. This would not keep the character of Saratoga. File a lawsuit against the state. This is a ridiculous requirement, with no consideration of individual cities. Do not let this be fast tracked, be responsible to the residents of Saratoga. Do Saratoga officials envision any "realistic" path to fulfill mandates without nullifying existing contracts, such as neighborhood cars, and ultimately causing property owners to sustain uncompensated losses? Do the schools have room for more students? Don't destroy the beauty or character. Downtown needs to be 5 story over retail and restaurants. Bonus for combining parcels for greater use and better design. Condos of 1800 to 2400 square feet would allow seniors to move to a viable downtown option and sell their existing housing to younger families. Think European type small villages. That will make downtown a vibrant entity. Downtown revitalization Effect on traffic Existing planning and development guidelines. Plans for downtown Saratoga. Plans for general maintenance of shared infrastructure and space. Fitting in more houses is one thing, but how do we supply services to that many new units? Water and other utilities will have to be supplied and do we have the resources to sustainably supply to that many new homes? What about all the additional waste that will be produced? How can we make sure that traffic isn't doubled, and commutes get that much longer? Already our traffic in normal times on city streets and freeways is awful and crawls during peak hours. Just look at Lawrence espy, 85, 280, Saratoga Ave at 85 interchanges, and de Anza at 85 interchanges. Also, where was the focus to add housing from the past mandates? I am aware that Saratoga has fallen short of that requirement but what was the plan for those required units and how many areas from the past plan are still viable as an option to add housing in the new plan? For a family who own a home in Saratoga being able to build homes for their children on their land either by building multiple stories or if land is large, divide land into multiple smaller parcels to build homes for their children on the land they already own Give a list of spaces available to build these 1700 new homes. Given that the goals for the last house element plan were not met what changes will be made to ensure we can meet the next set of goals, whatever they might be. Handling auto traffic Has Saratoga approached landowners to sell or use open land such as the queen's pumpkin patch area on Saratoga Ave or open land spaces that are not being used (land next to marshal lane school, Novakovic orchard or vineyards are Allendale and Chester)? Has the city staff created any maps of "potentially eligible" sites for at least some portion of the required 1700? What happens if 1700 is not achievable without drastic measures such a requiring sub-division of lots that already are developed? Higher density housing should be located on main arteries near commercial centers and public transit. 241 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-31 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 Hope to hear and discuss more about the density of hillside area, the limitation of 2 acres per lot is too restricted to meet current situation. Wildfire of the weeds in hr. Area is a big problem. How and when are traffic considerations going to be addressed? I am concerned about the impact on 1700+ new housing units on Saratoga’s limited network of streets. How and when are you going to solve the shortage of water and electric problems for these new developments? San Jose water company rates are so high, will the single families have to pay for the subsidies for these new development for water and electricity? How are we going to improve the infrastructure to support this forced expansion? What is page going to do to ensure adequate power resources are and remain available? How will we meet the increased water demands where existing resources are already stretched thin? How will we handle the increased traffic volumes that are already forcing traffic onto neighborhood streets? Who will pay for all this? What recourse do we have to request relief from the government agencies that are arbitrarily demanding we take property rights away from our residents without adequate compensation or adequate planning to meet the increased demands that the expansion will place on already overstretched resources? How are we going to prevent more sb35 debacles in our city? The developers of Quito village are going to make almost a billion dollars on that project, and we get 7 lousy affordable housing units out of it. This is only going to attract more developers who see an opportunity to make a lot of money because our city is so expensive to live in. Greed rules developers. How are you going to account for additional traffic? How can anyone justify 1,700 more homes when we can’t support the water & electricity to the homes we already have? Is Saratoga suddenly going to get more water & electricity? How can California mandate further construction when the state suffers from long-term drought and water shortages? How can Saratoga fulfill and even exceed our targets for the next rhea cycle? What if we planned for 3000+ homes instead of our current quota? I would love to see mixed-use residential and commercial in downtown Saratoga--that would make it more vibrant and charming, such as what Cupertino has done with main street! How can the schools handle 1700+ new students without building new buildings, and where? How can the semi-rural zoning, and single family detached homes be preserved in Saratoga, as allowing for high-density, low-income housing, will immediately lower property value for the any single family detached homes near those high-density, low-income housing properties. High-density, low-income housing will bring increased traffic, noise pollution, and eliminate the semi-rural appearance in the city of Saratoga. Please preserve the city housing element in the master plan, to remain a semi-rural / suburban bedroom community, of mostly single family detached homes. How can the state require the city to add more housing? How can we add so many units in such a condensed city? What about the safety, environmental, education, and traffic issues? Saratoga is a beautiful city with its unique lifestyle, it is our responsibility to preserve this heritage. How can we protect the trees and wild animal life? How city plans to supply water and utilities to all these new homes. How do they expect Saratoga to build affordable housing for those that need it with the price of land? 242 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-32 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 How do they plan to deal with traffic? Water, water, water. And thank the 70% of the voters for voting democrat, you all deserve what is going to happen when more lower income people move into bucolic Saratoga. How do we build a coalition to oppose the allocations rather than figure out how to accommodate 1700 new homes? How does each option plan to mitigate the significant negative side effects of congestion, pollution, water shortage, etc., etc.? How does the city plan to encourage and incentivize the building of auxiliary dwelling units? How does the housing element take account transport infrastructure (or lack thereof)? There’s very limited public transportation and only 2 lane roads at most so it becomes challenging to increase density How is the city going to force owners to build more homes vs ADU? How is the city pushing back on the 1700 housing number? How much can residents say and act when participating in the initial allocation plan? How much is all this housing element design and planning costing the taxpayers of Saratoga? How many more trees is Saratoga going to plant? How are the Saratoga schools going to handle 1700 or more students? How is Saratoga going to handle the additional fast-moving traffic through our small town? How the city council could go about appealing the state's unreasonable mandate requirement for a small semi-urban community like Saratoga, which only has around 6 square miles outside of the hillside/fireside area. Half of the 12 square miles of Saratoga is a dangerous hillside. It is not a reasonable mandate for our small city and is something that should be fought. How the city is planning to restore Saratoga’s residential areas to their former beauty, and how new construction can help. How the city plans to avoid discrimination and spread the additional housing across the entire city. How to accommodate the housing mandate while maintaining (or improving) the quality of living in Saratoga. How to encourage and support mixed use development in the downtown area and along Saratoga, prospect avenues. How to organize the community to push back. Obviously, most citizens of Saratoga will not be happy with the proposed density increase. Local government should actively engage at the state level and in the courts to further the desires of its local citizens. How to preserve open space and expansion of housing units? How to preserve Saratoga village. How to reject state mandate for expanded housing in our community. How to stop the new housing element. How to succeed from the state, or get out from under their thumbs and stupid ideas How were the 1700 new residences determined? Where is the likely location of new residences which Saratoga council member has what position are any council members connected to or funded by developers. Need full disclosure how will the new residences impact traffic, parking at commercial locations and the nature of life in Saratoga How will the city encourage and incentivize auxiliary dwelling units? How will the city make decisions regarding locations for higher density housing? Should the city hire a consultant who has experience in this type of planning? 243 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-33 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 How would schools take the additional pupils? Why would more houses be built when you there is not enough water/fire danger? How would you prevent a "bidding war" on affordable units? What open space is available in Saratoga for large housing tracks? • I also think we should ensure more homes get added to Saratoga high school district, such as the Quito area in Saratoga. I assume there will be the appropriate increase in services for 1700 new homes. Will there also be an appropriate green space or open space (parks) for the increase? I believe our village can be greatly improved if we allow density there. This would be a good place for multi-family housing in mixed use buildings. Eliminating current retail that includes grocery stores would be a big mistake for Saratoga. We've already done that with Quito market. I do not support a state mandated quota. Let private enterprise do it and let the builders and buyers do it. Not state mandates. I don’t want high density projects approved in existing sir neighborhoods I think it’s necessary we know who wants to preserve Saratoga as is, and who wants growth! Worry how this project will affect the value of our homes, the safety of our neighborhoods, and the small-town aspect of our city. And what about the water shortage? All those new units will need water. I worry how this project will affect the value of our homes, the safety of our neighborhoods, the quality of our schools, and the small-town aspect of our city. And what about the drought -- adding all those new dwellings, which all will need water? I would be opposed to losing some of our great shopping areas like trader joes, luckies, Safeway, ace hardware, etc. Amk • I would like a better understanding of the state calculations to allot 1700 homes to Saratoga. This is 1%, but 1% of what? Why is los altos hills also at 1% but that 1% is an allotment of some 400 homes? What is the current home count in Saratoga and what percentage of an increase will 1700+ homes add? I would like to have some of my suggestions above discussed and evaluated. This subject has come up many times but has pretty much been ignored. The housing that was built near Neals hollow on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road would have been perfect for upscale senior housing however I believe there are very few single-story houses. Being close to services would be very important for any senior centered building projects. I would like to know what the potential areas in Saratoga that are can be developed for future housing of 1700 units. I don't know if this information is already out somewhere, but we need to make this more visible to residents of Saratoga I would like to receive more information about the legal requirements and the various ways that Saratoga can respond, ranging from a reduction in requirements to creative ways of fulfilling them that retain neighborhood homogeneity and character. I would like to see a detailed explanation of why it is so important to diversify Saratoga and what was the thinking behind the state's mandate. I have been studying this with a group for about eight months and it seems to me that people in Saratoga don't understand the broader reasons for this and are therefore very entrenched in their views of single-family homes for Saratoga. If we don't diversify, we will become segregated ourselves, so please talk about why this is important to the state and to our city. Also, I would like the city to address what is happening to stores that have gone out of business such as genes, and many businesses left vacant. I don't know if there will be time, but I’d like to know what the cities around Saratoga are doing in terms of their plans, as I think they may impact ours. (There is a 244 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-34 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 rumor that El paseo off Quito Road is going to be turned into a 10story apartment building, along with restaurants and businesses. That would impact the traffic into and out of Saratoga.) I would like to see the city present clear and concrete benefits of having diverse/affordable housing in the city. I believe that it is the right thing to do, but I don't necessarily have convincing arguments. They are the ones that I have: 1. It is difficult for young families to move into the city because of lack of affordable housing. 2. The lack of young families limit the enrollment to some of the area schools, especially CUSD. 3. Lack of diversity in our community, especially among different income levels. This limits the area employers' ability to hire a labor force with diverse skill sets. Forcing employees to drive long distance will worsen the area traffic which is terrible most of the time. I would like to see the survey summary. What are the gaps between our options and expectations? Identification of areas on edges of neighborhood s that could be rezoned or strategies to disperse rezoning in a neighborhood, such as every corner lot keeping the neighborhood from becoming solidly high density. If new housing is getting built, I would like to know where they are going to be built and how they are going to be built to ensure that there isn't a lot of traffic choke points across the city. In addition to housing, how will city cater to the schooling needs, parking needs, traffic needs and other services that will be tasked due to the influx of a lot more residents. In addition to planning for additional housing, there needs to be a complimentary discussion of traffic and public transportation in and out of Saratoga. Residents without cars or with limited car availability are severely limited in their options to get to appointments, shopping, and work. The one bus along Saratoga Ave and the one along Saratoga-Sunnyvale rd. Just doesn't do it. As our community "matures" non-driving options need to be available and convenient for residents. In addition to the above questions, I would like to add one more: if one must meet the housing units, does it mean giving up the available green space? In addition to the above questions, please come to the beautiful Saratoga retirement community campus and see how expansion and preserve green space and be achieved. Increase density in hillside zoning Increasing costs of water and electricity. Any future for water reservoir? How to keep Saratoga green and trees alive. Instructions to select why we chose to live in Saratoga didn't work! Here are our reasons: scenery, quality of education, recreation, low density housing, semi-rural setting. Please join with other communities fighting sb35! There is strength in numbers. Is Saratoga committed to being part of the housing solution for the region or continue with their head in the sand - we like how we are and not prepared to explore a solution Is there a common ground at city level to agree this state enforcement by most residents? Is there a proposal by city indicating where new housing can be built for multi-use, higher density housing? Streamline the ADU process which is too expensive right now for many homeowners. Grandfather in ADU units already built and not permitted and allow them to count towards the housing element allocation. Subdivide large lots to allow for more than one single family home. Allow multi-use development in downtown Saratoga and raise the height limit. Is there any way to avoid this mandate? We have lived in Saratoga for 48 years and hate to see the character of the city changed. Is there anyway of lowering the mandated addition of 1,700 homes? 245 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-35 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 It seems impractical to build 1700 additional housing units in this small town. What are the possible solutions? It would be good to get as many specifics as possible on the current housing expansion plan in Saratoga. What housing plans are in-place or currently being discussed? Where are the 1700+ units going to be built? What mix of housing is planned in these places? The videos only provided specifics on one location, that being Quito center and it's 90 planned townhomes with 9 of them being for low-income. That's a good start. Then there was only brief mention of argonaut and prospect. More specifics are needed. Once a plan is stated, then it can be debated/discussed. For instance, let's say90 townhomes are placed in Quito center. Given that, is there a plan for a small grocery and more retail there as well to support the increased number of local families? Otherwise, there will be more cars pouring out onto cox heading to Westgate every time someone needs a pint of milk. Are there plans for easy bike and pedestrian access? Where will the residential traffic enter and exit, onto cox only or can they have routed through Belgrove circle and/or McFarland Ave as well? While I’m sure the Belgrove residents wouldn't like this, it wouldn't be a good idea to force all traffic onto cox Ave either. The devil is in the details on housing and it's not just about the number of units and type of housing units but it's also about the building up the proper city infrastructure to support it, roads, bike lanes, lights, stop signs, retail, etc. • just want to hear what the possibilities are. Keep housing decisions local! Keep the character of the golden triangle to single family homes, not ADU because of the noise, parking, and density. Do not allow duplex housing or apartments in the golden triangle but look to the major roadways like Saratoga Sunnyvale, and Saratoga Ave to develop this type of housing. You want to reduce the traffic in the golden triangle to protect walkers and kids playing, etc. Lack of competence in city planning department Legal process to contest mandate. Consequences if not done. Let the city, the residents who live here decide what to do, not the county. Safety, environment, education, and traffic, we all care about how to make Saratoga better, we love here. Local traffic impact and plans for the new developments Mixed housing options More information on how we can meet the mandate using accessory dwellings New housing should be concentrated solely in those portions of Saratoga that do not feed into the Saratoga schools. No house winery. They do not follow rules. They are noisy and do noisy work on Sunday. Get rid of leaf blowers! We need some peace and quiet! Do not put commercial in residential areas!!!! No more high-density housing projects in existing neighborhoods - no more replacement of Quito / Saratoga with housing complex. Move this development to further down pierce road / sand hill road. The traffic is too heavy, and we need more mixed-use building. We lost companies such as Lucky’s, Lunardi’s etc... And we need to shop outside of Saratoga. Want more local services so that we can bike around rather than driving out of the city. None. City council will do what it wants. Preserving downtown as is does nothing for housing or business. None... It sounds like the decisions are already made, and nothing any resident says that these meetings will have any effect at all. Sara Plans for the downtown area, any thoughts on ways to improve it. 246 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-36 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 Please continue to update all pending state legislation affecting city of Saratoga housing, the related voting records of local state legislators on same legislation. Saratoga’s need to communicate directly with our state representatives on our preferences. Please explain how current homeowners will be guaranteed water and power at rational rates prior to further development. What will the city of Saratoga do to push back on further development until the rationing for water and power are eliminated? Please keep Saratoga as the current suburb way which it should be. Possible locations within the city and plans for affordable options. Possible proposals, especially the ones related to convert commercial areas to mix use as well as a more general zoning change. Potential locations of new homes Proposed locations for additional housing Pros and cons of changing downtown Saratoga into a mix use environment? Where are possible sites for high density apartments and condos? Quito market plans Quito project and contamination update, traffic plans Quito village underground water contaminated with vapors from dry cleaning. Relaxing zoning restrictions to allow sub-dividing existing lots that are greater than 1/3 acre in size. Also - - need to publicize meetings well in advance (Saratoga news?) So, more people can attend. I only learned of the 3 June meetings today (July 22). Renovations and updates of housing in the area • reserving the country sale of our town. Especially Quito Road Retaining the character of the neighborhoods. If new housing is to be introduced, the character of Saratoga must not be compromised by congestion, traffic, crime, or burden on city services. Review of the formula used to require 1700 homes. Who enforces this? Can we fight it? Is it simply a case of losing some state funding? Safety and crime: what issues does the city expect? How do they plan to solve? Schools: how are they planning to accommodate the influx of the students? Saratoga and Campbell school district boundary needs to be redrawn. In some case, the current boundary has children who live next door go to a different school district. It does not make any sense for people who live in Saratoga, and their children go to Campbell schools. Saratoga village is floundering compared to los Gatos downtown and other similar areas. Perhaps a *little* bit more mixed housing/commercial development would help the village. See above---how much control do we have over the character & traffic in our home neighborhoods? Sorry I am unable to make any of those meetings Status of the Abrams property. Stop asking where to build 1,700 new homes and focus on fighting these rhea numbers and sb9. This needs to be our council's #1 priority going forward. Any new building of homes in the city should be affordable. We need to fight the developers, realty, and construction unions, who are gaming the system of providing housing in the bay area and the state. Housing costs are out of control because of greed, not demand for new office/housing. Ask yourself how we went from 400+ new homes by rhea to 1,700. Every bay area city is seeing the same massive jump in number of new housing units. 247 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-37 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 Tell the state & gov. To mind their own business and not force growth. Demand should create housing construction. We do not need to grow ca more. We already have traffic grid lock, homeless people, congestion, and pollution. The ability to be able to provide traffic, water, power to a larger future population. Have Portola valley, woodside, Atherton, Hillsborough been mandated to add multi-living development? The city says it has not denied requests for new housing and ADU so the failure to meet the rhea requirements previously, and risk losing local control of development, is out of their hands. What consideration has the city made to the fact that well over 90% of the residential land in Saratoga is zoned as single-family, with stringent restrictions on property owners including minimum lot sizes, maximum land area development, setback requirements, mandatory parking minimums, and low height limits. Has the city analyzed how much new development is possible or likely to occur given the numerous restrictions to building housing in the already expensive area, risking losing local control due to these numerous barriers to development? The detailed plan to address the state mandate requirements while preserving the character of the city. The impact of 1700 more housing units on facilities such as roads, highways, and parking as well as on resources such as water. The mandate is ridiculous. What will Saratoga do about it? The results of this survey and the current ideas being considered. The top suggestions for affordable housing. Maybe it should be a vote for all Saratoga. It can be done as easily as what you did here. Send postcard and respond to website. There are no good answers. They have passed. This needs to go through regular planning, not be fast tracked. We have one grocery store, while los Gatos, same population, has many. Don't get rid of our commercial space. It would be a bad decision to cram additional housing in when drought and fire are threats. Traffic concern if high density units are built, Saratoga does not have the infrastructure to support the influx of rapid growth ·Traffic safety and issues on Saratoga Ave Traffic. Decline in property value by creating density issues near private ownership homes. Alternate solutions. Public transportation never pays for its costs even operating costs via tickets by riders and this is not fair. Transportation retail safety and retaining quality of west valley college and schools, maintaining quiet atmosphere, highway 85 noise, traffic, and public transit. Use El paseo for additional housing. If you use argonaut center, we will not have a grocery store within our city limits. We are already in the limited water supply and electricity allowances. What is the government thinking? Crazy and deeply disturbing. We need to preserve the feeling of Saratoga. Big is not better. We need to preserve what we have. We need to stop dodging state requirements and realize that we'll more than maintain the charm of Saratoga even with multifamily housing opportunities. I am mortified that council members campaigned to be preservationists -- local control means that you can shape the policy on how to implement, not that you skirt the rules. 248 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-38 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 We should absolutely take this to court. The pandemic has changed the home/ work needs in all communities and commuting is much less necessary. What are or will be untouched by this expanding development (i.e., parks, prospect community center, heritage orchard, congress springs ball fields, etc.)? What are our options moving forward? Where can these housing units be built? What are other cities doing about this? (i.e.: Atherton, Beverly hills). What are the consequences of not following the states guidelines? What are the current income and age demographics in Saratoga? What is the current availability of services for the demographics of people who tend to live in multi-family housing? People in their 20s and people over 70? Or??? Share what other communities in ca are doing -- Los Gatos? Campbell? Menlo Park? Sonoma county? Santa Barbara? Pick some good case studies. Places with hills and wildfires etc. What are the different options for making sure that Saratoga has the right amount of housing at each income level? Is the only way to do this to require developers to put in a certain percentage of low- income housing in each project, or are there other options? What are the general requirements for a unit/wing of a home to be considered an ADU? Is someone willing to start a petition/commitment list of residents willing to add an ADU to their property, with a goal of 1,700 units? What is the state's deadline for units to be classified as ADU to satisfy the requirement for the additional housing? What are the preliminary sites being considered? What are ways to control traffic? Especially along these sites where development is being considered? What area are you considering for this large number of dwellings? Who is the builder and what price ranges will the units sell for? How are preserving wildlife habitats etc. What areas of the city are currently available or under consideration for additional housing development? What can we do to get the state to cease and desist? What can we the people of Saratoga do to escape from this bad dream? What defines "affordable housing" in the housing element? Where in Saratoga is it remotely conceivable to build 1700 homes in Saratoga, given its current build out? What are the repercussions for not complying? Is a city lawsuit (or combined cities) to fight the requirement an option? What will the city do to protect residents against developers twisting the housing element requirements to suit their own desires? What happens if the city does not meet the 1700-unit requirement? What has the city done to work with other cities to push back on the legislation? What have we done to streamline the process of ADU construction in the city? What if any are the consequences of failing to abide by the RHNA directive? Why are we in Saratoga not strongly opposing this takeover of local control? Where does the city council propose locating 1700 housing units? What happened to the city-wide approved ordinance requiring zoning changes be subject to city wide election? With the current price of land in the city how can anything affordable be constructed without massive government funding and where do you propose it coming from? What impact will an increase in population have on our schools/classrooms, police, fire and EMT? And traffic? To decrease traffic, can schools use bus transportation to and from school? What is "state mandate to plan for more than 1,700 new housing units"? Is it required by law? Why? How do you handle traffic when adding 1700 more housing units? 