HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2025 Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2025
7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Public Participation Information
In accordance with Saratoga’s Remote Public Participation Policy, members of the public may
participate in this meeting in person at the location listed below or via remote attendance using the
Zoom information below.
1. Accessing the meeting via Zoom
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82652375945 (Webinar ID 826 5237 5945)
• Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968; OR
2. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast
Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99) and calling the numbers listed above; OR
3. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling the
numbers listed above.
Written Communication
Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/pc. Written communications will be
provided to the members of the Planning Commission and included in the Agenda Packet and/or
in supplemental meeting materials.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2024.
Recommended Action:
Approve Minutes of December 11, 2024 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
12112024 Draft Minutes
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.
REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS
Any interested person objecting to the whole, or any portion of decision on this Agenda, may file an Appeal
Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3
decision. The City Council conducts de novo review of appeals.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.1 Application ZOA24-0003: City Wide. Amend Zoning Standards to implement policy
programs of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to include Incentives to Encourage
Small Lot Consolidation and new Objective Design Standards for Single-Family Dwellings,
Two-Unit Residential Developments, Three-Unit Residential Conversions: Articles 15-06
(Definitions); 15-12 (Single-Family Residential Districts); 15-21 (M-U: Mixed Use Zoning
Districts; (15-29 (Fences); 15-45 (Design Review Single Family Dwellings); 15-46 (Design
Review: Multi-Family Dwellings and Commercial Structures); 15-57 (Ministerial Consideration
of Qualifying Projects); 15-65 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures); 15-80 (Miscellaneous
Regulations and Exceptions); and adoption of Article 15-59 (Single-Family Dwelling Design
Standards). Staff Contacts: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us / Kyle
Rathbone (408) 868-1212 or krathbone@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 25-001 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending
Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code to implement programs of the 2023-
2031 Housing Element which includes Single Family Objective Residential Design Standards and
Incentives to Encourage Lot Consolidation.
Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 25-001
Supplemental Memo No. 1
Supplemental Memo No. 2
Supplemental Memo No. 3
Supplemental Memo No. 4
3. DIRECTOR ITEMS
4. COMMISSION ITEMS
5. 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 January 16, 2025 at the City
of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at
www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 16th day of January 2025 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 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
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3
provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA
title II].
DRAFT MINUTES
WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 11, 2024
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
Chair Choi called the Meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Jojo Choi, Vice Chair Anjali Kausar, Commissioners Clinton
Brownley, Paul Germeraad, Ping Li, Razi Mohiuddin and Herman Zheng
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director
Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Kyle Rathbone, Associate Planner
Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS: NONE
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of November 13, 2024
Recommended Action:
Approve Minutes of December 11, 2024 Regular Planning Commission Meetings.
GERMERAAD/ZHENG MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 2024
MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI,
MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.1 (Continued from 11/13/24) Application PDR23-0016/ARB23-0094: 19106 Panorama Drive; (397-09-
021) Terry J. Martin Associates (Applicant): The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new
5,429 square foot two story single-family residence with a 1,134 square foot basement. The project includes
a request for a height exception to increase the allowable 26’ tall building height by an additional 3.48” for
a total building height of 29’-4.0”. One protected California Pepper tree is proposed for removal. The site
is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of Very Low Density Residential (RLD). Staff
Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 24-030 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in
Attachment 1.
MOHIUDDIN/KAUSAR MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PDR23-0016 SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD,
KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2.2 Application PDR24-0008/ARB24-0091: 14833 Andrew Ct; (397-32-009) Michelle Miner Design
(Applicant): The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a home addition for a new 5,514
square foot two-story single-family residence with a 920 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit
(ADU). No protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan
Designation of Very Low Density Residential (RVLD). Staff Contact: Kyle Rathbone (408) 868-1212 or
krathbone@saratoga.ca.us.
4
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 24-034 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in
Attachment 1.
BROWNLEY/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-034 APPROVING
APPLICATION PDR24-0008 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED.
AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2.3 Application ZOA24-0004: City Wide. Amend Zoning Standards for Lot Consolidation: Amendment
of Saratoga Municipal Code sections 15-18.0150 (Lot consolidation incentives). The proposed zoning
amendment would encourage small lot consolidation, which would better align with Housing Element
programs required by HCD to facilitate the development of mixed-use and multifamily housing, particularly
for affordable housing, within housing opportunity sites. Staff Contact: Kyle Rathbone (408) 868-1212 or
krathbone@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 24-033 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 15
(Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code to implement programs of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
MOHIUDDIN/LI MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-033, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINACE AMENDMENT ZOA24-0004. MOTION PASSED. AYES:
BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
3. DIRECTOR ITEMS
Director Swanson reminded Commissioners that the next Planning Commission meeting will be held
on January 22, 2025 and thanked the Commission for their hard work in 2024.
4. COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Mohiudinn thanked staff for a great job in 2024. Commissioner Germeraad requested
staff to provide Word copies of the documents from the Study Session to redline with comments. Chair
Choi echoed the request. Commissioner Mohiudinn cautioned that feedback provided in this manner
would then be individual not consensus feedback. He clarified that this feedback could be considered
by staff and consultants for their judgement on whether to makes changes to the standards documents.
Director Swanson will discuss with the city attorney and Lisa Wise Consultants to see what options
would be appropriate.
Chair Choi asked whether the Commission could hold another Study Session on January 22nd, then
hold the public hearing meeting on January 29th. Commissioner Mohiudinn responded that the time
between the 22nd and the 29th would not be enough time to make any revisions.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Chair CHOI moved for adjournment at 7:56 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst
City of Saratoga
5
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: January 22, 2025
Subject: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 15 (Zoning) to Implement
Single Family Objective Design Standards: ZOA25-0001
Address/APN: City Wide
Owner/Applicant: City of Saratoga
Report Prepared By: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner / Kyle Rathbone, Associate
Planner
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 25-001 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 15
(Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code to implement programs of the 2023-2031 Housing Element
which includes Single Family Objective Residential Design Standards and Incentives to Encourage Lot
Consolidation.
BACKGROUND
The adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element contains policy programs which includes specific policies
necessary to address present and future housing needs and to meet the specific requirements of State Law
by streamlining the review and approval process of single-family dwellings and by providing incentives for
the consolidation of small lots:
• Program 1.2-3: Encourage and Facilitate Lot Consolidation; encourage the consolidation of small
lots to facilitate the development of mixed-use and multifamily developments.
• Program 1.2-4: Lot Consolidation Program; implement a program to incentivize lot consolidation of
small parcels within housing opportunity sites.
• Program 3.2-9: Saratoga will amend the Design Review findings for single-family and multi-family
projects to ensure they promote certainty and objectivity.
• Program 3.2-10: Saratoga will amend the Single-Family Residential Design Review Handbook to
have objective design standards.
Lot Consolidation
The City Council adopted Zoning Code amendments to implement the Housing Element on April 3, 2024,
including an amendment to add Section 15-80.150 – Lot Consolidation, which provides incentives for the
consolidation of small lots. On December 11, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a
zoning amendment modifying the thresholds for lot consolidation to encourage the consolidation of lots
smaller than one-half acre.
Lot consolidation can further be incentivized through the implementation of a Graduated Density Scale in
Mixed-Use zoning districts as was required by the California Department of Housing and Community
6
Development (HCD) to facilitate the development of mixed-use and multifamily housing, particularly for
affordable housing, within the Housing Element’s housing opportunity sites. This Zoning Code amendment
would continue to implement programs 1.2-3 and 1.2-4 of the Housing Element incentivizing the
consolidation of small lots for mixed-use and multifamily development.
Single-Family Objective Standards
The City of Saratoga is updating the single-family residential design review standards contained in Article
15-45 of the City Code to include objective design standards to implement the two programs contained
within the Housing Element. These changes are focused on increasing the predictability of the review
process for developers and homeowners by creating objective standards in lieu of more discretionary or
subjective review procedures.
The creation of an objective process for the review and approval of single-family dwellings, two-unit
developments, and three-unit residential conversions reduces much of the discretion the city currently has
when reviewing proposed development. These modifications dictate that virtually all single-family projects
must be reviewed subject to objective, uniformly verifiable standards.