249 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-39 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 What is the current planned construction to meet the requirement of 1700 new residential homes we feel tricked about the addition of 90 homes at the genes market location in Saratoga? Why weren’t we allowed to contest this? What is the penalty for not complying with the force fitting to build 1700 housing units? Can an exception be made since much of the area is in a wildfire area for which is hard to get home insurance? Will there be another state requirement to build more in future years? If so, this should be considered when building the 1700. Maybe go higher-rise now? What is the status of Quito village development?? I heard that there was some toxic issue with existing dry cleaner location What is the vacancy rate at high rise building sites in Santa Clara County? The metro living, reveal in Sunnyvale etc., Valona development off blossom hill road, also multiple dwelling sites like Montalvo oaks and the north 40. If people aren’t choosing to pay a million dollars for high rise prison cells why keep building them? There is a chance the state of calif. Is mandating overbuilding which will remain vacant. What is the zoning in the fire area? Could a few four plex's be built with strict fire safety rules? It is such a large area it should be part of the solution. Also, Saratoga has so few grocery stores, we need to maintain argonaut shopping area. What legal options Saratoga must fight the intrusion of the state into the local zoning process. What spaces are available (i.e., parcels of land) which might accommodate 1700 or so new residences. I am concerned about an increase in crime because of the additional housing. What other options are being considered? What percentage of Saratoga’s existing housing units plus already committed housing units does the 1,700 figures represent? In other words, what is the required rate of growth in the number of Saratoga’s housing units if units are built per the state/county plan? What plans exist to consider impact on traffic flows and water usage. What potential housing sites have been identified? What will happen to Quito village? The current landlord has driven out long time commercial businesses, and the site has lain almost empty, except for Starbucks, for years. Even during the pandemic, the landlord refused to work with the stores and businesses on adjusting or lowering their leases. Can the city do something about this landlord? What will the city do to stop crime in the neighborhood? Now it appears that the city does not care at all. And it is getting worse. How can I pay multiple tens of thousands a year on property tax and the city cannot provide me with basic safety from crime? Where are the builders going to fit in 1700 housing units? Where are the building sites to be planned for the requirement? Where are the possible building sites for new housing units? Where are the proposed locations of these housing options going? Where do u intend to build these 1700 additional housing units? Where in Saratoga are these additional housing units going to be located? Where is it likely that 1700 new units could be built? Where proposed development could be located. What a potential traffic and infrastructure concerns would be addressed. Where would be the site(s) for the additional housing construction? 250 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-40 SURVEY RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13 Where would new homes go? How many undeveloped lots are available, where are they etc. Where would the denser housing be located? • where would you add housing? Which areas are planned for these 1700 new housing units? How would you solve the problem of more traffic caused by these 1700 new housing units? Which locations are under consideration? Which locations in the city are presently considered for high density development? Who came up with 1700 houses? Why? It's too much...we aren't San Jose [thank goodness] Who's paying for this? Why do the local elected officials think this is a good idea? What have been the lessons learned from communities such as Saratoga that have undertaken such a growth plan? Why do we need to build 1700 new homes? Why do we need to provide "above moderate" priced housing for people making over $170k" when that allows them to buy around a 2m house? That would be 719 houses, that we don't need to build. How many "mother-in law" houses are on the books to build that can be counted toward the 1700? Would you consider underground parking or partial basement dwellings for any apartment/condo/townhouse construction to maintain a low profile? Does the housing element (or county, city) require pricing caps on the new construction in any form? Does the creative planning for a given development area only rest with the developer or does the city welcome input from citizens? What impact does this have to the budget and capabilities of services for our city, school enrollment, police, fire, etc. Why does Saratoga have to add so many more homes when it will destroy the city's small-town charm and become more over-crowded? Why does Saratoga have to do this? Why hasn't the Quito shopping development broken ground? Why is the city talking about the housing development as though it is a bad thing? Your fliers and notices make it seem as though the apocalypse is coming. I would rather see a vibrant neighborhood supporting folks of various incoming levels providing much needed diversity to our schools rather than dead strip malls and empty parking lots. Why is this a priority in the face of broader needs? Why is this new housing required? What is the business case? Who gets to decide if we have it or not? Can those living in Saratoga reject/kill this project? Why not develop downtown Saratoga with mixed commercial and residential? It is sleepy, not vibrant. There is no reason to go to downtown Saratoga. Will I be forced to split my lot? Will developments be required to include on-site parking of at least 2 spaces per unit? Will developers be required to pay for road upgrades to handle increased traffic? Will natural areas be destroyed to create new housing? If so, I think that's a terrible thing to do. Condos should be built in the areas where there are old shopping strips, so that the neighborhood still looks beautiful, and we can meet our housing quota. With the addition of more housing, can we be guaranteed that 'most of the current character of single- family neighborhoods' will be preserved? Source: City of Saratoga Housing Element Values Survey 251 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-41 252 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | A-42 City Council Meeting Minutes 253 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 10, 2022 ~ Page 1 of 5 MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING At 6:00 p.m., the City Council held a Special Meeting via teleconferencing through Zoom. Mayor Walia called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the City Clerk explained the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to State law as recently amended by Assembly Bill 361, which allows the meeting to be conducted entirely by teleconference. The City Council has met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate. All Council Members, staff, and meeting attendees participated by Zoom. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was provided. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Tina Walia, Vice Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Council Members Mary-Lynne Bernald, Rishi Kumar, Yan Zhao All Council Members appearing via teleconference) ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager Britt Avrit, City Clerk Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Kayla Nakamoto, Administrative Analyst Lauren Pettipiece, Public Information Officer Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner David Dorcich, Associate Civil Engineer All staff members appearing via teleconference) REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 6, 2022. AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Reconsider and confirm findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 Recommended Action: Reconsider and confirm findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 of the continued existence of a state of emergency and public health officials’ recommendation of social distancing. Britt Avrit, City Clerk, presented the staff report. 254 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 10, 2022 ~ Page 2 of 5 Mayor Walia invited public comment on the item. The following individuals spoke on this item: Joanne Birmingham, Daniel Onn, Ray Froess, Dory Albert, Dick Wheeler, Glenda Aune, Ellis BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO RECONSIDER AND CONFIRM FINDINGS PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 OF THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS’ RECOMMENDATION OF SOCIAL DISTANCING. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 2. Housing Element Update - Housing Opportunity Sites, Policies and Programs Recommended Action: Provide direction to staff. Mayor Walia noted the number of attendees and the number of people expected to address the City Council on this item and asked if the City Council would like to consider reducing the public speaking time to one minute per person. KUMAR/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME TO ONE MINUTE PER PERSON FOR THIS ITEM. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. Mayor Walia invited public comment on the item. The following individuals spoke on this item: Ramesh and Shashi Agarwal, Jeffrey Schwartz, Karthik Iyer, Susanne Karlak, James Foley, Belal Aftab, Terry Cabrinha, Tanya, Chris Vasquez, Daniel Onn, Dick Wheeler, Mukund Ramaratnam, Ron Leckie, Casa Blanca Residents, Ellis, Robert Ducote, Peter Boulton, Tom, Steven Kramer, Scott Connelly, Naveen Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Public comment continued with the following individuals speaking on this item: Steven Leslie, Ray Froess, Leon Qin, Dory Albert, Corinne Vita, Sundeep, Glenda Aune, Ketan Karkhanis, Yogesh Nivas, Aslihan, Vicki Kramer, Jerry Schaaf, Pat, Anne Johnson, Sunitha Avers, David, George and Anne Gadd, Mike Speckman, Aashish Pant, Fulusu, Gary Smith, Ed Grabowy, Cathie Watson-Short, Narayanan Thondugulam, Pankaj, Steve Moore, Haydee, David Dornblaser, Debbie Ball-McNally, Nimisha, Kum, Randy Jewell, William Ford, Satya Simha, Hari Ravi, M. Robertson, Holly Anderson, Boris Yendler, Brian Berkeley, Mary Pat, PS, Val Marvin, Berna Erol, Dave & Debra Yoffie, Kathy, Ken, Radha, Pat and Jan Adamiak, Kostas Tsioutsiouliklis, Brad Paulsen, Stephen Morrow, Huff, Margaret, Phil, Omar Z, Seema Dubev, John Reagan, Radhika, Eric, Nancy Lietzke, David Anderson, Bashyam Anant, Ledong Shen, E Chan, Amanda and Steve Klinger, ghugger, Bharath Kumar, Deepa Padaki, J Jones, Sorin 255 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 10, 2022 ~ Page 3 of 5 Cismas, Preeti, Piyush Sancheti, Joy Ciffone, Sangeetha, Manoj, Karthik Bhat, Michael Bennette, Jeff, Greg Dean, Debra Yoffie Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Public comment continued with the following individuals speaking on this item: Vaibhav Dubey, Visa G, Anthony Fisher, Alok Mahajan, Mona Kaur, Debbie Zhang, Marc, Cecilia Liu, Reshma Hyder, Niall King, Don, Tim McNally, Purvi, Amer Haider, Robert Varish, Larry Schwerin, Debra Kurzke, Balaji V, Cynthia Newton, Kathy D, Lan Kan, Lawrence Hernandez, A, Kay Agarwal, Chidambaram Sambasivam, Mary Ann Welch, Lillie Gee, Vijay, Elaine Clabeaux, Betty Morse Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 12:15 a.m. The City Council began discussion of the policies and programs recommended by the Planning Commission. Vice Mayor Fitzsimmons stated her family owns property in the Village and recused herself from discussion regarding the proposed policy on height limits in CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts and the City Clerk changed her status in the meeting to ‘Attendee.’ ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING POLICY IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: INCREASE THE STANDARD HEIGHT LIMITS IN CH-1 AND CH-2 ZONING DISTRICTS FROM 26 FEET TO 35 FEET. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: KUMAR. RECUSED: FITZSIMMONS. Council Member Kumar left the meeting at 12:29 a.m. Vice Mayor Fitzsimmons returned to the meeting as a ‘Panelist’ at this time. ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO INCREASE STORY LIMITS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY ON OPPORTUNITY SITES. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING POLICY IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: INCREASE STORY LIMITS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY ON OPPORTUNITY SITES. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 256 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 10, 2022 ~ Page 4 of 5 BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXCLUDE THE PROPOSED POLICY TO CREATE A PROPERTY TAX INCENTIVE FOR NEW DEED RESTRICTED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) BY ESTABLISHING NEW RULES TO ALLOW EXEMPTION FROM INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT FOR DEED RESTRICTED ADUs ADDED BEFORE 2031 FROM THE HOUSING ELEMENT. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING POLICY IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: ESTABLISH AN INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE REQUIRING 15% OF UNITS, WITH FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE MINIMIM, BE USED TOWARDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS WITH NO IN-LIEU FEE OPTION Additional discussion took place. Direction was given to staff to table the discussion regarding the Inclusionary Ordinance until January 19, 2022. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXCLUDE THE HOME SHARE PROGRAM FROM THE HOUSING ELEMENT. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING POLICIES IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: REDUCE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALLER PARCELS TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS; REDUCE OR ELIMINATE PERMIT FEES TO ENCOURAGE THE PRODUCTION OF ADUs AND JUNIOR ADUs THAT ARE DEED RESTRICTED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING; FURTHER STREAMLINE THE PERMIT PROCESS FOR ADUs BY DEVELOPING A PERMIT READY ADU PROGRAM TO OFFER PROPERTY OWNERS A SELECTION OF PRE-APPROVED ADU BUILDING PLANS; DEVELOP OUTREACH PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE ADUs THROUGH MORE CHANNELS; AND, CREATE A NEW LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION FOR MIXED-USE SITES WHICH ALLOWS 100% RESIDENTIAL AS AN OPTION FOR SOME SITES. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. Mayor Walia stated her personal residence is close to the Argonaut Center and recused herself from discussion regarding the proposed policy to “Retain commercial land use and zoning for commercial uses only (e.g., Argonaut Shopping Center) and the City Clerk changed her status in the meeting to ‘Attendee.’ 257 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 10, 2022 ~ Page 5 of 5 ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING POLICIES IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: RETAIN COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL USES ONLY (E.G., ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER). MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS: NOES: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. RECUSED: WALIA. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPLY THE COMMERCIAL USE ONLY TO THE PARCELS LOCATED AT SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD/PIERCE. Additional discussion took place. Council Member Bernald removed the motion. FITZSIMMONS/WALIA MOVED TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON JANUARY 20, 2022 AT 7:00 P.M. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. ZHAO MOVED TO BRING BACK ALL OPPORTUNITY SITES, TO INCLUDE THE VILLAGE, THE PROSPECT CENTER AND THE PARCEL AT SUNNYVALE- SARATOGA ROAD/BLAUER, FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING. Motion failed for lack of a second. ADJOURNMENT BERNALD/ZHAO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 2:06 A.M. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. Minutes respectfully submitted: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk City of Saratoga 258 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 19, 2022 ~ Page 1 of 6 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2022 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING At 5:00 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Session with Los Gatos Saratoga Recreation via teleconferencing through Zoom. Mayor Walia invited public comment. No one requested to speak. At 6:00 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Session with West Valley-Mission Community College District Board of Trustees via teleconferencing through Zoom. Mayor Walia invited public comment. No one requested to speak. Mayor Walia called the Regular Session to order at 7:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the City Clerk explained the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to State law as recently amended by Assembly Bill 361, which allows the meeting to be conducted entirely by teleconference. The City Council has met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate. All Council Members, staff, and meeting attendees participated by Zoom. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was provided. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Tina Walia, Vice Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Council Members Mary-Lynne Bernald, Rishi Kumar, Yan Zhao All Council Members appearing via teleconference) ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager Britt Avrit, City Clerk Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director Kayla Nakamoto, Administrative Analyst Lauren Pettipiece, Public Information Officer Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner Ann Xu, Accountant II All staff members appearing via teleconference) REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 14, 2021. 259 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 19, 2022 ~ Page 2 of 6 Mayor Walia discussed the number of attendees and the number of participants who have indicated they would like to address the City Council and requested the City Council consider reducing the public speaking time to one minute. KUMAR/BERNALD MOVED TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME TO ONE MINUTE PER PERSON FOR ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS The following individuals spoke at this time: Zoom user discussed non-citizens voting and laws favoring government over the people. Jessie Hagelin discussed use of leaf blowers in the City and people not picking up after their dogs. Alok Mahajan discussed the process followed by the City Council at a recent meeting. Naresh Makhijani asked about the process for comments and potential responses from the City Council. Lochan Narvekar asked about the process for comments, potential responses from the City Council and adding items to an agenda. Simona requested answers to previous questions. The City Manager provided the process regarding public comment and explained how the Council has been asking staff to respond to questions asked by public speakers. Lynne Lampros discussed the process for public meetings. Sunitha Ayers provided a suggestion related to the process for providing answers to questions. Hadi Ghafouri discussed unmarked bike lanes in the City. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Walia shared information about COVID-19, Commission Recruitments, and SED Talks for Teens: Mend your Mind. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Walia invited public comment on the Consent Calendar. The following individuals spoke on the Consent Calendar: Bill Dalton, Jerry Bruce, Leon, M. Robertson 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes for the December 14, 2021 City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting Study Session and the Minutes for the December 15, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting. 260 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 19, 2022 ~ Page 3 of 6 ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 14, 2021 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING STUDY SESSION AND THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 15, 2021 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 12/21/21 Period 6; 1/6/22 Period 7; 1/6/22 Period 7 (Special Run) ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 12/21/21 PERIOD 6; 1/6/22 PERIOD 7; 1/6/22 PERIOD 7 (SPECIAL RUN). MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended November 30, 2021 Recommended Action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended November 30, 2021. ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2021. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.4. Cancellation of August 3, 2022 and August 17, 2022 City Council meetings for the Annual ‘Summer Recess’ Recommended Action: Cancel the City Council meetings scheduled for August 3, 2022 and August 17, 2022 as the City Council’s annual ‘Summer Recess’ and authorize the City Manager, after consultation with the Mayor, to reinstate a cancelled meeting if any urgent items arise. ZHAO/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO CANCEL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 3, 2022 AND AUGUST 17, 2022 AS THE CITY COUNCIL’S ANNUAL ‘SUMMER RECESS’ AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE MAYOR, TO REINSTATE A CANCELLED MEETING IF ANY URGENT ITEMS ARISE. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.5. Landmark Designation for 19174 DeHavilland Drive – Application No. LNDMRK21- 0003 Recommended Action: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance designating the property at 19174 DeHavilland Drive as a historic landmark. ORDINANCE 386 261 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 19, 2022 ~ Page 4 of 6 ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO WAIVE THE SECOND READING AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AT 19174 DEHAVILLAND DRIVE AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.6. Update Process for the City Mission Statement, Statement of Values, and the Code of Ethics and Values Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Shawn Spano, PhD to assist the City Council with updating the City Mission Statement, Statement of Values, and the Code of Ethics and Values for an amount not to exceed $7,260. The following individuals spoke on this item: Bill Dalton, M. Robertson FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO ANOTHER DATE MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.7. Ordinance Amending City Code Section 4-90.020 to Ban Sale of Menthol Tobacco Products Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance amending City Code Section 4-90.020 (Tobacco Retailer Definitions) to extend current prohibitions of the sale of flavored tobacco products to include menthol products. The following individual spoke on this item: Bill Dalton ORDINANCE 387 BERNALD/ZHAO MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4-90.020 (TOBACCO RETAILER DEFINITIONS) TO EXTEND CURRENT PROHIBITIONS OF THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO INCLUDE MENTHOL PRODUCTS. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.8. Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Audits Reports Recommended Action: Review and accept the FY 2020/21 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and related supplemental reports as follows: A. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) B. Appropriations Limit Report (Gann) C. SAS 112 Report (Internal Controls) D. SAS 114 Report (Statement on Audit Standards) E. Single Audit Exemption 262 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 19, 2022 ~ Page 5 of 6 ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE FY 2020/21 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT (ACFR) AND RELATED SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.9. FY 2021/22 Budget Adjustment - American Rescue Plan Act/Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Recommended Action: Adopt budget resolution to amend FY 2020/21 and FY 2021/22 Budgets to align with the City of Saratoga’s final ARPA/SLFRF allocation of $7,213,239. RESOLUTION 22-001 ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT A BUDGET RESOLUTION TO AMEND FY 2020/21 AND FY 2021/22 BUDGETS TO ALIGN WITH THE CITY OF SARATOGA’S FINAL ARPA/SLFRF ALLOCATION OF $7,213,239. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 2. GENERAL BUSINESS 2.1. EIR Project Description for Housing Element and General Plan Update including Housing Opportunity Sites Selection, Policies, and Programs Recommended Action: Provide direction on the Housing Opportunity Sites, distribution of units, and policies and programs to include in the project description for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan and Housing Element Update. Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Mayor Walia invited public comment on the item. The following individuals spoke on this item: Jeffrey Schwartz, Kathy, Margot, Behnam, PS, Sujatha, Scott Connelly, Jose Nunez, M Robertson, Marilyn Marchetti, Hao Ge, Ying Cui, Edwin S, Anne Johnson, Xiongfei Chen, Dick Wheeler, Grace, Cam, Lynne Lampros, Joe and Val Marvin, Dhans, Priya, Jefe Aragon, Belal Aftab, Cathie Watson-Short, Ellis, Debs Rawlings, Lloyd Binen, Brirober, Peter Yang, Jay Gillis, Dan, William Ford, Chiachia, Letitia, Adya, Xiao Wu, Radhika, Karthik Ramamurthy, David Longanecker. Jun, Aslihan, Mona Kaur, Karthik Ganesan, Marc, Lisa Yang, Dory Albert, Yulenny Bacon, Eric, Sarang Kirpekar, KM, Karen Steinman, Peter Boulton, Peter Hahn, Lochan Narvekar, Bhuvana Krishnamurthy, Timothy McNally, Alan, Frank C, Sung Choi, David Anderson, Camille Chapman, Han Wen, Resident, Ling, Nanda, Corinne Vita, Athenacarter, Steve Klinger, Larry Schwerin, James Lu, Vivian, Brian Tran, Greg Dean, Arki G, Kate, Chris Vasquez, Nancy Lietzke, Sundar, Wei, Hari Ravi, Jie Li, Jeff Jones, Surekha Kotamraju, E Chan, Leon Zhang, Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 p.m. 263 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 19, 2022 ~ Page 6 of 6 Public comment continued with the following individuals speaking on this item: Karthik Iyer, Zoom User, Ken, Ray Liang, Feng, Rajeev Mohindra, Ashok Madanahalli, Tylor Taylor, Eva, BJ Lee, Channu Sannappanavar, Jingdi, Toni, Gene Wu, Huaxing, Linda Chang, Brad Paulsen, Shamik Mehta, Sandeep, Jenny Cong, Kalyan, Sunny, Gary Smith, Sue B, Easwar, Bill Dalton, Jaina, Alexis, Eric, Miao, Huili, Wally Jones, Cindy Wu, Zoey Zhang, Vivek Tiwari, M, Stephen Morrow, Niall King, Holly Anderson, Rina Shah, Anthony, PS FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOLLOWING ITEM 2.1 TO THE SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 20, 2022. Additional discussion took place, and a friendly amendment was made to the motion. FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM 2.1 AND THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOLLOWING ITEM 2.1 TO THE SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 20, 2022. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ADJOURNMENT BERNALD/FITZSIMMOND MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:23 A.M. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk City of Saratoga 264 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 20, 2022 ~ Page 1 of 4 MINUTES THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2022 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING At 7:00 p.m., the City Council held a Special Meeting via teleconferencing through Zoom. Mayor Walia called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the City Clerk explained the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to State law as recently amended by Assembly Bill 361, which allows the meeting to be conducted entirely by teleconference. The City Council has met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate. All Council Members, staff, and meeting attendees participated by Zoom. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was provided. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Tina Walia, Vice Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Council Members Mary-Lynne Bernald, Rishi Kumar, Yan Zhao All Council Members appearing via teleconference) ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager Britt Avrit, City Clerk Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Lauren Pettipiece, Public Information Officer Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner All staff members appearing via teleconference) REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 19, 2022. Mayor Walia discussed the amount of public comment received at each of the Housing Element public meetings and requested the City Council consider reducing the public speaking time to one minute and consider if the Council would like to limit the public comment time period at this meeting. BERNALD/KUMAR MOVED TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKING TIME TO ONE MINUTE PER PERSON. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 265 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 20, 2022 ~ Page 2 of 4 AGENDA ITEM 1. EIR Project Description for Housing Element and General Plan Update including Housing Opportunity Sites Selection, Policies, and Programs Recommended Action: Provide direction on the Housing Opportunity Sites, distribution of units, and policies and programs to include in the project description for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan and Housing Element Update. Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director, provided answers to questions received during public comment on January 19, 2022. Mayor Walia invited public comment on the item. The following individuals spoke on this item: Dhans, Brenda, Kate Shen, Siva M, James Foley, Lisa Newman, Jill Hunter, Glenda Aune, Anne Johnson, Elango, Hao Ge, Frank Schneider, Anoop Kumar, Jose Nunez, Lochan Narvekar, Doug Robertson, Hadi Ghafouri, Ashok Madanahalli, Ryan, Vish, Savitha, Athena Carter, Sundar, Curt Blanchi, Joy Ciffone, Nancy Lietzke, Scott Connelly, Priya Panchatcharam, Joanne, Bashyam Anant, Concerned Citizen, Timothy McNally, Ken, Ying Shan, Rashmi Shrivastava, Steve Diamond, Debbie, Adya, Priya, Vivian, Kavita, Joe, Erin, Xiaofeng Wu, Terry Cabrinha, Leon Zhang, Denise Xu, Andrey Tovchigrechko, Terry Ward, Resident Input, Sam, Zoom User, Brian & Cynthia, Scott Adams, Arthur Lee, Cristina, Renee Paquier, Bill Cooper, Maria, M, Karen, Steve, Divya, Sanjeev, Doug Boling. Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:21 p.m. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HOUSING ELEMENT ITEM TO JANUARY 28, 2022 IN PLACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL RETREAT, REQUESTED STAFF INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THE PROSPECT CENTER, THE COUNTRY CLUB, MONTALVO, QUITO/POLLARD PROPERTY, AND REQUESTED THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SITES FOR CONSIDERATION TO STAFF BY 8:00 AM MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2022 MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Nothing to report. Vice Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons Hakone Foundation Board – stated admission and gift shop sales are up 266 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 20, 2022 ~ Page 3 of 4 Council Member Rishi Kumar Nothing to report. Council Member Yan Zhao Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee - elected Council Member Moore from the City of Cupertino as Chair and Council Member Lopez from the City of Campbell Vice Chair, adopted FY 2021-2022 budget, received a Measure B update, approved Transportation Development Act funding for design of a multi-use pedestrian and bicycle trail. West Valley Sanitation District – stated she has been selected as the Chair and Vice Mayor Ristow from the Town of Los Gatos was selected as Vice Chair. Mayor Tina Walia Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee - stated the Committee approved a minor bylaw change to streamline processes related to terms of Trustees, received a Treasurer’s Report presentation, discussed the Finance Committee recommendations, and discussed the increase in attendance. Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors - stated the Board elected City of Campbell Council Member Gibbons as the Chair and the City of Los Altos Hills, Mayor Tyson as Vice Chair, selected the five members of the Executive Committee and established an Ad-Hoc committee to address legislative and regulatory responses. Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee - discussed the 2022 goals. Cities Association of Santa Clara County-City Selection Committee – stated the Committee elected Morgan Hill City Council Member Yvonne Martinez Beltran as the ABAG Executive Board Alternate, elected Sunnyvale City Council Member Glenn Hendricks to the Measure A Oversight Committee, appointed Sunnyvale City Council Member Russ Melton to the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board of Directors and the Town of Los Gatos Council Member Matthew Hudes as the alternate. Cities Association of Santa Clara County – stated the Board discussed goal setting and received the Planning Collaborative Update. Council Finance Committee - stated the Committee received a report regarding the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and an audit report. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Kumar invited the public “submit your request to go through the RHNA number audit.” CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None 267 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 20, 2022 ~ Page 4 of 4 ADJOURNMENT FITZSIMMONS/BERNALD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:02 A.M. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk City of Saratoga 268 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 28, 2022 ~ Page 1 of 3 MINUTES FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 2022 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING At 9:00 a.m., the City Council held a Special Meeting via teleconferencing through Zoom. Mayor Walia called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the City Clerk explained the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to State law as recently amended by Assembly Bill 361, which allows the meeting to be conducted entirely by teleconference. The City Council has met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate. All Council Members, staff, and meeting attendees participated by Zoom. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was provided. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Mayor Tina Walia, Vice Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Council Members Mary-Lynne Bernald, Rishi Kumar, Yan Zhao All Council Members appearing via teleconference) ABSENT:None ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager Britt Avrit, City Clerk Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Nick Pegueros, Finance and Administrative Services Director Kayla Nakamoto, Administrative Analyst Lauren Pettipiece, Public Information Officer Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner David Dorcich, Associate Civil Engineer Mainini Cabute, Environmental Program Manager All staff members appearing via teleconference) REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 25, 2022. Mayor Walia noted the number of attendees and the number of people expected to address the City Council on this item and asked if the City Council would like to consider reducing the public speaking time to one minute per person. 269 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 28, 2022 ~ Page 2 of 3 BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME TO ONE MINUTE PER PERSON FOR THIS MEETING.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. AGENDA ITEMS: 1. EIR Project Description for Housing Element and General Plan Update including Housing Opportunity Sites Selection, Policies, and Programs Recommended Action: Provide direction on the Housing Opportunity Sites, distribution of units, and policies and programs to include in the project description for the Environmental Impact Report EIR) for the General Plan and Housing Element Update. Mayor Walia invited public comment on the item. The following individuals spoke on this item: Cheriel Jensen, Petra Jacobskrueger, Linda, Glenda Aune, Ling Shao, KP, Sujatha, Lynne Lampros, Brian R, Graham, Madhu Krishnan, Mary Pat, Ellis, Emily, Sonya, Anoop Kumar, Vivian, David Anderson, Ying, Jose, Joy Ciffone, Jayne Sonnenschein, Bill Mullen, Taras, Kylie Clark, KY, LaSandra, Rashmi Shrivastava, Janet, Tista Kapoor, Khiem Hoang, Patricia Cowles, PS and family member, Esther Kim, Surabhi Pathak, Sue, Tim McNally, Wing Au, Terry, Classica, Diana, Amy, M. Robertson, Shuang, Terri, Dhans, James Lu, Kamath, Holly Anderson, Martin Snitow, Mahajan, M, Lei Chang, Birmingham, Joe Ting, Hao Ge, Shu Han, Feng, Daniel Rhoads, Uday Rau, Jean, Esther, Ralf, Ashok Madanahalli, Nipon, Anjali Mahajan, Tina and Gary, Zoom user, Priya, Letitia Lam Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director, provided a presentation for this item. Mayor Walia stated she will be recusing herself from discussion regarding the Argonaut Center, Blauer properties, and Pierce Road/Saratoga-Sunnyvaleproperties due to the proximity of those parcels to her personal residence. Vice Mayor Fitzsimmons stated she will be recusing herself from discussion regarding the Village sites due to the proximity of those parcels to property her family owns and will recuse herself from discussion regarding the Heritage Orchard sites due to the proximity of the parcel to her personal residence. Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 12:00 p.m. Council Member Kumar stated “For the record, I’ve stated this, our staff members, Debbie said, we have data that all the other cities are on parity with us they are at the same timeline with us; that’s not true, it’s false. The Cupertino status is they are currently reviewing the sites at the Planning Commission stage, so they are months behind us.” The City Council identified tentative Housing Opportunity Sites that they would like to discuss further. 270 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ January 28, 2022 ~ Page 3 of 3 Council Member Zhao left the meeting at 1:10 p.m. The City Council discussed tentative Housing Opportunity Sites in greaterdetail and continued to refine the list of Housing Opportunity Sites to be further assessed. Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 2:21 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Walia adjourned the meeting at 4:17 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk City of Saratoga 271 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 16, 2022 ~ Page 1 of 7 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING At 5:00 p.m., the City Council held a Study Session regarding the EIR Project Description for the Housing Element and General Plan Update including Housing Opportunity Sites Selection, Policies, and Programs via teleconferencing through Zoom. Mayor Walia requested the City Council consider reducing public comment time to one minute per person for the Study Session and Regular Session. KUMAR/BERNALD MOVED TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME TO ONE MINUTE PER PERSON FOR THE STUDY SESSION AND REGULAR SESSION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Mayor Walia invited public comment on the item. The following individuals spoke on this item: Terri Singer, Cheriel Jensen, Julio Aragon, Chris & Leslie Vasquez, Phil Sutterlin, Jayanthi Simha, Marilyn Marchetti, James Foley, Vivian, Rachelle Cuccias, Ron Leckie, Brian & Cynthia, James Lu, Jayne Sonnenschein, Timothy McNally, Taras, David Anderson, Latika, Ray Froess, Pat, Bill Reid, Chris, concerned, Mark, Jun, Greg Dean, Sue B, Anne Johnson, Cynthia Newton, Ed, Toggi, Ron Naymark, Brian Tran, Glenda Aune, Karthik Bhat, KVM, Joy Ciffone, John Reagan, Samir Mitra, Sunitha Ayers, Dhans, Pravin Madhani, Steve Pat Moore, TK, David Gremer, AK, Mary Ann Welch, George Kemble, Ellis Hung, David, Alan Perey, Usha Sundar, Erica Cervantes-Rodriguez, Sandeep, Ken, Letitia Lam, Nancy Carlson, Terry, Gene Wu, Deepa, Enrique Rodriguez, Karen, Eva, Nancy Lietzke, Chuck Swan Mayor Walia closed public comment for this item. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE STUDY SESSION UNTIL AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE REGULAR SESSION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. After the conclusion of the 7:00 p.m. Regular Session, the City Council began discussion of the remaining opportunity sites related to the Housing Element. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO REMOVE THE WEST VALLEY COLLEGE SITE FROM CONSIDERATION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. FITZSIMMONS/BERNALD MOVED TO REMOVE THE NOVAKOVICH ORCHARD SITE FROM CONSIDERATION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 272 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 16, 2022 ~ Page 2 of 7 Vice Mayor Fitzsimmons stated she needs to recuse herself from discussion of the Village and Village East opportunity sites due to the potential financial impact it will have on property her family owns. Vice Mayor Fitzsimmons was moved to attendee status in Zoom at this time. Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:09 p.m. BERNALD/ZHAO MOVED TO REMOVE THE VILLAGE SITE FROM CONSIDERATION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: FITZSIMMONS. ABSENT: NONE. ZHAO/BERNALD MOVED TO KEEP THE VILLAGE EAST SITE ON THE LIST FOR CONSIDERATION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, WALIA: NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: FITZSIMMONS. ABSENT: NONE. Vice Mayor Fitzsimmons returned to the meeting as a Zoom panelist at this time. Mayor Walia stated she needs to recuse herself from discussion of the Argonaut Shopping Center opportunity site due to the proximity of the site to her residence. Mayor Walia stated although the Sunnyvale-Saratoga Pierce Road is not technically a conflict of interest, due to concerns expressed by residents, she is recusing herself from discussion of the Sunnyvale-Saratoga Pierce Road as well and turned the meeting over to Vice Mayor Fitzsimmons. Mayor Walia was moved to attendees status in Zoom at this time. FITZSIMMONS/BERNALD MOVED TO REMOVE THE ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER FROM CONSIDERATION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS: NOES: ZHAO. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: WALIA. ABSENT: NONE. FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO REMOVE THE SARATOGA SUNNYVALE-PIERCE ROAD SITE FROM CONSIDERATION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: WALIA. ABSENT: NONE. Vice Mayor Fitzsimmons turned meeting over to the Mayor and Mayor Walia returned to the meeting as a Zoom panelist at this time. ZHAO/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO REMOVE THE OFFICE CENTER ON SARATOGA AVENUE FROM CONSIDERATION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. BERNALD/WALIA MOVED TO REMOVE SARATOGA COUNTRY CLUB FROM CONSIDERATION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 273 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 16, 2022 ~ Page 3 of 7 BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO REMOVE COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLACES OF WORSHIP) FROM CONSIDERATION. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE LIST OF OPPORTUNITY SITES UNDER CONSIDERATION (ALLENDALE/CHESTER, FELLOWSHIP PLAZA, GATEWAY, PROSPECT/LAWRENCE, QUITO/POLLARD, SARATOGA AVENUE PUMPKIN PATCH), VILLAGE EAST, WARDELL). MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Mayor Walia requested a recess and reconvened the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Council Member Bernald stated she wants the record to reflect a slide presented shows 1,919 units and with the buffer another table shows 1,883 units which “can probably shake out over time.” BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE TABLE AS PRESENTED: AREA DENSITY RANGE MINIMUM NUMBER OF HOMES MAXIMUM HEIGHT FLOORS) PROSPECT/LAWRENCE 386-10-043, -004, -055, - 006, -007 80–150 UNITS/ACRE 410 10 FELLOWSHIP PLAZA 397-12-016 20 UNITS/ACRE 80 3 GATEWAY (NORTH) 366-22-023, -022 15-25 UNITS/ACRE 44 2 GATEWAY (SOUTH) 366-12-072, -054, -065, - 066, 386-53-031 30-40 UNITS/ACRE 197 3 VILLAGE EAST 397-27-001, -029, -028, 397- 31-020, -011, -008 30-40 UNITS/ACRE 87 3 SARATOGA AVENUE 389-06-017, -007, -006, - 008, -016 30-40 UNITS/ACRE 344 3 WARDELL 366-14-041 R-1-12,500 10 2 ALLENDALE/CHESTER 397-01-071 R-1-20,000 24 2 QUITO/POLLARD 403-22-016 R-1-10,000 10 2 AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS, INCLUDING USE OF THESE SITES IN THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 274 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 16, 2022 ~ Page 4 of 7 BERNALD/WALIA MOVED TO APPROVE INCLUDING AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT POLICY IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE TO REQUIRE NEW MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS CONSISTING OF FIVE OR MORE UNITES TO DEDICATE 15% OF THE UNITS AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, ZHAO, WALIA: NOES: KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Mayor Walia called the Regular Session to order at 7:06 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. The City Clerk explained the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to State law as recently amended by Assembly Bill 361, which allows the meeting to be conducted entirely by teleconference. The City Council has met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate. All Council Members, staff, and meeting attendees participated by Zoom. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was provided. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Tina Walia, Vice Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Council Members Mary-Lynne Bernald, Rishi Kumar, Yan Zhao All Council Members appearing via teleconference) ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: James Lindsay, City Manager Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Britt Avrit, City Clerk Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director David Dorcich, Associate Civil Engineer Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director Lauren Pettipiece, Public Information Officer Kayla Nakamoto, Administrative Analyst All staff members appearing via teleconference) REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 10, 2021. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS The following individuals spoke at this time: Vivian discussed traffic at two locations in the City. 275 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 16, 2022 ~ Page 5 of 7 Terri Singer discussed traffic in the City and a no parking sign. Dory Albert discussed timing for installation of the FLOCK cameras. Brian R discussed the Pledge of Allegiance during Zoom meetings. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Walia shared information about COVID-19 Updates, the upcoming free lecture “The History of African Americans in Santa Clara County,” the new Ken Matsumoto exhibit at Hakone Gardens, Commission Recruitments, and the Community Event Grant Program. CEREMONIAL ITEMS Appointment of Parks & Recreation Commissioner Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution appointing one member to the Parks & Recreation Commission and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. RESOLUTION 22-003 BERNALD/ZHAO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION AND DIRECTED THE CITY CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Walia invited public comment on the Consent Calendar. No one requested to speak. 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes for the January 28, 2022 City Council Special Meeting and the Minutes for the February 2, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting. FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 28, 2022 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AND THE MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 2, 2022 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 1/28/22 Period 7. 276 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 16, 2022 ~ Page 6 of 7 FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 1/28/22 PERIOD 7. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended December 31, 2021 Recommended Action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended December 31, 2021. FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2021. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.4. Ordinance Adding Article 2-55 to the Saratoga Municipal Code Relating to Electronic and Paperless Filing of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance adding Article 2-55 to the Saratoga Municipal Code relating to electronic and paperless filing of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements. ORDINANCE 388 FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE 2-55 TO THE SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ELECTRONIC AND PAPERLESS FILING OF FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Nothing to report for assignments; stated she attended the recent Hakone meeting with Sister City Association at which a Lunar New Year presentation was provided. Council Member Rishi Kumar Discussed missing the “garbage and clean water meeting” that was held recently. Council Member Yan Zhao Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council Board of Directors (SASCC) – stated a Health Fair will be held in Los Gatos in September. Saratoga Ministerial Association – stated this was the first meeting of the year and the Association received an update for the recent Martin Luther King event held at City Hall. Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee – stated several reports were provided including an update on 2016 Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Education and Encouragement Program progress for FY 20/21, received a report on FY 20/21 Annual Transportation System Monitoring, reviewed the workplan for this year, and member agencies submitted projects. 277 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 16, 2022 ~ Page 7 of 7 Vice Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons Chamber of Commerce – stated the Saratoga Classic and Cool Car Show will be held Sunday, July 24,2022 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; other activities related to the Car Show will kick off July 16, 2022. Mayor Tina Walia Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee – stated Mark Berman provided a presentation and the Board received information related to teleconferencing and the Brown Act. Cities Association of Santa Clara County – Board of Directors received numerous presentations including overview of the ‘Our Neighborhood Voices’ initiative. Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors – stated rates will be adjusted and will continue to provide a 1% discount related to PG&E’s rates; PG&E’s rates are expected to increase effective March 1, 2022 subject to CPUC approval; discussed use of funds in the coming year; discussed an energy procurement contract for long term energy storage; the Board appointed members of the 2022 Committees. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Council Member Bernald requested that staff reach out to Vivian regarding parking at Parker Ranch Road and requested that staff advise Terri Singer when the Traffic Safety Committee meets, and discussed the Pledge of Allegiance at in-person meetings. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Kumar discussed RHNA numbers audit, a proposed Ballot Measure being circulated in the City and solar power in California. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None After concluding Regular Session items, the City Council returned to the Study Session. ADJOURNMENT BERNALD/WALIA MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:04 A.M. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, KUMAR, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk City of Saratoga 278 279 APPENDIX B: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: SARATOGA ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning 2021-04-02 280 281 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-i 0.2 Table of Contents 0.2 Table of Contents .................................................................................................. i 0.2 List of Figures ...................................................................................................... ii 0.3 List of Tables ..................................................................................................... iii 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 2 Summary of Key Facts .................................................................................................. 2 3 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ....................................................... 5 3.1 Population .......................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Age .................................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................ 8 3.4 Employment Trends ............................................................................................... 9 3.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers ........................................................................... 9 3.4.2 Sector Composition ..................................................................................... 13 3.4.3 Unemployment .......................................................................................... 14 3.5 Extremely Low-Income Households ........................................................................... 15 3.6 Tenure ............................................................................................................. 18 3.7 Displacement ..................................................................................................... 22 4 Housing Stock Characteristics ...................................................................................... 24 4.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits .......................................................... 24 4.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion ..................................................... 27 4.3 Substandard Housing ............................................................................................. 28 4.4 Home and Rent Values .......................................................................................... 29 4.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ............................................................................... 33 5 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................ 42 5.1 Large Households ................................................................................................. 42 5.2 Female-Headed Households .................................................................................... 43 5.3 Seniors ............................................................................................................. 45 5.4 People with Disabilities ......................................................................................... 46 5.5 Homelessness ..................................................................................................... 48 5.6 Farmworkers ...................................................................................................... 53 5.7 Non-English Speakers ............................................................................................ 54 282 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-ii 0.2 List of Figures Figure 1: Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................ 6 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019 .................................................................................... 7 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race ........................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 .................................................................................. 9 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction ............................................................................................. 10 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence ......................... 11 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ........................................................................... 12 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio ............................................................................................. 13 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry .............................................................................. 14 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate ............................................................................................. 15 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level ...................................................................... 16 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure ........................................................................... 17 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race .......................................................................................... 18 Figure 14: Housing Tenure ................................................................................................... 19 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ..................................................................... 20 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age .......................................................................................... 21 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type .............................................................................. 22 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ............................................................... 23 Figure 19: Housing Type Trends ............................................................................................ 24 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ........................................................................ 25 Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type ............................................................................................ 26 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues..................................................................................... 29 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ....................................................................... 30 Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ............................................................................... 31 Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ................................................................... 32 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent ........................................................................................... 33 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure .......................................................................................... 34 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level .................................................................................. 35 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race ............................................................................................. 36 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................ 37 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ........................................................ 38 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ........................................................................ 39 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ................................................................ 40 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race........................................................................................... 41 Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure ...................................................................................... 42 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ....................................................................... 43 Figure 37: Household Type .................................................................................................. 44 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status .............................................................. 45 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure.................................................................... 46 Figure 40: Disability by Type ................................................................................................ 47 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County ............................. 49 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County ....................... 50 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County ............................... 51 Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County ................. 52 Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Santa Clara County ....................................... 54 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency................................................................. 55 283 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-iii 0.3 List of Tables Table 1: Population Growth Trends ......................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Housing Permitting ................................................................................................. 27 Table 3: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ............................................................................. 28 Table 4: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age .......................................................... 48 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ................................................... 48 Table 6: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ............................................... 53 Table 7: Migrant Worker Student Population ............................................................................. 53 284 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-iv 285 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-1 1 INTRODUCTION The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents. The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of Saratoga. 286 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-2 2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS • Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Saratoga increased by 4.0% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay Area. • Age – In 2019, Saratoga’s youth population under the age of 18 was 6,319 and senior population 65 and older was 7,095. These age groups represent 20.6% and 23.1%, respectively, of Saratoga’s population. • Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 44.8% of Saratoga’s population was White while 0.5% was African American, 47.7% was Asian, and 2.9% was Latinx. People of color in Saratoga comprise a proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.1 • Employment – Saratoga residents most commonly work in the Financial & Professional Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in Saratoga decreased by 3.9 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 60 (0.9%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in Saratoga has increased from 0.67 in 2002 to 0.71 jobs per household in 2018. • Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Saratoga increased, 1.6% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Santa Clara County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period. • Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all Saratoga residents to live and thrive in the community. – Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $2M+ in 2019. Home prices increased by 120.8% from 2010 to 2020. – Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in Saratoga was $2,730 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 71.0% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $109,320 per year.2 • Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 83.8% of homes in Saratoga were single family detached, 7.0% 1 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source. 2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices. 287 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-3 were single family attached, 3.4% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 5.8% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in Saratoga, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region. • Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Saratoga, 15.3% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 13.6% of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing. • Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, 0.0% of households in Saratoga live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. 