‘Objective standards’ are standards that involve no personal or subjective judgement by public officials and
are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion. For example, an
objective standard for building height would provide a specific measurable height of 26 feet, whereas a
subjective or discretionary guideline might use a term or phrase such as ‘compatibility’ or ‘unreasonable
impact on neighboring properties’ in reference to regulating building heights.
To address the City’s need for objective standards for the review of single-family dwellings, the City of
Saratoga contracted with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) to prepare the Single-Family Dwelling Design
Standards contained within Article 15-59 of the City Code. LWC also reviewed and modified existing
regulations to modify design review from a discretionary to a ministerial process. The Design Standards are
intended to guide property owners, applicants/developers, and design professionals, and provide clear
design direction that preserves the unique characteristics of Saratoga by stating clear standards for future
single-family residential development.
Study Session
On December 11, 2024, the Planning Commission held a Study Session to review the proposed Single
Family Objective Design Standards and related amendments to the City Code. The Commission received a
presentation by staff and LWC on the changes to the City Code and the revised review process for single-
family residential development applications. The Commission primarily discussed and provided comments
on the proposed modifications to the review process and expressed their expectation that the proposed
objective standards regarding residential privacy would include the types of privacy mitigations that the
Commission was accustomed to discussing during their regular review of Design Review applications.
After the Study Session, staff contacted all members of the Planning Commission and offered an
opportunity for each member of the Commission to meet individually with staff to provide additional
comments on the proposed amendments. The additional comments that staff gathered during these meetings
were forwarded to the consultant for incorporation into the Objective Design Standards.
DISCUSSION
The following paragraphs are a summary of the proposed changes to the City Code to implement the
ministerial review process for single-family residential development.
7
Article 15-06: Definitions
The proposed Single-Family Dwelling Design Standards includes the following two terms that are defined
in Article 15-06.
Block Face
‘Block face’ when referencing consistency of design elements when compared to the number of adjacent
properties. Section 15-06-115 defines as five (5) the number of structures on either side of a subject
property that is considered the ‘block face’.
Permeable Paving
The use of ‘Permeable paving’ is limited in certain site design situations. Section 15-06.500 includes a
definition and description of the porous paving materials that can be used to increase the absorption of
stormwater.
Article 15-12: Single-Family Residential Districts
Single-family uses, both permitted and conditional, and related development standards are included in
Article 15-12. The changes to this section include specifying that dwelling units allowed per Article 15-57,
the Ministerial Review of Qualifying Projects (two-unit residential developments and three-unit residential
conversions), are allowed as permitted uses in the R-1 zoning districts. Other changes include specifying
that development standards, such as site coverage, are included in Article 15-57 for Qualifying Projects.
The exiting regulations states that the Planning Commission is to determine the allowable floor area for lots
that are less than 5,000 square feet in floor area which is not an objective standard. The current allowable
floor area of 2,400 square feet is for lots that are at least 5,000 square feet in size. To create an objective
standard, it is proposed that a floor area of at least 2,400 square feet is the maximum for all lots that are less
than 5,000 square feet.
Article 15-21: M-U: Mixed Use Zoning Districts
The maximum allowable density within mixed-use zoning districts would be modified into a graduated
density scale that increases maximum allowable residential density for larger parcels thus further
incentivizing the consolidation of small lots for housing development.
Article 15-29: Fences
The current fence regulations include five foot retaining wall height limits and a combined height limit of
ten feet when parallel retaining walls are separated by a horizontal distance of not less than thirty feet. Any
increase in a retaining wall height limit as specified in Article 15-29 requires a variance approval by the
Planning Commission. Fences are limited to a height of seven feet and an increase in the retaining wall
height limit from five feet to seven feet is proposed to increase the consistency with existing fence height
limits. Increasing the allowable retaining wall height can also help foster residential development.
Article 15-45: Design Review Single-Family Dwellings
Existing Design Review Process
Currently, all development applications for new two-story single-family residential structures, any
conversion of a one-story single-family structure to a two-story structure, or any project that would exceed a
height of 18 feet because of a proposed remodel requires review and approval by the Planning Commission.