100.0% of households in Saratoga live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built. • Neighborhood – 100.0% of residents in Saratoga live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 0.0% of residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.3 • Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Saratoga, 8.1% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 7.5% of Saratoga households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 6.0% of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity. 3 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. ABAG/MTC will be providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic this summer, following the release of additional guidance from HCD. 288 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-4 Note on Data Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. Five-year releases are used to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data is based on fewer responses. Note on Figures Any figure that does not specify geography in the figure name represents data for Saratoga. 289 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-5 3 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 Population The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Saratoga’s population has increased by 4.0%; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In Saratoga, roughly 7.5% of its population moved during the past year, a number 5.9 percentage points smaller than the regional rate of 13.4%. Table 1: Population Growth Trends Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Saratoga 28,061 29,342 29,849 30,740 29,926 31,034 31,030 Santa Clara County 1,497,577 1,594,818 1,682,585 1,752,696 1,781,642 1,912,180 1,961,969 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 Universe: Total population Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01. In 2020, the population of Saratoga was estimated to be 31,030 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 6.4%, while it increased by 0.3% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 3.7%. The population of Saratoga makes up 1.6% of Santa Clara County.4 4 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990. 290 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-6 Figure 1: Population Growth Trends Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year. For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts. DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01. 3.2 Age The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed. In Saratoga, the median age in 2000 was 42.1; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 49 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-and- over population has increased (see Figure 2). 291 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-7 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019 Universe: Total population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04. Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing. People of color5 make up 36.3% of seniors and 63.4% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3). 5 Here, we count all non-white racial groups. 292 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-8 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race Universe: Total population Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02. 3.3 Race and Ethnicity Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today6. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Saratoga identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 21.6 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 13,765 (see Figure 4). In absolute terms, the Asian / API, Non- Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most. 6 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing. 293 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-9 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 Universe: Total population Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02. 3.4 Employment Trends 3.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale. One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Saratoga increased by 7.8% (see Figure 5). 294 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-10 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11. There are 13,464 employed residents, and 7,676 jobs7 in Saratoga - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.58; Saratoga is a net exporter of workers. Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low- income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. Saratoga has more low-wage jobs than low- wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage 7 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey. 295 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-11 spectrum, the city has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 6).8 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10. Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7). 8 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum. 296 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-12 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14. Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users. If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in Saratoga has increased from 0.67 in 2002, to 0.71 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8). 297 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-13 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13. 3.4.2 Sector Composition In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Saratoga residents work is Financial & Professional Services, and the largest sector in which Santa Clara residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers. 298 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-14 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables: Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail: C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06. 3.4.3 Unemployment In Saratoga, there was a 3.9 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020. 299 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-15 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonally- adjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs. Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15. 3.5 Extremely Low-Income Households Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state9. In Saratoga, 73.5% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)10, compared to 8.4% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 11). 9 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California. 10 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 300 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-16 Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI. In Santa Clara County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $39,900 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries. In this Housing Element Update, it is assumed that 50% of Saratoga’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households. Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size. 301 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-17 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01. Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters. Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households. In Saratoga, the largest proportion of renters falls in the Greater than 100% of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 12). Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-21. Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents.11 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In Saratoga, Black or African American 11 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute. 302 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-18 (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 13). Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03. 3.6 Tenure The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Saratoga there are a total of 11,013 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 15.4% versus 84.6% (see Figure 14). By comparison, 43.6% of households in Santa Clara County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes. 303 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-19 Figure 14: Housing Tenure Universe: Occupied housing units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16. Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.12 In Saratoga, 100.0% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 90.1% for Asian households, 84.3% for Latinx households, and 80.4% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements. 12 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing. 304 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-20 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20. The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market. In Saratoga, 33.9% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 14.6% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 16). 305 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-21 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age Universe: Occupied housing units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18. In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In Saratoga, 89.6% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 27.7% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 17). 306 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-22 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type Universe: Occupied housing units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22. 3.7 Displacement Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network. The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Saratoga, 0.0% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification. Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 100.0% of households in Saratoga live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.13 13 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view 307 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-23 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Universe: Households Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: Low- Income/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25. maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement 308 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-24 4 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS 4.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place. The housing stock of Saratoga in 2020 was made up of 83.8% single family detached homes, 7.0% single family attached homes, 3.4% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 5.8% multifamily homes with 5 or more units, and 0.0% mobile homes (see Figure 19). In Saratoga, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached. Figure 19: Housing Type Trends Universe: Housing units Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01. Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Saratoga, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1960 to 1979, with 5,644 units constructed during this period (see Figure 20). Since 2010, 1.8% of the current housing stock was built, which is 211 units. 309 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-25 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built Universe: Housing units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04. Vacant units make up 3.8% of the overall housing stock in Saratoga. The rental vacancy stands at 6.5%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 0.3%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is Other Vacant (see Figure 21).14 Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short- term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.15 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting 14 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (3.8%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant. 15 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf. 310 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-26 in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.16 Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type Universe: Vacant housing units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03. Between 2015 and 2019, 85 housing units were issued permits in Saratoga. 25.9% of permits issued in Saratoga were for above moderate-income housing, 16.5% were for moderate-income housing, and 57.6% were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table 2). 16 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley. 311 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-27 Table 2: Housing Permitting Income Group Value Low Income Permits 49 Above Moderate Income Permits 22 Moderate Income Permits 14 Very Low Income Permits 0 Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019 Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HSG-11. 4.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing. The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 168 assisted units in Saratoga in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.0% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.17 17 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. 312 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-28 Table 3: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion Income Saratoga Santa Clara County Bay Area Low 168 28,001 110,177 Moderate 0 1,471 3,375 High 0 422 1,854 Very High 0 270 1,053 Total Assisted Units in Database 168 30,164 116,459 Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included. Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at dmazzella@chpc.net to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at- risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are at- risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table RISK-01. 4.3 Substandard Housing Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Saratoga. For example, 3.7% of renters in Saratoga reported lacking a kitchen and 0.0% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.0% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.0% of owners who lack plumbing. An indication of the quality of the housing stock is its general age. Typically, housing over 30 years old is likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Among the housing stock, only 13.2 percent of the housing units in Saratoga were built since 1990. The remaining 86.8 percent of the housing stock is over 30 years old, meaning rehabilitation needs could be necessary in certain homes. Given the upscale nature of the community and value of properties, there are no known units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. 313 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-29 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06. 4.4 Home and Rent Values Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Saratoga was estimated at $2,996,100 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $2M+ (see Figure 23). By comparison, the typical home value is $1,290,970 in Santa Clara County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $1m-$1.5m (county) and $500k-$750k (region). The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 174.0% in Saratoga from $1,093,440 to $2,996,100. This change is above the change in Santa Clara County, and above the change for the region (see Figure 24). 314 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-30 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units Universe: Owner-occupied units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07. 315 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-31 Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) Universe: Owner-occupied housing units Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts. Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08. Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years. Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state. In Saratoga, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $3000 or more category, totaling 43.4%, followed by 18.6% of units renting in the Rent less than $500 category (see Figure 25). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $2000-$2500 category (county) compared to the $1500-$2000 category for the region as a whole. 316 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-32 Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09. Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 71.0% in Saratoga, from $2,000 to $2,730 per month (see Figure 26). In Santa Clara County, the median rent has increased 39.4%, from $1,540 to $2,150. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.18 18 While the data on home values shown in Figure 24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data. 317 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-33 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10. 4.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness. 318 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-34 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06. Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Saratoga, 14.9% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 15.0% of those that own (see Figure 27). Additionally, 12.5% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 15.5% of owners are severely cost-burdened. In Saratoga, 13.6% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 15.3% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 28). For example, 47.9% of Saratoga households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Saratoga residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 4.6% are severely cost-burdened, and 80.4% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing. 319 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-35 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-05. Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity. In Saratoga, American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 53.8% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened with 18.5% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 29). 320 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-36 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-08. Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity. In Saratoga, 11.7% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 12.4% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 15.6% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 13.7% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 30). 321 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-37 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-09. When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 44.6% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 81.2% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 31). 322 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-38 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose- Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-03. Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded. Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Saratoga, 1.9% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.2% of households that own (see Figure 32). In Saratoga, 0.6% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.2% for those own. 323 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-39 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-01. Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. In Saratoga, 2.7% of very low- income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 0.0% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 33). 324 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-40 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-04. Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Saratoga, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (see Figure 34) 325 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-41 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non- Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03. 326 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-42 5 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS 5.1 Large Households Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In Saratoga, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (76.8%) are owner occupied (see Figure 35). In 2017, 9.4% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI). Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure Universe: Occupied housing units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01. The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community. Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 9,942 units in Saratoga. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 10.6% are renter-occupied and 89.4% are owner-occupied (see Figure 36). 327 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-43 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms Universe: Housing units Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05. 5.2 Female-Headed Households Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female- headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Saratoga, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 74.2% of total, while Female- Headed Households make up 6.0% of all households. 328 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-44 Figure 37: Household Type Universe: Households Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23. Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging. In Saratoga, 18.3% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 11.9% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 38). 329 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-45 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status Universe: Female Households Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05. 5.3 Seniors Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility. Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0%-30% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 39). 330 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-46 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure Universe: Senior households Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose- Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-01. 5.4 People with Disabilities People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care. When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence. Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 40 shows the rates at which 331 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-47 different disabilities are present among residents of Saratoga. Overall, 8.1% of people in Saratoga have a disability of any kind.19 Figure 40: Disability by Type Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types: Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01. State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.20 19 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. 20 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano 332 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-48 In Saratoga, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 35.9%, while adults account for 64.1%. Table 4: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group Value Age 18+ 109 Age Under 18 61 Universe: Population with developmental disabilities Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction. Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04. The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Saratoga is the home of parent /family /guardian. Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Value Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 137 Other 17 Intermediate Care Facility 11 Community Care Facility 5 Independent /Supported Living 5 Foster /Family Home 0 Universe: Population with developmental disabilities Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction. Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05. 5.5 Homelessness Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community and Sonoma Counties; the Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County. 333 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-49 members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In Santa Clara County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 87.1% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure 41). Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01. People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In Santa Clara County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 43.9% of the homeless population, while making up 44.5% of the overall population (see Figure 42). 334 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-50 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table. Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02. In Santa Clara, Latinx residents represent 42.7% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 25.8% of the general population (see Figure 43). 335 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-51 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-03. Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In Santa Clara County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 2,659 reporting this condition (see Figure 12). Of those, some 87.6% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue. While it is next to impossible to know the exact number of homeless individuals in our community, one standard (yet imprecise) method of measuring homelessness in the U.S. is the biannual Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. According to the 2019 PIT Count, there were 9,706 people experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County – the 4th highest total of any community in the country. Compared to other communities across the country, Santa Clara County also has extremely high rates of homeless individuals who are unsheltered. Compared to other communities across the country, Santa Clara County also has extremely high rates of homeless individuals who are unsheltered. In fact, 82% of our homeless neighbors are living outdoors, on the street, in vehicles or other locations not meant for habitation. Most of the people experiencing this are staying outside of Saratoga, as only 10 unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness, and 0 sheltered persons, were counted in the City in 2019. 336 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-52 Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-04. In Saratoga, there were no reported students experiencing homeless in the 2019-20 school year. By comparison, Santa Clara County has seen a 3.5% increase in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects. 337 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-53 Table 6: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year Saratoga Santa Clara County Bay Area 2016-17 0 2,219 14,990 2017-18 0 2,189 15,142 2018-19 13 2,405 15,427 2019-20 0 2,297 13,718 Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography. Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05. 5.6 Farmworkers Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market. In Saratoga, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 49.7% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. Table 7: Migrant Worker Student Population Academic Year Saratoga Santa Clara County Bay Area 2016-17 0 978 4,630 2017-18 0 732 4,607 2018-19 0 645 4,075 2019-20 0 492 3,976 Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography. Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01. 338 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-54 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Santa Clara County has increased since 2002, totaling 2,418 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 1,757 in 2017 (see Figure 45). Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Santa Clara County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors) Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02. 5.7 Non-English Speakers California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Saratoga, 3.6% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for Santa Clara County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%. 339 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-55 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency Universe: Population 5 years and over Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03. 340 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | B-56 This page intentionally left blank 341 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-1 APPENDIX C: PAST PERFORMANCE Table C-1 summarizes the programs from the 2015-2023 Housing Element and describes progress in implementing those programs. Where a program is recommended to be continued into the current Housing Element, that program appears in Section 7, Housing Policy Program. TABLE C-1: EVALUATION OF 2015 - 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION POLICY AREA 4-1: NEW PRODUCTION. OBJECTIVE: 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. City Council Adopted Ordinance No. 324 on December 17, 2014 which amended the C-N(RHD) Zoning District to increase the minimum required density from 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre and increase the maximum allowable building height from 30 to 35 feet. Delete. Action was completed. 342 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-2 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION 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 Section 15-81 of its Zoning Code consistent with State law. Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2345 the city now must grant density bonuses up to 50%, depending on the affordability of the project. Continue 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. In December 2020, the city adopted the Saratoga Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030 which identifies strategies to exceed the State’s goal of 40% below 1990 emissions in 2030. The plan identifies Energy Efficiency Programs including a Green Building Reach Code. The City encourages the efficient use of energy resources in residential development consistent with the City’s adopted CAP. Continue. Modify to reflect current strategies in the 2020 CAP. 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 The City encourages the use of “green building” practices in existing and new home construction consistent with the City’s CAP. This includes: • Requiring existing and new residential home construction projects to include a completed CalGreen checklist as part of the city’s Design Review Continue. Modify to include updated “green building” practices and create the “Go Green in Saratoga” webpage. 343 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-3 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION features incorporated into the home. The checklist is produced by the California Building Standards Commission. process. The CalGreen checklist is produced by the California Building Standards Commission and details the green building features incorporated into the home, • Maintaining a “Go Green in Saratoga” webpage that provides public information and offers related to low-cost permits as an incentive to install solar panels on residential buildings, and • Adopting a green building reach code in 2019 that requires all new residential and non-residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating (natural gas is permitted as a fuel source for clothes drying, food cooking, and fireplaces, but these appliance connections must be “electric-ready”) and requiring new commercial buildings to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15%. 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. The City reviewed this program within one year of adopting the Housing Element and does not have CDBG funds or the ability to offer financial incentives to encourage the consolidation of the identified candidate sites near Prospect Road / Lawrence Expressway. No developer expressed interest in the program. A total of 0 candidate sites were consolidated. Continue. Modify to include new incentives and tracking of sites on the City’s website. 344 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-4 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION POLICY ACTION 4-1.6: AMEND MULTI-FAMILY PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CN(RHD) DISTRICT The City understands that parking requirements can be a constraint to development of affordable housing. The City currently has reduced standards for one-bedroom units and units that are exclusively occupied by seniors or students. To ensure that the existing multi-family parking requirement is not a constraint to the development of affordable housing in the CN(RHD) zone, the City shall consider additional reductions to parking requirements for affordable and higher density housing developments including removal of garage requirements and further reductions to guest parking requirements. The City revised Section 15-35.030(c) of the Municipal Code regarding the schedule of required off-street parking spaces for Multi Family Dwellings. These revisions lower the parking requirement for affordable housing developments to eliminate the requirement for covered parking within a garage and instead require one covered space plus one additional space for each dwelling unit. Delete. Action was completed. POLICY AREA 4-2: REHABILITATION OF EXISTING HOUSING. ONGOING MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF THE CITY’S HOUSING STOCK OBJECTIVE: 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 4-2.1: 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. The City continues to provide information about rehabilitation programs offered by Santa Clara County Housing Authority on an individual basis, as needed. Continue POLICY ACTION 4-2.2: CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM The City will continue to use code enforcement measures when required to ensure that the existing housing stock in the city is maintained and preserved in a safe and sanitary condition. The City continues to use code enforcement measures when required to ensure that the existing housing stock in the city is maintained and preserved in a safe and sanitary condition. Continue 345 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-5 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION POLICY ACTION 4-2.3: HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM AND MILLS ACT: The City will implement its historic preservation and Mills Act programs to offer property tax relief as an incentive to preserve, rehabilitate and maintain historic resources in Saratoga. The City's goal is to conserve the historically significant residential structures identified in the City's Heritage Resource Inventory and encourage additional property owners to pursue listing as a qualified historic property and associated Mills Act incentives for preservation. The City has processed an average of two Mills Act preservation contracts per year over the past Housing Element cycle and expects to continue with an average of two per year over the course of this cycle. The City has processed a total of five (5) Mills Act contracts during the 2015-2023 cycle. These include applications for the following properties including: • 15231 Quito Road • 20331 Orchard Road • 14475 Oak Street • 15320 Peach Hills • 19277 Shubert Lane Modify to include updated preservation contracts over the past housing element cycle. POLICY ACTION 4-3: 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. 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. The City continues to use the Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook and update design guidelines as needed. The City is also developing objective design standards for future residential developments for the 6th cycle housing element update. Continue. Modify to include reference to objective design standards. 346 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-6 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION POLICY ACTION 4-3.2: PRESERVE THE SARATOGA VILLAGE The city understands the importance of conserving the community’s historic downtown district, “Saratoga Village,” to preserve the city’s commercial resources and provide opportunities for mixed-use development. The City shall continue to implement design criteria in Saratoga Village to preserve the area’s character and to enhance the aesthetic qualities of new residential and commercial developments. The City continues to use the Saratoga Village design criteria. The City is also developing objective design standards for future multi-family projects for the 6th cycle housing element update. Modify to include reference to objective design standards. POLICY AREA 4-4: 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 THE COMMUNITY. PROGRAM 4-4.1: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY 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 On December 17, 2014, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 324 which amended the city’s Zoning Regulations to: • Eliminate the minimum square footage requirements for ADUs • Reduce the minimum lot size for ADUs to 90% or more of the standard lot size for the underlying zoning district • Establish development standards for multi-family ADUs Additionally, on October 7, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 376 pursuant to State ADU Laws to amend Section 15-56 of their Municipal Code that outline the streamlined, ministerial review of ADUs and junior ADUs Delete. Action was completed. 347 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-7 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION informational brochure regarding Second Dwelling Units to disseminate to the public. pursuant to State Law as well as objective design standards to be utilized in such review. The City continues to distribute information regarding ADUs using the city’s website which details pertinent development standards, processes, and requirements related to the development of ADUs. 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 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: • 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 On February 5, 2014, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 313 which amended the city’s Zoning Regulations to: • Define Single Room Occupancy buildings and units (SROs) • Permit the development of SROs within the city’s existing C-N(RHD) Zoning District • Establish objective design standards pertaining to the development and operation of SROs in the city Additionally, on December 17, 2014, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 324 which amended the city’s Zoning Regulations to establish Objective Design and Operation Standards for Emergency Shelters in the City. Delete. Action was completed. 348 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-8 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION 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 4-4.3: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS 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. The City continues to provide reasonable accommodations measures, pursuant to Section 15-80.025 of the Municipal Code. The City provides an informational brochure related to the City’s Reasonable Accommodation Procedures are made available electronically via the City’s website and at the Planning Counter. Continue 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 A webpage on the City of Saratoga’s website was created for this information. The webpage includes the list of service providers for residents, a description of the services offered by SARC, and a link to contact SARC to obtain additional information. Continue 349 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-9 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION alternative housing options. The SARC has identified several community-based housing types appropriate for persons living with a developmental disability including licensed community care facilities and group homes; supervised apartment settings with support services; and rent subsidized affordable housing for persons able to live more independently. The City will coordinate with SARC to implement an outreach program informing Saratoga families of housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities, including making information available on the City’s website. 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: • Outreach to housing developers (refer to policy action 4-5.3), • Identifying grant and funding opportunities, • Offering additional incentives beyond the density bonus provisions, and/or • 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. The City implemented a 10% increase in site coverage and allowable floor area for a new ADU if it is deed restriction for below market rate households. Per the most recent 2020 annual housing progress report, the city has approved 75 deed restricted ADUs. Continue 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 The City explored opportunities with West Valley College; however, no additional development has occurred. On July 14, 2021, Mayor Zhao and city staff met with West Continue. Modify to include a local preference program the prioritizes Saratoga workers 350 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-10 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION include increasing public awareness of the City’s housing assistance programs and partnering with West Valley College to explore student and faculty housing development. Valley College Chancellor to discuss the college’s interest in adding housing to the property. The Chancellor indicated that the college is interested in adding housing and a feasibility study is under way. and persons with special needs. POLICY ACTION 4-4.7: MONITORING AND PRESERVATION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING The City shall continue to maintain a data base to provide for the regular monitoring of deed-restricted units that have the potential of converting to market- rate during the period. Additionally, the City will review funding opportunities for owners of these units to extend and/or renew deed restrictions and/or covenants. To proactively address the conversion of affordable units to market-rate units, the city will investigate strategies to preserve the affordable units. The City shall ensure compliance with noticing requirements and provide for tenant education when a notice of conversion is received. The City continues to maintain a data base of deed-restricted units that have the potential of converting to market-rate. Continue. Modify to include reference to updated noticing and purchasing requirements consistent with AB 1521. 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. Affordable Housing Nexus Study was prepared by Santa Clara County in 2018 that evaluated and recommended the adoption of an affordable housing fee to be applied to new construction on either a per unit or per square foot basis. The affordable housing impact fee evaluated by the Study was not implemented. Delete. Affordable housing impact fee not implemented. 351 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-11 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION POLICY AREA 4-5: 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. POLICY ACTION 4-5.1: PROMOTE FAIR HOUSING EFFORTS The City currently disseminates fair housing information packets about Fair Housing Regulations and refers discrimination complaints to the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing or to the County of Santa Clara County Office of Consumer Affairs. The City will continue to participate in the County’s mediation program and will continue to support these organizations which provide fair housing assistance including landlord/tenant counseling, homebuyer assistance, and amelioration or removal of identified impediments. 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. Continue 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. The City continues to maintain a detailed website related to residential development in the community. This website includes links that keep residents informed on ongoing development projects, directs the public to the City’s Municipal Code and the General Plan, and informs the public on updates to the city’s Housing Element. The City also uses print media, direct mailings, and social media to disseminate housing information. Print materials are provided in both English and Chinese. 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 The City has cooperated with developers, including Sand Hill Property Company for the Quito Village site which includes 90 residential units of which will be 9 affordable units. In addition, when the Community Development Continue 352 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-12 POLICY AREA / OBJECTIVE / POLICY ACTION STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTION 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. Department is contacted by property owners and or developers interested in developing a particular site, the Community Development Department does express interest in maximizing the potential for housing development. POLICY ACTION 4-5.4: HEALTHY COMMUNITY The city supports residential development that promotes healthy lifestyles (i.e., recreational activities, encourages pedestrian and bicycle use and continued support of the Farmer’s Market). In 2021, the City received a grant award for the Safe and Seamless Grant to fund the construction of the Blue Hills Elementary Pedestrian Crossing at Union Pacific Railroad, to connect two neighborhoods and promote pedestrian and bike connections to various local destinations such as schools, parks, and grocery stores. The City is also developing a Safe Routes to School Master Plan to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety to encourage biking and walking to school. Continue 353 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-13 TABLE C-2: PROGRESS IN ACHIEVING HOUSING ELEMENT QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 2015 - 2023 PROGRAM QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION VERY LOW-INCOME1 147 0 LOW INCOME 95 83 MODERATE INCOME 104 105 ABOVE MODERATE INCOME 93 37 TOTAL 4392 225 HOUSING REHABILITATION VERY LOW-INCOME 0 0 LOW INCOME 0 0 MODERATE INCOME 0 0 ABOVE MODERATE INCOME 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 PRESERVATION OF AT-RISK RENTAL HOUSING EXTREMELY LOW INCOME3 85 85 VERY LOW-INCOME 85 85 LOW INCOME 0 0 MODERATE INCOME 0 0 ABOVE MODERATE INCOME Not Applicable Not Applicable TOTAL 170 170 1 Extremely Low-Income assumed to be 50 percent of Very Low-Income allocation. 2 Total does not include extremely low-income 3 As affordability in Saratoga’s 170 rent-restricted units is tied to Section 8 contracts (with subsidy levels based on tenant income), an estimated half of these units are assumed to be occupied by Extremely Low-Income households, and half occupied by Very Low-Income households. Source: Housing Element Annual Progress Reports, 2015-2021 354 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | C-14 This page intentionally left blank 355 APPENDIX D: FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 356 357 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-i Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Data Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Housing Element Fair Housing Assessment Content and Organization .................................................... 2 2. Summary of Fair Housing Issues .......................................................................................................... 3 3. Assessment of Furthering Fair Housing .............................................................................................. 5 City Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Regional Context ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Outreach ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity ........................................................................................................ 8 Segregation and Integration .......................................................................................................................... 11 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) .............................................................. 38 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................................ 40 Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement ...................................................................... 44 4. Sites Inventory ..................................................................................................................................... 58 Location of Existing Affordable Housing ...................................................................................................... 58 Distribution of Existing Affordable Housing ................................................................................................ 59 Potential Effects on Segregation and Integration Trends .......................................................................... 59 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity ................................................................................................. 59 Potential Effects on Disproportionate Housing Needs .............................................................................. 60 5. Contributing Factors and Action Plan ............................................................................................... 61 6. References ............................................................................................................................................ 64 358 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-ii List of Figures Figure 1: Saratoga Census Tracts ........................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2: Racial Demographics of Saratoga Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020): .................... 17 Figure 3: Racial Dot Map of Saratoga (2020) ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4: Racial Dot Map of Saratoga and Santa Clara County (2020) ......................................................... 19 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Bay Area Region (2020) ...................................................................................... 20 Figure 6: Racial Isolation Index Values for Saratoga Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) .................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 7: Income Demographics of Saratoga Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ............ 26 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Saratoga (2015) ................................................................................................ 28 Figure 9: Income Dot Map of Saratoga and Surrounding Areas (2015) ....................................................... 29 Figure 10: Income Dot Map of Bay Area Region (2015) ................................................................................... 30 Figure 11: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Saratoga Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ............................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 12: Household Type, 2019 ....................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 13: Households by Household Size, 2019 .............................................................................................. 36 Figure 14: Population by Disability Status ......................................................................................................... 37 Figure 15: Population by Disability Status, 2019 ............................................................................................... 38 Figure 16: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RE/CAPS), 2009-2013 .................................. 39 Figure 17: RCAAs, 2009-2013 ............................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 18: Saratoga Census Tracts ...................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 19: TCAC Opportunity Scores Map, Santa Clara County (2022) .......................................................... 43 Figure 20: TCAC Opportunity Scores Map, Bay Area Region (2022) ............................................................... 44 Figure 21: Cost Burden by Income Level ........................................................................................................... 46 Figure 22: Cost Burden by Race, 2019 ................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 23: Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2019.............................. 48 Figure 24: Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Owner Households by Census Tract, 2019 ............................. 48 Figure 25: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ............................................................................................. 49 Figure 26: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity .................................................................................. 50 Figure 27: Severe Housing Problems by Census Tract, 2019 .......................................................................... 51 Figure 28: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Population, Santa Clara County (2019) ............ 52 Figure 29: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Population, Santa Clara County (2019) ........................ 53 Figure 30: Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement ..................................................................................... 55 Figure 31: Share of Renter Occupied Households by Census Tract, 2019 .................................................... 56 Figure 32: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race Saratoga, 2018-2019 ....................................... 57 Figure 33: Existing Privately Owned Subsidized Housing Units ...................................................................... 59 359 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-iii List of Tables Table 1: Department of Fair Employment and Housing Complaints, Santa Clara County (2015- 2020) ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Population by Racial Group, Saratoga, Santa Clara County, and the Region .............................. 16 Table 3: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Saratoga ..................................................... 21 Table 4: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Saratoga .............................................. 24 Table 5: Population by Income Group, Saratoga, and the Region .............................................................. 25 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Saratoga ...................................... 31 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Saratoga ............................... 34 Table 8: TCAC Opportunity Scores Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps ..................... 41 Table 9: TCAC Opportunity Scores, City of Saratoga ..................................................................................... 42 Table 10: Complete Plumbing and Kitchen Facilities by Population Group ................................................. 51 360 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-iv 361 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-1 1. INTRODUCTION All Housing Elements adopted on or after January 1, 2021 must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal AFFH Final Rule of July 16, 2015 and California state law under Assembly Bill (AB) 686 (2018). Under State law, affirmatively furthering fair housing means going beyond anti- discrimination measures and “taking meaningful actions in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” Protected characteristics can include, but are not limited to race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, and disability. All government programs must be administered in a way to assist in ending discrimination and segregation, and in a way that genuinely opens housing supply to all persons regardless of protected class. Per State law, jurisdictions that have prepared an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) or an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) that complies with the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule may adapt relevant sections of the federal AFH for use in their Housing Element AFFH as required by State law. DATA SOURCES The primary data sources for this AFFH analysis are included below. Consistent with that discussed above, one of these data sources includes a federal AFH drafted by the Santa Clara County Urban County CDBG Program. Data Packets and Segregation Reports provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in collaboration with UC Merced. U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS), years of data used is provided in each figure. Santa Clara Urban County 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan (and 2020-2021 Action Plan).1 Santa Clara Urban County Program DRAFT Assessment of Fair Housing, 2022. Local Knowledge (e.g., Findings or reports from City departments or community-based organizations) 1 Due to the Santa Clara County Urban County Program being comprised of multiple smaller jurisdictions within the County, in addition to Saratoga, data utilized from Urban County Program resources are explicitly noted where utilized within this Appendix for context. 362 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-2 HOUSING ELEMENT FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION Section I. Introduction and Summary of Fair Housing Issues. Section II. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with state fair housing laws and regulations; and jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education. Section III. Integration and Segregation identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation Section IV. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty addresses whether identified sites significantly concentrate capacity (number of units) to accommodate lower income households in or near racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. Section IV. Access to Opportunity examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments. Section V. Disparate Housing Needs identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk. Section VI. Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Action Plan identifies the primary factors contributing to fair housing challenges and the plan for taking meaningful actions to improve access to housing and economic opportunity. 363 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-3 2. SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for Saratoga including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the City’s fair housing action plan. • The City of Saratoga has a proportionately larger Asian/Pacific Islander (API) population than both the county and Bay Area. At 54.3 percent of the City’s population, this demographic group has grown exponentially over the years and is nearly double that of the Bay Area region (28.2 percent). • The City has a proportionately lower Latino population and Black population than both the county and Bay Area. The City’s Latinx population (3.6 percent) is roughly 6-7 times smaller than the county (25 percent) and Bay Area (24.4 percent) demographics and has not fluctuated much over the years. Similarly at just 0.3 percent of the City’s population, the City’s proportion of Black residents is nearly 7 times smaller than the county (2.8 percent) and 18 times smaller than the Bay Area region (5.6 percent). • Economic diversity is limited: 74 percent of households in Saratoga earn more than moderate income (>100 percent AMI) compared to 55 percent in the County and 52 percent in the Bay Area overall. Conversely, the City also has a disproportionately small percentage of its population classified as income groups other than “moderate income.” Whereas 25 percent and 26 percent of the County and Bay Area’s population is classified as “very low income”, just over 12 percent of the City of Saratoga’s population is classified as such; and where 11 percent and 13 percent of the County and Bay Area’s population is classified as “low income”, 9 percent of the City’s population is classified as such. • Countywide, communities of color are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, cost burden, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resources areas and be denied for a home mortgage loan. Similar disparities are not evident in Saratoga, however, in part due to the limited racial/ethnic and economic diversity. • There are disparities in housing cost burden in Saratoga by race/ethnicity but not much variation in housing tenure. American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 53.8 percent spending 30 percent to 50 percent of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened with 18.5 percent spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. 364 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-4 • Poverty in Saratoga is extremely low, with a rate close to zero. The more pressing issue faced by workers in Saratoga is being able to afford housing as home and rental prices have greatly increased over time. • No fair housing complaints were filed in Saratoga from 2015 to 2021. Even so, the City could improve both the accessibility of fair housing information on its website and the resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. The City currently distributes fair housing resources at the public counter; however, a new program proposes creating a webpage specific to fair housing on the City’s website identifying it as a resource for residents to understand and report housing discrimination. • In Saratoga, seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups and high housing costs. The largest proportion of senior households who are renters make less than 30 percent of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners make more than 100 percent of AMI. • The composite opportunity score for Saratoga shows the City to be a “highest resource area” and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranks the City as “low vulnerability to a disaster” (based on four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation). • Saratoga is contained within eight census tracts—the standard geographic measure for “neighborhoods” in U.S. Census data products. The City does not contain any racial/ethnic concentrations, poverty concentrations, nor concentrations of housing problems. • Saratoga lacks a variety of housing types. In 2020, 83.8 percent of homes in Saratoga were single family detached, 7.0 percent were single family attached, 3.4 percent were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 5.8 percent were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). • Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the City’s high costs of housing and lack of affordable production. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for moderate and above moderate-income households. 43.4 percent of the City’s rental units rent for $3,000 or more, compared to 18.5 percent in Santa Clara County and 13.0 percent in the Bay Area region. • Owners are more likely to be occupying 2-, 3- to 4-, and 5-bedroom units. To the extent that larger renter households desire to live in Saratoga, the lack of rental housing stock to accommodate their needs could limit their access to housing in the city. 365 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-5 3. ASSESSMENT OF FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING CITY OVERVIEW This Assessment of Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is based upon United States Census data provided at the census tract level. As depicted below in Figure 1, the City of Saratoga is located within a total of eight (8) different census tracts including tracts: 5074.01, 5074.02, 5073.01, 5073.02, 5075.00, and 5076, 5077.02, and 5079.04. However, it should be noted that a majority of the City’s acreage and population is located within the first six (6) census tracts: 5074.01, 5074.02, 5073.01, 5073.02, 5075.00, and 5076. The latter two (2) census tracts (5077.02, and 5079.04) only contain small portions of the City of Saratoga’s acreage and population and are largely comprised of other jurisdictions. Throughout this AFFH, census tract level data is utilized to assist in identifying intra-city level demographic trends that helps inform fair housing issues. FIGURE 1: SARATOGA CENSUS TRACTS Source: Source: United States Census Tract Reference Map, and HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer. REGIONAL CONTEXT Santa Clara County is located in the South Bay region of Northern California, an area referred to as “Silicon Valley” due to the region’s concentration of technology companies. According to the 2020 Decennial Census, the County has a population of over two million people, that is highly diverse, and comprised of several significant racial/ethnic groups. Asian American 366 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-6 and Pacific Islander residents comprise the largest proportion of the population at 35%, followed by White residents at 33%, Hispanic residents at 26%, and Black residents at 2% residents. There is very little traditional public housing in Santa Clara County, with an alternative reliance on Project-Based Section 8 and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units, as well as Housing Choice Vouchers. Additionally, many of the jurisdictions utilize inclusionary zoning programs, affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) programs, and mobile home rent stabilization ordinances to supplement their affordable housing stock. There is relatively little concentration of persons with disabilities in the County, as well as a lower relative share than in other, comparable housing markets. Residents of Project-Based Section 8 units have disabilities that roughly align with the County’s population share with disabilities. However, Housing Choice Voucher holders have disabilities at twice the rate of those that do not have disabilities. While there are very few publicly supported housing developments reserved for people with disabilities, a significant share are reserved for seniors, who are more likely to have disabilities. Additionally, newer and larger developments are subject to increased accessibility construction standards, making them a more viable option for affordable housing residents with disabilities. Santa Clara County Measure A bond funds have been dedicated to permanent supportive housing (PSH), specifically seeking developments in which at least 50% of units are PSH. Fair Housing Enforcement in Santa Clara County is very reliant on private fair housing organizations, which contract with various municipalities to provide housing mediation and arbitration, while also pursuing private fair housing enforcement actions and providing outreach to Santa Clara residents. While there are a number of private fair housing organizations, most of which serve very specific populations, and funding available to these organizations are inadequate to ensure fair access to housing for all Santa Clara residents. OUTREACH OUTREACH ACTIVITIES Community engagement has been an integral part of the Housing Element update process. Saratoga’s community was consulted throughout the update process and diligent efforts were made to reach those in protected classes and communities who have historically been left out of planning processes. Community engagement efforts related to the City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle Housing Element are summarized below and more detail is provided in Appendix A. 367 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-7 Webpage and E-Newsletter The City created a special projects webpage to serve as an online landing page for public participation efforts related to the Housing Element Update. The website provided relevant information such as materials for upcoming and past community meetings, next steps, and frequently asked questions related to the Housing Element Update process. Educational Video Series To provide residents and community stakeholders with background information related to Housing Elements such as a general overview, the relevant legal framework, and the RHNA, the City created a 6-part educational video series related to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update to inform residents of relevant topics related to the Update. Housing Element Values Survey The City of Saratoga publicly circulated a Housing Element Values Survey to City residents to gain an understanding of resident and community stakeholders’ community values and priorities regarding the housing element update process. The 14-question survey was made available to residents via the City’s website and advertised via city-wide postcard mailers as described below. Between June 1, 2021, and July 31, 2021, the survey received a total of 743 responses. Citywide Postcard A physical postcard regarding the Housing Element Update was mailed citywide to over 12,000 residential and business addresses in March, June, September, and December 2021. Postcards were utilized to disseminate information to residents regarding housing element update activities including scheduled community meetings and the online Housing Element Value Survey. The March, June, and September postcards were also translated to Chinese. All postcards were made available online and in person at City Hall. The March and June postcards were all distributed in person at the local Farmer’s Market. Community Meetings, Study Sessions, Public Hearings The City also held a series of public meetings to inform the public of the Housing Element Update process and to solicit input from community members. These meetings included six informational and educational Community Meetings in the summer of 2021, Planning Commission Community Meetings in April, June, October, November, and December of 2021, as well as five City Council Meetings from December 2021 to February 2022. The City Council meetings garnered high levels of engagement with over 800 written communications received (comment forms and emails). Video Recordings of these meetings were provided on the City’s website for convenient viewing by the public. 368 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-8 Small Group Meetings The City also met with Housing Choices, an advocacy group that enhances the lives of people with developmental and other disabilities and their families by creating and supporting quality, affordable housing opportunities. In addition, the City did targeted outreach to a variety of groups like the Saratoga Retirement Community, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council. Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, Saratoga Ministerial Association, St. Andrew’s Men’s Group, the Sister City Group, and several Neighborhood Watch groups. The City also held a series of property owners and developers that expressed an interest in developing certain housing opportunity sites. Integrating the 2020-2025 Santa Clara Urban County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing Saratoga, along with other smaller cities and unincorporated Santa Clara County are participating members of the Santa Clara Urban County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The CDBG Urban County Program is a federal program operated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development that allocates funding to communities to address the housing and community needs of lower-income and special needs persons. The Urban County Program is identified as a housing resource within Chapter 5 of this Update and allows the City of Saratoga and other communities in the County to jointly develop funding priorities together and assist the County’s Board of Supervisors in determining CDBG funding received from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, across the Urban County. As a federally operated program, communities that participate in the CDBG Program must complete an Assessment of Fair Housing as required by Federal Law. Accordingly, the Santa Clara Urban County Program conducted extensive community outreach related to the drafting of the 2020-2025 Santa Clara Urban County Regional AFH, in which the City of Saratoga participated. This outreach included an extensive community engagement process that included print and social media engagement, 9 community meetings, 13 small group meetings, 27 stakeholder meetings, surveys, and the establishment of a countywide Santa Clara AFH Advisory Committee. FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND CAPACITY California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act (with regards to housing). These State Laws are described in more detail below: 369 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-9 FEHA. Prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics. Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, Section 51). Prohibits business establishments in California from discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, Section 51.7). Guarantees the right of all persons within California to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics. Accordingly, the DFEH serves as the State’s enforcement arm for the above anti- discrimination laws and tracks complaints filed for purported violations of the above laws. Fair housing complaints can be used as an indicator to identify characteristics of households experiencing discrimination in housing. Based on an analysis of DFEH Annual Reports, Table 1 shows the number of housing complaints filed within Santa Clara County to DFEH between 2015 and 2020. TABLE 1: DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING COMPLAINTS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY (2015-2020) YEAR HOUSING UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 2015 73 8 2016 52 7 2017 33 22 2018 28 14 2019 28 14 2020 33 10 Source: California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Annual Reports 2015-2020, 2022. 370 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-10 OUTREACH The City of Saratoga 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. Several organizations provide fair housing services in Santa Clara County, which are listed here: Bay Area Legal Aid (Bay Legal) represents low and very low-income residents within their seven-county service area, which includes Santa Clara County. Their housing practice provides legal assistance regarding public, subsidized (including Section 8 and other HUD subsidized projects) and private housing, fair housing and housing discrimination, housing conditions, rent control, eviction defense, lockouts and utility shut-offs, residential hotels, and training advocates and community organizations. It is important to note that Bay Legal is restricted from representing undocumented clients. Project Sentinel is a non-profit organization focused on assisting in housing discrimination matters, dispute resolution, and housing counseling. Project Sentinel’s housing practice assists individuals with housing problems such as discrimination, mortgage foreclosure and delinquency, rental issues including repairs, deposits, privacy, dispute resolution, home buyer education, post purchase education, and reverse mortgages. Additionally, their Fair Housing Center provides education and counseling to community members, housing providers, and tenants about fair housing laws, and investigates complaints and advocates for those who have experienced housing discrimination. The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley provides free legal advice and representation to low- income individuals in Santa Clara County. In their housing practice, they assist with defending eviction lawsuits, housing discrimination issues such as reasonable accommodation requests for individuals with disabilities, enforcing the San José Tenant Protection Ordinance, legal outreach and support for renter organizing/campaigns, help with Santa Clara County Housing Authority hearings, Section 8 and other low-income housing issues like terminations and eligibility determinations, legal advice and information to tenants regarding notices, and advice and information about foreclosure prevention. Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) is a nonprofit elder law office, providing free legal services to residents of Santa Clara County who are age 60 and older. SALA provides legal services across multiple, non-housing contexts, and in the housing context SALA provides legal assistance in landlord-tenant matters, subsidized/senior housing matters, and mobile home residency matters. 371 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-11 The Asian Law Alliance provides services at a free or low cost basis to Asian/Pacific and low income people, and offers services in Mandarin, Cantonese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, and other languages as needed. In the housing realm, their mission is to ensure access to decent housing, and prevent and combat against illegal and discriminatory housing practices. The Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and expanding the supply of affordable housing through education, empowerment, coordination, and support. Its activities include educating and organizing the general public and public officials about the need for affordable housing, and empowering low-income people to advocate for their housing needs. Silicon Valley Renters Rights Coalition + Latinos United for a new America (LUNA) have been working together to advocate for renters’ rights and to move leadership to pass a Just Cause policy that will protect renters from unjust rent hikes. Amigos de Guadalupe is a nonprofit organization focused specifically on serving the Mayfair community in San José. Their housing resources include housing coaching sessions, one-time security deposit assistance, temporary “Winter Faith Collaborative” shelter, and case management. Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is a state agency dedicated to enforcing California’s civil rights laws. Its mission targets unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations, hate violence, and human trafficking. Victims of discrimination can submit complaints directly to the department. SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION The following section includes an analysis of residential segregation and integration trends relevant to the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County and the overall Bay Area. This section analyzes both racial and income segregation/integration trends as well as segregation and integration trends specific to certain protected groups including special needs households, and persons with disabilities among others. Information provided in this section is derived from the 372 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-12 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Segregation Report which was provided to Bay Area jurisdictions for use in the 6th cycle housing element update process. These Reports were drafted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in collaboration with the University of California Merced. Therefore, parenthetical references are provided in the same manner as they were quoted in the report they were pulled from, as opposed to in footnotes. DEFINING SEGREGATION Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, resulting in the uneven distribution of groups across geographic space. Within this section, segregation trends are analyzed according to two levels of spatial segregation, neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and City-level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Intra-City Segregation (within a Jurisdiction, Neighborhood Level Segregation) Segregation of race and income groups from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. Intra-city segregation may be evident if certain neighborhoods within a jurisdiction have a disproportionate concentration (or lack thereof) of groups, relative to the entire jurisdiction. Inter-city Segregation (Between Jurisdictions in a Region, City-Level Segregation) Segregation of race and income groups between jurisdictions in a region. Inter-city segregation may be evident if certain jurisdictions have a disproportionate concentration (or lack thereof) of groups, relative to the entire Region. Segregation exists where there is a concentration of individuals with a particular protected characteristic in relation to the broader geographic area. Segregation can exist wholly within a particular city where neighborhoods have concentrations of protected class members. Segregation can also exist between municipalities and even across County boundaries within a broader metropolitan area. For persons with disabilities, segregation also includes residence in congregate and/or institutional facilities that allow for limited interaction with people who do not have disabilities, regardless of where those dwellings are located. Integration Integration, by contrast, is defined by both a relatively even distribution (or lack of concentration) of members of protected groups across a jurisdiction, relative to a broader geographic area. For persons with disabilities, this includes residence in settings like permanent supportive housing that provide opportunities for interaction with persons who do not have disabilities. 373 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-13 History and Legacy of Segregation Saratoga’s History Saratoga’s first non-indigenous settlement began in 1846/1847 when American Settler William Campbell established a Sawmill along the banks of present-day Saratoga Creek. Downstream from Campbell, several other pioneers began establishing permanent settlements including William Haun who set up a flour mill downstream from Campbell and the McCarty family who eventually settled downstream from Haun in what is now present day Saratoga Village. By the late 19th century and early 20th century Saratoga had grown into an active lumber town at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Redwoods were harvested on the eastern slopes of the neighboring mountains and helped grow Saratoga’s burgeoning early population. In 1904 the connection of the San Jose-Los Gatos Interurban Railroad through Saratoga saw the City’s population and industry grow even more so. As early as the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the City of Saratoga was used as a getaway for the Bay Area’s upper classes. Large estates were constructed along major corridors in the city like Saratoga Village and other prestigious neighborhoods along the new Interurban Railroad. Additionally, several villas, wineries, and health resorts such as Pacific Congress Springs, and Nippon Mira served as private retreats for many looking to escape to more rural parts of the Bay Area. Following the end of World War I in the early part of the 20th century, development within Saratoga turned away from large lot estates to more modest, yet distinguished suburban neighborhoods. By the time the US entered World War II, Saratoga was known as an established suburban town on the fringes of San Jose serving as an agricultural center and home for commuters to San Jose’s business and industrial districts. After World War II and upon the return of many soldiers to the US in the 1950’s Saratoga had begun to experience a new demand for conversion of nearby orchard lands into residential subdivisions. As development pressures continued within the still then unincorporated town, many residents grew concerned about the encroachment of more urban uses from neighboring parts of Santa Clara County like San Jose. These fears were further exacerbated by ongoing urban renewal and redevelopment activities going on in San Jose at the time under Mayor Dutch Hamann. Concerned residents of Saratoga, many of which were farmers with agricultural lands along the peripheries of the town, petitioned the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to rezone lands surrounding the town to greenbelt uses to avoid potential annexation of lands into San Jose. When this push for rezoning failed, residents instead turned to push for incorporation of the town of Saratoga, to avoid potential annexation to San Jose. The push for incorporation was successful and in 1956 the City of Saratoga was incorporated. In 1956 the City’s first City Council met to discuss and establish the long-range planning issues facing the new city, at the same time the City’s first Planning Commission met to draft the earliest versions of the new City’s General Plan which focused on maintaining an organized land use patter, minimizing congestion and flooding concerns, and preserving hillside recreation areas from development. 374 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-14 Segregation and Land Use There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation trends in communities across the Country. Historically, explicit discriminatory practices in real estate such as restrictive deeds and covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending practices were used to exclude persons of color and other protected groups from communities. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017). These explicit practices of racial discrimination were formally outlawed with the passing of the Civil Rights Act / Fair Housing Act of 1968. However, more contemporarily, segregation trends are influenced by seemingly race-neutral policies, such as land use decisions and housing development regulations, which work to maintain and perpetuate historical practices. Historic and contemporary segregation practices in housing have resulted in vastly unequal access to opportunities and positive health outcomes for persons of color and other protected groups. Generational lack of access to quality public goods such as schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety often results in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013). It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).2 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC 2 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I. 375 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-15 Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”3 However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state. Racial Segregation As decribed above, segregation may be evident when there is a concentration, or lack of individuals belonging to a particular protected group within a certain geography in relation to a broader geographic area. Therefore, racial segregation refers to the concentration or lack of a particular racial group within a certain geography, relative to a broader geography. The following subsection analyzes racial segregation and integration trends relevant to the City of Saratoga, relative to Santa Clara County and the overall 9- county Bay Area. The Section includes a summary of racial demographic data relevant to the City, as well as the various methods that may be used to evaluate and analyze racial segregation trends within and relative to the City of Saratoga. Racial / Ethnic Demographics of Saratoga In order to evaluate evidence of racial segregation trends, it is important to consider the racial and ethnic demographics of the City of Saratoga, relative to Santa Clara County and the larger nine-county Bay Area region which is comprised of over 109 jurisdictions. As depicted in Table 2 below, the City of Saratoga has a proportionately larger Asian/Pacific Islander (API) population than both the county and Bay Area. At 54.3% of the City’s population, this demographic group has grown exponentially over the years and is nearly double that of the Bay Area region (28.2%). This exponential growth in API residents is accompanied by an almost equal decline in White residents within the city. In contrast, the City has a proportionately lower Latinx population and Black population than both the 3 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 376 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-16 county and Bay Area. At just 3.6% of the City’s population, the proportion of Latinx residents in the city is roughly 6-7 times smaller than the county (25%) and Region (24.4%) demographics and has not fluctuated much over the years. Similarly at just 0.3% of the City’s population, the City’s proportion of Black residents is nearly 7 times smaller than the County (2.8%) and 18 times smaller than the Bay Area region (5.6%). TABLE 2: POPULATION BY RACIAL GROUP, SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, AND THE REGION RACE SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY BAY AREA 2000 2010 2020 2020 2020 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER 29.0% 41.3% 54.3% 39.5% 28.2% BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 2.8% 5.6% LATINX 3.1% 3.5% 3.6% 25%¹ 24.4% OTHER OR MULTIPLE RACES 2.3% 3.4% 4.6% 4.2% 5.9% WHITE 65.1% 51.6% 37.2% 30.6% 35.8% Universe: Population. Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004. ¹ Per US Census Bureau Hispanic population demographics for Santa Clara County include persons who also identify as another race, therefore county demographics total exceeds 100%, How the City of Saratoga’s population by race compares to other jurisdictions within the Bay Area region is further detailed below in Figure 2. In Figure 2, each blue circle represents one of the 109 jurisdictions comprising the Bay Area region, and the black line represents the City of Saratoga’s population percentage by each racial group, as included in Table 2 above. The City’s disproportionately high percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander residents relative to the overall Bay Area is evident in the thick black line being located above a majority of the blue circles in the “Asian/Pacific Islander” column. Similarly, the City’s disproportionately low percentage of Black and Latinx residents is evident in the thick black line being located below nearly all blue circles in the” Black” and “Latinx” columns. 377 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-17 FIGURE 2: RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF SARATOGA COMPARED TO ALL BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2020): Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions. Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Measuring Segregation The following section includes several methods that may be used to evaluate segregation trends relative to the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County and the nine-county Bay Area region. Each measure evaluates a different aspect of racial segregation and integration, therefore various measures are analyzed to provide for a comprehensive understanding of segregation and integration trends across geographies. Racial Dot Maps Racial dot maps are a useful method for visualizing potential segregation trends due to their ability to effectively visualize the distribution of multiple racial groups across specific geographies. Color coded dots are used to visualize the population density of each racial group across a geography. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher. A racial dot map of Saratoga in Figure 3 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction as previously numerically analyzed in Table 2 above. 378 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-18 FIGURE 3: RACIAL DOT MAP OF SARATOGA (2020) Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Saratoga and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people. Figure 3 above matches the City’s demographic data contained in Table 2 above. Based on the figure, a majority of dots are associated with White (blue dots) and Asian (red dots) residents within the city, the figure’s lack of green and tan dots is indicative of the City’s lack of significant Black or Latinx populations. When compared to the broader geographic area surrounding the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Saratoga, other trends of racial clustering become more evident at different scales. For example, the racial dot map of Santa Clara County included below in Figure 4 illustrates the lack of Latinx (tan dots) and Black (green dots) residents in west valley communities, including but not limited to Saratoga. These racial groups are instead concentrated largely within other portions of the County, primarily the City of San Jose to the east. Additionally, the broader geographic area helps illuminate that the clustering of White 379 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-19 (blue dots) and Asian (red dots) residents is not unique to Saratoga and other Santa Clara County jurisdictions have similar concentrations. This correlates with the racial demographic data contained in Table 2 above which shows the overall County’s proportion of API residents is well above that of the Bay Area region as well. FIGURE 4: RACIAL DOT MAP OF SARATOGA AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY (2020) Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for Unincorporated Santa Clara County and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people. Furthermore, when an even broader geographic context is considered, additional demographic patterns and trends become evident. For example, the racial dot map of the 9- county Bay Area region contained within Figure 5 below, helps illustrate the concentration (and lacktehreof) of certain racial groups across jurisdiction boundaries. Jurisdictions which visually appear to include concentrations of Black residents (green dots) seem to include the City of Antioch located in the northeast portion of the Bay Area as well as Oakland, San Leandro, and other areas of Contra Costa and Alameda counties to the north. These areas also visually appear to have clusters of Latinx residents (tan dots) as well. Conversley, several areas throughout the Bay Area lack substantial populations of Latinx (tan dots) or Black 380 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-20 (green dots) residents and instead have concetrations of White (blue dots) and API (red dots) residents including areas within Santa Clara County but also various other counties throughout the Bay Area. FIGURE 5: RACIAL DOT MAP OF BAY AREA REGION (2020) Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for Unincorporated Alameda County and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people. Isolation Index Another way to evaluate segregation and integration trends is isolation indices. An isolation index compares each neighborhood’s racial composition to that of a larger geography, such as an entire jurisdiction, or region. Isolation indices measure the lived experience of a member of a certain racial group within a neighborhood by evaluating what percent of a neighborhood an average member of each racial group in a community can expect to be comprised of individuals of their same racial group. For example, an isolation index of 0.65 381 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-21 for Latinx residents in a city, means the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx. Similarly, an isolation index of 0.15 for Black residents in a city, means the average Black resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 15% Black. Isolation indices range in value from 0 to 1. Higher isolation index values typically indicate a greater concentration of a certain racial group in certain neighborhoods, and lesser concentrations of individuals of other racial groups. Racial groups in a community with higher isolation indices are less likely to encounter individuals of other racial groups in their neighborhood. Conversely, lower isolation index values typically indicate a lesser concertation of a certain racial group in neighborhoods and a larger number of individuals belonging to other racial groups in neighborhoods instead. Therefore, racial groups in a community with lower isolation index values are more likely to encounter individuals of other racial groups in their neighborhood. Table 3 below includes the isolation indices of racial groups within the City of Saratoga as well as compared to the 9-county Bay Area region. TABLE 3: RACIAL ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN SARATOGA RACE SARATOGA BAY AREA AVERAGE 2000 2010 2020 2020 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER 0.314 0.446 0.562 0.245 BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.053 LATINX 0.036 0.043 0.044 0.251 WHITE 0.663 0.539 0.390 0.491 Universe: Population. Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004. Within the City of Saratoga, the racial group with the highest isolation index is Asian/Pacific Islander (API) residents. Saratoga’s isolation index of 0.562 for API residents means that the average API resident lives in a neighborhood that is 56.2% API. This index is more than double that of the Bay Area average of 0.245 which suggests there is a higher concertation of API residents in Saratoga neighborhoods relative to other Bay Area jurisdictions (which comprise the Bay Area average index. White residents within the ity of Saratoga have the second highest isolation index value among racial groups at 0.39. This means the average white resident in the city lives in a neighborhood that is 39% white. Looking at index values from both 2010 and 2000, it is evident that isolation index values for API residents have steadily risen over the years, while isolation index values for white residents have steadily fallen over the years. Between the years 2000 and 2020, the isolation index for white residents has changed the most of all racial groups. This isolation index data is consistent with the demographic data of the City contained in Table 2 above which shows that API and 382 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-22 White residents comprise the largest proportions of the City’s overall population, and that the City’s decline in white population between 2000 and 2020 was matched by a nearly equal increase in the City’s API population over the same time. Other racial groups such as Black and Latinx residents have lower indices values within the City of Saratoga, indicating average members of those racial groups are less likely to encounter members of their own racial group within their neighborhoods. However, it is important to note that due to the relatively low proportion of the City’s population made up of these groups (Black and Latinx), low isolation indices do not necessarily indicate a lack of segregation of these groups. But rather that the segregation may be occurring on a broader, more regional, geographic scale as suggested by the racial dot maps included above, earlier in the Chapter. Figure 6 below further assists in visualizing the isolation indices included above in Table 3. In Figure 6, each blue and green circle represents one of the 109 jurisdictions comprising the Bay Area region, while the dotted red line represents the Bay Area 2020 average isolation indices for each racial group as included in the above Table 2. Jurisdictions falling above the Bay Area average are represented by green circles, while jurisdictions falling below the regional average are blue circles. The City’s relatively high isolation indices among API residents is indicated by the thick black line representing the City being above a majority of jurisdictions (circles) and the Bay Area average. Similarly, in the white residents’ column of the figure, the thick black line representing the City is located below the Bay Area average, and below several communities, represented by blue and green circles, while being above many others. Additionally, while Saratoga’s isolation indices for Black and Latinx residents along cannot be used to evaluate segregation trends in the community, partially due to the City’s small populations of these groups, the below figure does help visualize the more regional trends of segregation suggested by the indices values when compared to regional averages. As depicted in the Figure 6 below, the thick black line representing the City of Saratoga in the Black and Latinx columns of the figure is located below a majority of the other jurisdictions, represented by circles. 383 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-23 FIGURE 6: RACIAL ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR SARATOGA COMPARED TO OTHER BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2020) Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions. Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Dissimilarity Index Another way to evaluate segregation and integration trends is the dissimilarity index. A dissimilarity index compares the distribution of two racial groups within a neighborhood, compared to that of the racial composition of a broader geography, such as an entire jurisdiction, or region. For purposes of this analysis, a dissimilarity index measures how evenly any two racial groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall. Dissimilarity indices range from 0 to 1 and represent the share of either racial group that would have to move neighborhoods to create a distribution of the two groups that is more equal to the distribution of the broader city. For example, if a city has a black/white resident dissimilarity index of 0.65, this means 65% of either group, black or white, would need to move neighborhoods to create a distribution that is more equal to that of the entire city. Therefore, higher dissimilarity indices suggest evidence of segregation trends between two groups. Table 4 below provides the dissimilarity index values for White residents, and other racial groups, within the City of Saratoga. The table also includes the Bay Area Average of the 109 jurisdictions comprising the Bay Area region for comparison. 384 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-24 TABLE 4: RACIAL DISSIMILARITY INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN SARATOGA RACE SARATOGA BAY AREA AVERAGE 2000 2010 2020 2020 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER VS. WHITE 0.183 0.217 0.180 0.185 BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN VS. WHITE 0.133* 0.157* 0.238* 0.244 LATINX VS. WHITE 0.098* 0.136* 0.110* 0.207 PEOPLE OF COLOR VS. WHITE 0.148 0.181 0.154 0.168 Universe: Population. Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004. Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5% of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers. Dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. In City of Saratoga, the Latinx group is 3.6% of the population, and the Black/African American group is 0.3% of the population - this small population size means that the dissimilarity index values involving these groups is not very reliable. In Saratoga the highest dissimilarity index is that of Black and White residents at 0.238, however it should be noted that due to the City’s low populations of both Black and Latinx residents, dissimilarity index values for these groups are unreliable for analysis purposes of segregation trends. Therefore, the next highest index value is that of API and White residents at 0.180. This index indicates that 18% of API or White residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create a distribution of the two groups more equal to that of the entire city. This value us very similar to the Bay Area Average for both groups, which is 0.185. Considering the large proportion of Saratoga’s population comprised of API and White residents, and the similar regional dissimilarity index 385 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-25 for these two groups, it can be assumed that there are lower levels of intra-city segregation between API and White residents in the city. INCOME SEGREGATION As previously discussed, segregation may be evident when there is a concentration, or lack of individuals belonging to a particular group within a certain geography in relation to a broader geographic area. Therefore, income segregation refers to the concentration or lack of a particular income group within a certain geography, relative to a broader geography. The following subsection analyzes income segregation and integration trends relevant to the City of Saratoga, relative to Santa Clara County and the overall Bay Area. The Section includes a summary of income demographic data relevant to the City, as well as the various methods that may be used to evaluate and analyze income segregation trends within and relative to the City of Saratoga. Income Demographics of Saratoga In order to evaluate evidence of income segregation trends, it is important to consider the income demographics of the City of Saratoga for comparison relative to other Santa Clara County communities and the larger nine-county Bay Area region. Income demographics analyzed within this Section are referenced relative to the area median income (AMI) of the relevant Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Table 5 below summarizes the income demographics of the City of Saratoga, relative to the 9-county Bay Area as a whole. TABLE 5: POPULATION BY INCOME GROUP, SARATOGA, AND THE REGION INCOME GROUP SARATOGA BAY AREA 2010 2015 2015 VERY LOW-INCOME (<50% AMI) 9.75% 10.33% 28.7% LOW-INCOME (50%-80% AMI) 2.89% 5.36% 14.3% MODERATE-INCOME (80%-120% AMI) 8.31% 10.75% 17.6% ABOVE MODERATE-INCOME (>120% AMI) 79.05% 73.56% 39.4% Universe: Population. Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Per Table 5, the City of Saratoga has a disproportionately high percentage of its population classified as above moderate-income households compared to that of the overall Bay Area. Whereas the overall Bay Area has just 39% of its population classified as “above moderate income”, the City has over 73% of its population classified as such, nearly double that of the 386 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-26 overall Bay Area. Conversely, the City also has a disproportionately small percentage of its population classified as income groups other than “above moderate income”. Whereas over 28% of the Bay Area’s population is classified as “very low income”, just over 10% of the City of Saratoga’s population is classified as such; and where 14% of the Bay Area’s population is classified as “low income”, just 5% of the City’s population is classified as such. How the City of Saratoga’s population by income group compares to other jurisdictions within the Bay Area region is included below in Figure 7. In Figure 7, each blue circle represents one of the 109 jurisdictions comprising the Bay Area region, and the black line represents the City of Saratoga’s population percentage by each income group, relative to the blue dots. The City’s disproportionately high percentage of residents classified as “above- moderate income”, relative to the overall Bay Area is evident in the thick black line being located above a majority of the blue circles in the “above-moderate income” income group column, but below a majority of blue circles in the other three, lower income groups. FIGURE 7: INCOME DEMOGRAPHICS OF SARATOGA COMPARED TO OTHER BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2015) Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data. 387 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-27 Measuring Segregation Income Dot Maps Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps, similar to the racial dot maps shown in Figures Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. earlier in this chapter, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of Saratoga in Figure 8 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income groups within the jurisdiction. As with the racial dot maps, when the dots show lack of a pattern or clustering, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well. The income dot map of the City of Saratoga included in Figure 8 below helps visualize the City’s large proportion of households classified as “above moderate income”, indicated by the concentration of darker orange dots within the City’s boundaries, and noticeably smaller number of other color dots in comparison. 388 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-28 FIGURE 8: INCOME DOT MAP OF SARATOGA (2015) Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Saratoga and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals. When compared to the broader geographic area surrounding the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Saratoga, other trends of income clustering become more evident at different scales. For example, the racial dot map included below in Figure 9 helps illustrate the distribution of household incomes across Saratoga along with various surrounding jurisdictions. As depicted in the map, the clustering of above moderate-income households is not unique to the City of Saratoga, but rather evident in various other West Valley communities like neighboring Cupertino. Conversely, it is evident that there are noticeably lower and very low-income households located within communities to the east, like Meridian, Campbell and especially San Jose (see below in Figure 9). 389 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-29 FIGURE 9: INCOME DOT MAP OF SARATOGA AND SURROUNDING AREAS (2015) Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Saratoga and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals. Furthermore, when an even broader geographic context is considered, additional demographic patterns and trends become evident. For example, the below income dot map of the 9-county Bay Area region contained within Figure 10, helps illustrate the concentration (and lacktehreof) of certain income groups across jurisdicitonal boundaries. Jurisdicitons which visually appear to include larger concentrations of lower income households (light or darker blue dots) include the more urban cities of San Francisco, Oakland, San Leandro, and San Jose among others. Conversely, light and darker blue dots representing lower-income households appear in seemingly smaller concentrations in other, more suburban areas outside of urban cores such as southern San Mateo County and northern Santa Clara County. 390 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-30 FIGURE 10: INCOME DOT MAP OF BAY AREA REGION (2015) Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low-and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for Unincorporated Alameda County and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals. Isolation Index As previously discussed, one way to evaluate income segregation and integration trends is isolation indices. Within this Appendix, isolation indices are utilized to compare a neighborhoods income demographics to that of a larger geography such as a jurisdiction or region. Isolation indices measure the lived experience of a member of a certain income group within a neighborhood by evaluating what percent of a neighborhood, an average member of each income group in a community can expect to be comprised of individuals of their same income group. For example, an isolation index of 0.65 for Moderate Income households in a city, means the average moderate-income resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is comprised of households where 65% are classified as “Above Moderate Income” as well. Similarly, an isolation index of 0.15 for low-income residents in a city, means 391 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-31 the average low-income resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is comprised of households where 15% are classified as “Low Income” as well. Isolation indices range in value from 0 to 1. Higher isolation index values typically indicate a greater concentration of a certain income group in certain neighborhoods, and lesser concentrations of individuals of other income groups. Racial groups in a community with higher isolation indices are less likely to encounter individuals of other income groups in their neighborhood. Conversely, lower isolation index values typically indicate a lesser concertation of a certain income group in neighborhoods and a larger number of individuals belonging to other income groups in neighborhoods instead. Therefore, income groups in a community with lower isolation index values are more likely to encounter individuals of other income groups in their neighborhood. The isolation index values for all income groups in Saratoga for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 6 below.4 TABLE 6: INCOME GROUP ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN SARATOGA INCOME GROUP SARATOGA BAY AREA AVERAGE 2010 2015 2015 VERY LOW-INCOME (<50% AMI) 0.101 0.114 0.269 LOW-INCOME (50%-80% AMI) 0.030 0.063 0.145 MODERATE-INCOME (80%-120% AMI) 0.085 0.118 0.183 ABOVE MODERATE-INCOME (>120% AMI) 0.794 0.739 0.507 Universe: Population. Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004. Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Within the City of Saratoga, the income group with the highest isolation index is above- moderate income households. Saratoga’s isolation index of 0.739 for Above-Moderate Income Households means that the average Above-Moderate Income Households resident lives in a neighborhood that is comprised of households where 73.9% are Above-Moderate Income Households. This isolation index for Above-Moderate Income Households is well above that of the Bay Area average of 0.507 which indicates above moderate-income household residents in the City of Saratoga are less likely to encounter households that are not “above-moderate income” than other jurisdictions. This suggests there is a higher 4 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. This data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. For more information on HCD’s recommendations for calculating income segregation, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. 392 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-32 concertation of above moderate-income households in Saratoga neighborhoods relative to other Bay Area jurisdictions (which comprise the Bay Area average index). Other lower-income groups contained in the Table 6 above such as moderate, low, and very low-income households, have lower isolation indices in Saratoga than the Bay Area average. Typically, these lower isolation index values would indicate that members of these lower- income groups within Saratoga are more likely to encounter residents of other income groups within Saratoga than in other Bay Area jurisdictions. However, due to the relatively small proportion of the City of Saratoga’s population comprised of income groups other than “above-moderate income”, these lower index values are not reliable for interpretation of isolation among lower-income groups within Saratoga. Figure 11 below further assists in visualizing the isolation indices included above in Table 6. In the figure below, each blue and green circle represents one of the 109 jurisdictions comprising the Bay Area region, while the dotted red line represents the Bay Area 2020 average isolation index for each income group as included in the above Table 6, jurisdictions falling above the Bay Area average are represented by green circles, while jurisdictions falling below the regional average are blue circles. The City of Saratoga’s relatively high isolation indices among above moderate-income residents is indicated by the thick black line representing the City being above a majority of jurisdictions (circles) and the Bay Area average in this column. FIGURE 11: INCOME GROUP ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR SARATOGA COMPARED TO OTHER BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2015) Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. 393 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-33 Dissimilarity Index Another way to evaluate segregation and integration trends is the dissimilarity index. A dissimilarity index compares the distribution of 2 income groups within a neighborhood, compared to that of the demographics of a broader geography, such as an entire jurisdiction, or region. For purposes of this analysis, a dissimilarity index measures how evenly any two income groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall. Dissimilarity indices range from 0 to 1 and represent the share of either income group that would have to move neighborhoods to create a distribution of the two groups that is more equal to the distribution of the broader city. For example, if two income groups have a dissimilarity index of 0.65, this means 65% of either income group, would need to move neighborhoods to create a distribution that is more equal to that of the entire city. Therefore, higher dissimilarity indices suggest evidence of segregation trends between two groups. Table 7 below provides the dissimilarity index values for different income groups within the City of Saratoga, compared to that of the Bay Area average. For purposes of analyzing dissimilarity among lower-income households, households earning less than 80% of AMI were compared to those earning above 80% of AMI. For purposes of analyzing dissimilarity between the lowest and highest income groups within the city, households earning below 50% AMI were compared those earning above 120% AMI. These analyses allow for an understanding of the extent to which the City’s lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods. Based on the indices contained in Table 7, 14.6% of households earning below 50% of AMI (very-low income) or households earning above 120% of AMI (above moderate income) within the City of Saratoga would need to move neighborhoods to create a distribution of these two income groups more equal to the larger area Similarly, 11.8% of households earning below 80% of AMI (lower-income) or above 80% of AMI (not lower-income) would need to move neighborhoods to create a distribution of these two income groups more equal to the larger area. In comparison to 2010 numbers, the apparent dissimilarity between both sets of income groups has increased over the years. In regard to the overall Bay Area average, it appears dissimilarity indices for both sets of income groups are lower within the City of Saratoga than that of the regional Average. While lower dissimilarity indices tend to indicate lower levels of geographic dissimilarity between income groups, they should also be considered in conjunction with the overall income demographics of a jurisdiction in relation to a broader geography. 394 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-34 TABLE 7: INCOME GROUP DISSIMILARITY INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN SARATOGA INCOME GROUP SARATOGA BAY AREA AVERAGE 2010 2015 2015 BELOW 80% AMI VS. ABOVE 80% AMI 0.074 0.118 0.198 BELOW 50% AMI VS. ABOVE 120% AMI 0.095 0.146 0.253 Universe: Population. Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. SEGREGATION OF SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS In addition to segregation and integration trends according to race and income group, HCD also requires communities to analyze segregation and integration trends among special needs populations. Special needs populations refers to individuals with special or unique housing needs such as families or persons with disabilities. Therefore, the following section analyzes the concentration, or lackthereof individuals with special needs within the City of Saratoga, relative to both Santa Clara County and the overall Bay Area region. Familial Status Fair Housing Laws prohibit housing providers (e.g., landlords, property managers, real estate agents, or property owners) from discriminating in the provision of housing according to familial status. Familial status refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old, pregnant persons, or any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination in housing include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family (through birth, adoption, or custody), enforcing overly restrictive rules regarding children’s use of common areas, requiring families with children to live on specific floors, buildings, or areas, charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children, advertising a preference for households without children, and lying about unit availability. Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Of particular consideration are female-headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers. Figures 12 below provides familial status by household for the City of Saratoga compared to Santa Clara County and the larger Bay Area region. 395 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-35 FIGURE 12: HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2019 Source: ABAG Data Packet for the City of Saratoga Universe: Households Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23. Figure 12 helps illustrate that a majority (74.2%) of households within the City of Saratoga are headed by married couples with children, well above that of the County (57%) and Region (51.2%). Conversely and to a lesser degree, Saratoga also has a smaller proportion of single- person households (14.8%), and female-headed family households (6%) than that of the County or Region. In regard to familial size, and the special housing needs many families with several children require. Figure 13 below provides an overview of household size in the City of Saratoga compared to that of Santa Clara County and larger Bay Area Region. According to the data provided in Figure 13, Saratoga has roughly similar household size demographics as that of the County and Bay Area Region. Saratoga does have slightly lower proportions of 1-person households and 5-person or more households than that of the County and Region. 396 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-36 FIGURE 13: HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 2019 Source: ABAG Data Packet for the City of Saratoga. Persons with Disabilities Fair Housing Laws also prohibit housing providers (e.g., landlords, property managers, real estate agents, or property owners) from discriminating in the provision of housing according to disability status. This includes unique protections to persons with disabilities including (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. It is common for persons with disabilities to have special housing needs due to a general lack of accessible and affordable housing, fixed incomes that further limit their housing options, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. Utilizing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) AFFH Mapping Tool, the City of Saratoga’s distribution of residents with reported disabilities can be evaluated for identification of any relevant trends and/or concentrations. According to the data included below in Figure 14, it appears census tract no. 5073.01, which encompasses the western portion of the city located southeast of Saratoga Avenue contains a slightly higher 15%20%25% 37%31%32% 41%37%33% 8%12%11% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Saratoga Santa Clara County Bay AreaPercent of Households1-Person Household 2-Person Household 3-4-Person Household 5-Person or More Household 397 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-37 percentage of persons with disabilities than other census tracts comprising the city. This is likely attributed to the location of both the Saratoga Retirement Community and Fellowship Plaza, another Senior Housing development within this census tract. FIGURE 14: POPULATION BY DISABILITY STATUS Source: Us Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) AFFH Data Viewer On a more intra-city, regional level analysis of disability demographic data, it appears the City of Saratoga’s population has approximately the same proportion of residents with a reported disability as that of Santa Clara County and the larger Bay Area Region. As included below in Figure 15, 8% of both the city and the county’s populations report having a disability while 10% of the region’s population reports having a disability. This indicates there is not a comparative concentration or overrepresentation of disabled persons within the City of Saratoga relative to the county or region. 398 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-38 FIGURE 15: POPULATION BY DISABILITY STATUS, 2019 Source: ABAG Data Packet for the City of Saratoga. Per a October 2021 phone conversation with Jan Stokely, Housing Choices, in recent years, there is a net loss of licensed care homes in the County for persons with developmental disabilities. There is a need for deeply affordable housing close to bus lines. Saratoga does not have any 6 or fewer care homes. RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY (R/ECAP) A racially and ethnically concentrated area of poverty (R/ECAP) is defined as an area of a jurisdiction that has a non-White population that exceeds 50% of the overall population and has over 40% of households with median incomes below the poverty line. There are no R/ECAPs located within the City of Saratoga. R/ECAPS located within Santa Clara County are located within the City of San Jose per ABAG’s AFFH Mapping Tool (see Figure 16 below). 92%92%90% 8% 8%10% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Saratoga Santa Clara County Bay AreaPercent of Non-institutionalized populationNo disability With a disability 399 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-39 FIGURE 16: RACIALLY/ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY (RE/CAPS), 2009-2013 Source: HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer Conversely, a racially and ethnically concentrated area of affluence (RCAA) is defined as an area within a jurisdiction with at white population that exceeds 80% of the overall population. There are no RCAAs identified within the City of Saratoga. Directly southeast of the city, portions of the town of Lost Gatos and adjacent surrounding areas are identified as a RCAA, see Figure 17 below. 400 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-40 FIGURE 17: RCAAS, 2009-2013 Source: HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY The following section includes an analysis of disparities in access to opportunity within and relative to, the City of Saratoga. AB 686 (2018) requires communities to include an analysis of disparities in access to opportunity as part of their AFFH to include an analysis of access to opportunities to evaluate the link between place-based characteristics (e.g., education, employment, safety, the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g., health, wealth, life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) One tool that can be used to analyze disparities in access to opportunities are Opportunity Area Scores developed by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s (TCAC). The TCAC administers the federal government and state’s Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs 401 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-41 which operate to promote private investment in affordable rental housing for low-income Californians. Opportunity Scores TCAC’s Opportunity Scores are used by HCD to map and identify areas statewide where economic, educational, and environmental characteristics support positive outcomes for low-income families. Maps are updated annually and made for three domains: economic, environmental, and educational outcomes, each of which is derived from a number of indicators to determine an overall opportunity score. See Table 8 below. A composite score and resource designation combining all three designations is then assigned to each block group. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one. The higher the number, and closer to one, the more positive the outcomes. TABLE 8: TCAC OPPORTUNITY SCORES DOMAINS AND LIST OF INDICATORS FOR OPPORTUNITY MAPS DOMAIN INDICATOR ECONOMIC Poverty Adult Education Employment Job Proximity Median Home Value ENVIRONMENTAL CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values EDUCATION Math Proficiency Reading Proficiency High School Graduation Rates Student Poverty Rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020. Areas with higher opportunity scores, based off the indicators are generally considered to be high resource areas5. These areas have access to resources which are known to offer residents, but particularly low-income residents, the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Areas defined as “moderate resource” areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes across the various economic, educational, and environmental indicators. Areas defined as “low resource” areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities for employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. 5 To determine final resource category, the top 20% of overall opportunity scores in a county are labeled as highest resource and the next 20% of scores are labeled as high resource. Then, any areas that are considered segregated and that have at least 30% of the population living below the federal poverty line are labeled as an area of High Segregation and Poverty. Any remaining uncategorized areas in the county are evenly divided between moderate resource and low resource areas 402 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-42 A summary of Opportunity Scores within the City of Saratoga, by census tract and opportunity outcome are included below in Table 9. A map of census tracts within the City of Saratoga is also included below as Figure 18, for reference. As depicted in the below table, all of the census tracts comprising the city have outcomes and composite opportunity scores translating into a “highest resource” area definition. TABLE 9: TCAC OPPORTUNITY SCORES, CITY OF SARATOGA CENSUS TRACT ECONOMIC DOMAIN SCORE ENVIRONMENTAL DOMAIN SCORE EDUCATION DOMAIN SCORE COMPOSITE INDEX SCORE FINAL CATEGORY 5073.01 0.885 0.845 0.954 0.802 Highest resource 5073.02 0.814 0.961 0.987 0.841 Highest resource 5074.01 0.951 0.811 0.958 0.864 Highest resource 5074.02 0.85 0.651 0.9 0.666 Highest resource 5075 0.871 0.809 0.981 0.825 Highest resource 5076 0.803 0.916 0.981 0.801 Highest resource Universe: Population Source: TCAC Opportunity Maps, HCD AFFH Data Viewer. FIGURE 18: SARATOGA CENSUS TRACTS Source: Source: United States Census Tract Reference Map, and HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer 403 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-43 Mapping opportunity scores may provide additional insight into spatial trends regarding access to opportunity in a given geography. These trends can help highlight where housing policies and programs are necessary to remediate conditions in low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty, and to encourage better access for low- and moderate- income and BIPOC households to housing in high resource areas. As depicted below in the Opportunity map (Figure 19), the City of Saratoga as well as a majority of adjacent west valley communities within Santa Clara County are classified as” high resource” and “highest resource” areas. Conversely, a majority of the county’s “low resource” areas are concentrated in and around San Jose, as well as around Gilroy towards the south of the county (see Figure 19 below). FIGURE 19: TCAC OPPORTUNITY SCORES MAP, SANTA CLARA COUNTY (2022) Source: University of California Berkeley Othering and Belonging Institute, 2022 404 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-44 FIGURE 20: TCAC OPPORTUNITY SCORES MAP, BAY AREA REGION (2022) Source: University of California Berkeley Othering and Belonging Institute, 2022 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS, INCLUDING DISPLACEMENT State Law requires communities to evaluate disproportionate housing needs within and in relation to their jurisdiction. Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this AFH, categories of housing needs analyzed include: cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions, and displacement which disproportionately effects a certain group. These needs are analyzed within City of Saratoga and compared to Santa Clara County and the Bay Area region. 405 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-45 COST BURDEN AND SEVERE COST BURDEN Due to the Bay Area having some of the highest home prices in the nation, many households are considered “cost-burdened”. A household is considered “cost-burdened” when more than 30% of its monthly income is spent on housing costs. When more than 50% of their income is spent on housing households are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Spending a substantial proportion of one’s income on housing may put households, particularly lower- income households at risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness in the face of financial instability. Close to 68% of households in the City of Saratoga do not experience any degree of cost burden when it comes to housing costs. Whereas little over 15% of total households in the city spend 30 to 50% of their incomes on housing and are considered “cost burdened” while another 15% of total households spend more than 50% of their incomes on housing and are considered “severely cost burdened”. Degree and prevalence of cost burden can vary across income level and housing tenure in a community. In terms of household income levels within the City of Saratoga, severe cost burden appears to be disproportionately experienced by households earning less than 50% of AMI as depicted below in Figure 21. In the case of housing tenure, it is common for renters to experience greater cost burden and effects of market increases in a competitive housing market versus homeowners who are often locked into fixed-rate mortgages and insulated from such increases. However, in Saratoga, not much variation exists in cost burden across housing tenure. While 14.9% of renters in the city are considered cost burdened, so are 15% of homeowners. Similarly, while 12.5% of renters are severely cost burdened, so are 15.5% of homeowners. However, cost burden in Saratoga is not experienced equally across income categories. Rather, cost burden is greatest on households earning less than 50% of AMI. For households earning less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income, over 65% of households are cost burdened to some degree.6 Meanwhile, for households earning between 31 and 50% of AMI, which is considered low-income, over 77% of households are cost burdened. The percentage of households that are considered cost burdened or severely cost burdened in the city significantly decreases as income level rises. Of the households with incomes exceeding 100% of AMI, just 15% of households are cost burdened while only 4.6% are considered severely cost burdened (see Figure 21 below). 6 Includes households that are cost burdened and severely cost burdened. 406 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-46 FIGURE 21: COST BURDEN BY INCOME LEVEL Universe: Occupied housing units Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release NOTES: COST BURDEN IS THE RATIO OF HOUSING COSTS TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME. FOR RENTERS, HOUSING COST IS GROSS RENT (CONTRACT RENT PLUS UTILITIES). FOR OWNERS, HOUSING COST IS “SELECT MONTHLY OWNER COSTS”, WHICH INCLUDES MORTGAGE PAYMENT, UTILITIES, ASSOCIATION FEES, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE TAXES. HUD DEFINES COST-BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS AS THOSE WHOSE MONTHLY HOUSING COSTS EXCEED 30% OF MONTHLY INCOME, WHILE SEVERELY COST-BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS ARE THOSE WHOSE MONTHLY HOUSING COSTS EXCEED 50% OF MONTHLY INCOME. INCOME GROUPS ARE BASED ON HUD CALCULATIONS FOR AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI). There are also disparities in housing cost burden in Saratoga by race and ethnicity (see Figure 22). American Indian or Alaska Native residents are the most cost burdened as a percentage of total population (54%) spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing but are a relatively low total number of the population. Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened with 18.5% spending more than 50% of their income on housing. Residents who self-selected Other Race of Multiple races (32%) and Black or African American households (23%) experience the next highest rates of cost burden in the city. API (29%) and non-Hispanic White households (28%) are most likely to be severely cost burdened, meaning they spend 50% or more of income on housing. This is likely due to the large majority of the City’s population comprised of White and API residents, as well as the relative high cost of living within the City of Saratoga and the Bay Area region. 407 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-47 FIGURE 22: COST BURDEN BY RACE, 2019 Source: ABAG Data Packet There are no significant concentrations of cost burdened renters in the city (Figure 23), although there is some difference between the west and the east of the city with the east border having a higher percentage (see Figure 23). Interestingly, there are concentrations of burdened owners in the opposite side of the city (see Figure 24). 46% 70%77%71%68%68% 54%17% 23% 13%32% 14% 12%15%18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Percent of Households0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Cost Burden Not computed 408 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-48 FIGURE 23: OVERPAYMENT (COST BURDEN) FOR RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY CENSUS TRACT, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer. FIGURE 24: OVERPAYMENT (COST BURDEN) FOR OWNER HOUSEHOLDS BY CENSUS TRACT, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer. OVERCROWDING Overcrowding in residential settings occurs when the number of persons living in a household is greater than the home was designed for and is usually related to the high cost of housing in an area. For purposes of analysis, this Section utilizes the US Census Bureau’s definition of overcrowding which is more than one occupant per room (exclusive of kitchens and bathrooms). Similarly, severely overcrowded refers to when there are more than 1.5 occupants per room. Within the City of Saratoga, the overall percentage of households experiencing some level of overcrowding is relatively low. However, despite the low number of total households in the city experiencing overcrowded conditions, overcrowding does seem to impact certain groups 409 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-49 of the City’s population at higher rates than others. For example, while 1.9% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), just 0.2% of households that own experience the same. Similarly, 0.6% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), whereas just 0.2% for those own experience the same (see Figure 25 below). FIGURE 25: OVERCROWDING BY TENURE AND SEVERITY Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-01. Similar to renters, lower-income households within the City of Saratoga also disproportionately experience overcrowding conditions relative to other income groups. As shown below in Figure 26, very-low-income households earning less than 30% of area median income almost exclusively experience extreme overcrowding within the city. 410 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-50 FIGURE 26: OVERCROWDING BY INCOME LEVEL AND SEVERITY Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-04. SUBSTANDARD HOUSING Due to the high housing costs associated with the San Francisco Bay Area Region, many households, particularly renters, sometimes live-in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues occurring within private residences of a community. However, utilizing certain data, limited observations can be made regarding certain characteristics of substandard housing conditions in the relative geographic area surrounding the City of Saratoga. These characteristics focus on whether households have complete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities. Within the City of Saratoga for example, a total of 3.7% of renters report lacking complete kitchen facilities, which can be likely be tied to the limited supply of rental housing within the city. Similarly, a Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) from the US Census Bureau for the cities/towns of Cupertino, Saratoga and Los Gatos, can be used to evaluate similar trends among other population groups, including various racial groups and persons with 411 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-51 disabilities. As depicted in the below Table 10 and Figure 27, there are not many noticeable trends among racial groups and households that do or do not have complete kitchen or plumbing facilities in the Microdata sample. This is likely due to the relatively high median income values of the general area. However, a slightly higher percentage of persons with disabilities (4.1%) do lack complete kitchen facilities. This can likely be attributed to some living in congregate settings like board and care homes that offer shared kitchen facilities. TABLE 10: COMPLETE PLUMBING AND KITCHEN FACILITIES BY POPULATION GROUP POPULATION GROUP TOTAL POPULATION % IN UNITS THAT LACK COMPLETE PLUMBING FACILITIES % IN UNITS THAT HAVE COMPLETE PLUMBING FACILITIES % IN UNITS THAT LACK COMPLETE KITCHEN FACILITIES % IN UNITS THAT HAVE COMPLETE KITCHEN FACILITIES RACE WHITE ALONE* 67,003 0.2% 99.8% 0.7% 99.3% BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN ALONE 1,128 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% ASIAN ALONE 64,931 0.1% 99.9% 0.6% 99.4% HISPANIC OR LATINO (OF ANY RACE) 6,489 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% DISABILITY STATUS WITH A DISABILITY 9,443 1.1% 98.9% 4.1% 95.9% WITHOUT A DISABILITY 130,562 0.1% 99.9% 0.4% 99.6% Source: ACS Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) – Cupertino, Saratoga (Cities) and Los Gatos (2015-2019). FIGURE 27: SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS BY CENSUS TRACT, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer 412 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-52 HOMELESSNESS According to Santa Clara County’s biannual 2019 Census and Survey of Unhoused Individuals, there are approximately 9,706 persons experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County, representing a 31% increase over 2017. Less than 0.10% of these 9,706 persons, totaling just ten unhoused individuals, are located within the City of Saratoga. Within Santa Clara County’s unhoused individual population, a majority of individuals (40%) identify as “White / Non-Hispanic” followed by “Multi-race or Other” and “Black or African American” as depicted below in Figure 28. Within Figure 28, where the blue bar of a certain racial group is larger than the green bar of that same group, the share of homeless population comprised of that group is considered disproportionate to the share that group comprises of the overall County population. FIGURE 28: RACIAL GROUP SHARE OF GENERAL AND HOMELESS POPULATION, SANTA CLARA COUNTY (2019) Universe: Population experiencing homelessness Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area County is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table. Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02. 413 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-53 Based on the data presented in the figure below, persons of color within Santa Clara County are disproportionately affected by homelessness compared to other racial groups. While Black or African American residents make up just 3% of the County’s population, they comprise 18% of the County’s unhoused population. Similarly, while Latinx residents make up close to 26% of the County’s general population, they comprise close to 43% of the County’s unhoused population (see Figure 29). These numbers are disproportionate when compared to other groups, for example, white residents may make up 40% of the County’s unhoused population, but they also comprise 44% of the county’s general population, which is more proportionate to the share the group comprises of the overall city’s population. This disproportionate effect of homelessness on persons of color can be tied to historic federal and local housing policies which historically excluded persons of color from opportunities as described earlier in this Appendix. FIGURE 29: LATINX SHARE OF GENERAL AND HOMELESS POPULATION, SANTA CLARA COUNTY (2019) Universe: Population experiencing homelessness Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area County is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I). For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-03. 414 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-54 DISPLACEMENT Displacement typically refers to the phenomena of long-term residents of an area being “pushed out” of an area and left unable to benefit from new investments in housing, healthy food access, or transit infrastructure. These investments are usually associated with the process of “gentrification” in an area, a term which usually refers to neighborhood-level changes in an area usually tied to economic changes in historically disinvested neighborhoods by means of real estate investment and higher-income residents moving in. The Urban Displacement Project, a research and action initiative between the University of California Berkeley and the University of Toronto, analyzes gentrification and displacement patterns throughout communities. According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities are designated as at-risk of displacement pressures if they have populations “vulnerable” to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. With “vulnerable” defined as having a share of “low-income residents” comprising more than 20% of their population, and two of the following: • renters make up over 40% of households, or • persons of color comprise over 50% of the population, or • share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, or • the community or areas in proximity that have been experiencing displacement pressures, where “displacement pressure” is defined as: – Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012-2017, or – Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017. Per the Urban Displacement Project, there are no areas within the City of Saratoga that are at risk of experiencing displacement, as is depicted below in Figure 30. Figure 30 maps the Displacement Project’s displacement typology, which helps visualize the ongoing, multi- phases process of gentrification across communities and the Bay Area region. As indicated in Figure 30 below, most census tracts comprising the City of Saratoga are classified as “Stable/Advanced Exclusive” or “At Risk of Exclusive” according to the displacement typology. This is consistent with data contained within the Housing Needs Data Packet included as Appendix B of this Update. This data states that 100% of neighborhoods within the City of Saratoga are exclusive to low-income residents due to the City’s high housing costs, relative to the region and Bay Area. Conversely, areas that are susceptible to displacement within Santa Clara County are concentrated around the City of San Jose towards the eastern portions of the County. This is also where areas experiencing early and ongoing gentrification processes are located. 415 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-55 FIGURE 30: CENSUS TRACTS VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer. It is also important to note that while the City of Saratoga itself is designated as either “Stable/Advanced Exclusive” or “At Risk of Exclusive” according to the displacement typology included in the above Figure 30, there are still groups within the city that may be disproportionately at risk of potential displacement. Due to the relatively high cost of rents in the Bay Area, and variability of rental rates across time, renters are typically more vulnerable to displacement and other variables related to gentrification than homeowners. As depicted below in Figure 31, areas of the city located south of SR 85 and west of Saratoga Avenue contain slightly higher percentages of renters than other parts of the city. These parts of the city are also designated as “At Risk of Becoming Exclusive”, accordingly renters in this part of the city should be monitored for risk of displacement and exclusion. 416 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-56 FIGURE 31: SHARE OF RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS BY CENSUS TRACT, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer ACCESS TO MORTGAGE LOANS In many communities, disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. This is less true in Saratoga. According to California Mortgage denial rates are relatively modest—ranging from 13% to 17%—and similar across races and ethnicities (see Figure 32). 417 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-57 FIGURE 32: MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE BY RACE SARATOGA, 2018-2019 Notes: “Loan originated” means that the application was accepted a loan was made by a financial institution to the applicant. “File incomplete or withdrawn” means a loan was not originated because the application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made or the file was closed for incompleteness. “Application denied” means a loan was not originated because the financial institution did not approve the mortgage application. “Application approved but not accepted” means the financial institution approved the loan application but the applicant did not complete the transaction and a loan was not originated. -For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files. 14%13%16%17%17% 29% 13%14%9%14% 5%13%6% 57% 68% 100% 63%57%61% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% American Indian or Alaska Native, Non- Hispanic Asian / API, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic White, Non- Hispanic Hispanic or Latinx UnknownLoan ApplicationsApplication approved but not accepted Application denied Application withdrawn by applicant File closed for incompleteness Loan originated 418 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-58 4. SITES INVENTORY AB 686 requires local governments to affirmatively further fair housing as part of their Housing Element Update process, inclusive of the identification of Housing Sites. Accordingly, the City of Saratoga identified land resources throughout the community which were considered suitable for the accommodation of potential future residential development. These resources were identified as Housing Sites to be utilized in planning efforts associated with the 6th cycle housing element update process to accommodate the City’s RHNA requirements for the 2023-2031 planning period in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing efforts. As described within the prior Assessment of Fair Housing Section, the City of Saratoga is a high-resource community that does not include any “low resource” areas or exhibited conditions of poverty within its municipal boundaries. However, due to the City’s concentration of above-moderate income households, and prohibitive housing costs, relative to the broader county and region, 100% of neighborhoods within Saratoga are considered exclusive to low-income households. Accordingly, the City’s Housing Sites Inventory prioritizes increasing affordable housing opportunities throughout the city, including housing opportunities for lower-income households and other special needs populations. LOCATION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING 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 other form of "affordable housing"-ADUs are spread all over the city. 419 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-59 FIGURE 33: EXISTING PRIVATELY OWNED SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS Source: ABAG/MTC HESS TOOL AFFH MAP VIEWER, 2022 DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING The proposed housing sites in the Sites Inventory are well distributed to increase opportunities throughout the city. In addition, ADUs distributed throughout the single-family neighborhoods with increase housing options in these areas. POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION TRENDS Although Saratoga doesn’t have significant segregation issues within the city, from a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower-income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Saratoga will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of segregation, disparate impacts for impacted racial and ethnic groups, and foster more inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY The wide distribution of housing sites will provide additional housing options for lower income households to choose housing near amenities and services that are important to them, such as parks, schools, transit, or other features. The sites in the Sites Inventory were 420 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | D-60 selected based on accessibility to a variety of services and amenities, such as parks, schools, shopping, transit, and transportation. From a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Saratoga will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of disparate impacts for impacted racial and ethnic groups by providing more affordable housing choices near desirable resources such as employment and high-quality education. This will foster more inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS “Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”7 Overpayment is a significant housing challenge for lower-income residents. There are no significant concentrations of cost burdened renters in the city, although there is some difference between the west and the east of the city with the east border having a higher percentage. Interestingly, there are concentrations of burdened owners in the opposite side of the city. There are disparities in housing cost burden in Foster City by race and ethnicity. American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 53.8% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most severely cost burdened with 18.5% spending more than 50% of their income on housing. The increased quantity and distribution of affordable housing as proposed in the Sites Inventory will address disproportionate housing needs by providing more affordable housing in a wider variety of locations in the city. From a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Saratoga will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of disproportional housing needs. 7 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39. 421 City of Saratoga General Plan Update HOUSING ELEMENT | D-61 5. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND ACTION PLAN Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(v), the Housing Element includes several policies and programs to proactively address fair housing issues. Table 11 below summarizes the fair housing issues, contributing factors, and programs included in the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing in Saratoga. 422 City of Saratoga General Plan Update HOUSING ELEMENT | D-62 TABLE 11: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN FAIR HOUSING ISSUES CONTRIBUTING FACTORS MEANINGFUL PROGRAM ACTIONS TARGETS AND TIMELINESaratoga’s high housing costs limit housing choice and have a disproportionate impact on Black or African American and Hispanic households. Black or African American and Hispanic residents typically work lower wage jobs, stemming from historical employment discrimination and lack of access to quality educational environments. These jobs often do not support the City’s housing costs. As a result, Black or African American and Hispanic residents face very high levels of cost burden. The lack of housing in Saratoga to accommodate larger renter households can disproportionately impact households of color, which tend to be larger.• 1-2.1: New Zoning Districts with minimum densities ranging from 15-25, 30-40, and 80-150 du/acre • 3-1.2: Reduced Fees for ADUs or JADUs • 3-1.3: Reduced Parking for ADUs • 5-1.1: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance • 5-1.2: Partnerships with Affordable Development Community • January 2024 • January 2024 • January 2024 • January 2024 • Ongoing Seniors often face challenges finding quality, affordable housing as they often live on fixed-incomes and have chronic health conditions, disabilities, and/or reduced mobility. Senior residents in Saratoga who rent may be at a greater risk of housing challenges than those that own due to income differences between these groups and high housing costs. Affordable senior housing options are limited in Saratoga. • 2-1.1: Monitoring and Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing • 2-2.1: Community Education Regarding the Availability of Rehabilitation Programs • Ongoing • Ongoing Saratoga’s low production of affordable housing limits housing choices of Black or African American and Hispanic households who have lower incomes. Saratoga has had limited production of affordable housing. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households. Approximately 90% of the City’s home values are priced above $1 million. Santa Clara County has less than half the proportion of homes priced under $1 • 4-3.2: Housing for Persons Employed in Saratoga and lower income residents who have historically not have had access to housing in Saratoga. • 5-1.3: Affirmatively Market Affordable Housing Developments • January 2024 • Ongoing 423 City of Saratoga General Plan Update HOUSING ELEMENT | D-63 FAIR HOUSING ISSUES CONTRIBUTING FACTORS MEANINGFUL PROGRAM ACTIONS TARGETS AND TIMELINEmillion than the City. Similarly, only 43% of the City’s rental units rent for $3,000 or more whereas only 18.5% of rentals are priced over $3,000 in Santa Clara County. to renters, low-income households, and seniors on fixed incomes and persons from these populations that do not currently live in Saratoga • Also see additional programs described above. Saratoga residents do not report experiencing fair housing discrimination. However, residents may not take action because they are not aware of resources for fair housing. Tenants’ and property owners’ lack of knowledge about fair housing laws. Property owners violating fair housing laws. Tenants fear of retaliation, few options to relocate. • 5-2.1: Promote Fair Housing Efforts • 5-2.2: Develop Comprehensive Outreach Strategy for Housing • 5-3.1: Fair Housing Webpage • 5-3.2: Fair Housing Training for Landlords and Tenants • Twice annually • Within one year of adoption • December 2023 • March 2024 424 City of Saratoga General Plan Update HOUSING ELEMENT | D-64 6. REFERENCES Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. “The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-66. Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim S. Rueben. 2004. “What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence using Census Microdata,” Journal of Urban Economics 56(3): 514-535. Burch, Traci. 2014. “The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment,” Law and Policy 36(3): 223-255. Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162 Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-72. Lens, Michael and Paavo Monkkonen. 2016. “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?” Journal of the American Planning Association 82(1): 6–21. Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion,” Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 125-142. Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing. Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. “Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 709-725. Trounstine, Jessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press. University of California Merced Policy Lab, and ABAG/MTC Staff. AFFH Segregation Report: Saratoga. 2022. 425 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | E-1 APPENDIX E: GLOSSARY OF TERMS Above-Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually greater than 120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available legibility limits established by the U.S. Department of housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the §8 housing program. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). 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 accessory dwelling unit. 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. These could include, but are 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.” 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. 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 426 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | E-2 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. 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. 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. 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. 427 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | E-3 Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for 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. (U.S. 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. 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 eight years. 428 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | E-4 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. 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. Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties. 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. 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. 429 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | E-5 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. 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. 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 Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). A quantification by ABAG of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region. 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. 430 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | E-6 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. 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.”) 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. 431 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | E-7 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)] 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.”) 432 City of Saratoga General Plan Update DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT | E-8 This page intentionally left blank 433