8
The Commission ensures that each project is consistent with the Design Review Findings contained in City
Code Section 15-45.080 prior to approving the application.
Additionally, the current review process for development applications for new one-story residential
structures or any modification to an existing one-story residential structure which includes a floor area
increase of greater that 50% (provided that the foregoing is not taller than 18 feet) requires review and
approval by the Community Development Director. The Planning Staff ensures that each project is
consistent with the Design Review Findings contained in City Code Section 15-45.080 prior to approving
the application.
Administrative Ministerial Review based on Objective Design Standards (New Process)
1) The proposed modifications to Article 15-45 will apply to all single-family dwellings (both one and
two-story), two-unit residential developments, and three-unit residential conversions to ensure they are
consistent with the proposed residential design standards contained in Article 15-59, which is a new
section of the City Code. Single-family residential projects, currently requiring design review as
described in the preceding two paragraphs, and that are determined to be consistent with the Objective
Design Standards, can be approved ministerially by staff without a public review process that is
currently a component of design review. Once approved, the applicant can apply directly to the
Building Department for a building permit without any type of appeal process.
2) Development applications for single-family dwellings that do not comply with all applicable Objective
Design Standards will still be subject to Administrative Design Review. However, unlike the current
Design Review process, two story homes will be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director subject to the design review findings. This review process includes a 15-day
public review period and decisions to approve an application are subject to an appeal.
3) Approved Administrative Design Review applications that are appealed will be subject to Planning
Commission review. This review will include a site visit by the Commission and a public hearing. The
Commission must still ensure that an application is consistent with all the design review findings before
approving a project.
Article 15-57: Ministerial Consideration of Qualifying Projects
The proposed modifications to Article 15-57 are to implement recent changes to state legislation that apply
to two-unit residential developments and three-unit residential conversions. These new regulations
essentially state that Saratoga’s development standards that apply to two-unit residential developments and
three-unit residential conversions cannot be more restrictive than the regulations that apply to other single
family residential uses such as single-family homes. The proposed changes include:
• Removing the demolition limit of existing structures to construct a two-unit residential development or
three-unit residential conversion even if the structure has been occupied by a tenant in the last three
years.
• Two-unit residential developments and three-unit residential conversions are no longer limited to a
maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet when located within the side or rear setback of the underlying
zoning district.
• Two-unit residential developments on lots created by urban lot splits can increase in height from 18 feet
to 26 feet and can be two stories.
• Roof decks are no longer prohibited.
9
Article 15-59: Single-Family Dwelling Design Standards
The proposed Single-Family Dwelling Design Standards are in Article 15-59, which is a new section of the
City Code. These new regulations are intended to be objective standards to guide single-family residential
development. Projects determined to be consistent with these design standards which include single-family
dwellings, two-unit residential developments, and three-unit residential conversions, can be approved
administratively by staff without discretionary review. These objective design standards, which include
both text and images, are intended to replace the existing Single-family Residential Design Review
Handbook. The design standards are broken down into the following categories: Building Massing and
Scale, Building Design, and Site Design.
Article 15-65: Nonconforming Uses and Structures
The only modification to Article 15-65 is to Section 15-65.020 (Definitions) to state that structures which
received design review prior to the adoption of the new Single Family Dwelling Design Standards are not to
be considered as non-conforming structures.
Article 15-80: Miscellaneous Regulations and Exceptions
Article 15-45: Design Review Single-Family Dwellings contains regulations for creek protection setbacks
which require that building setbacks be measured from the top of bank, instead of a property line, whenever
a protected creek passes through or along a building site. These regulations apply to all new structures
requiring design review and well as to those projects that are exempt from design review such as some
residential additions which is not evident as the regulations are contained in the Article 15-45. Relocation of
the creek protection setback regulations to Article 15-80: Miscellaneous Regulation and Exceptions,
clarifies the intent of the regulations to apply to any new construction.
Applicability
The Objective Residential Design Standards would apply to all new single-family residential projects
subject to a streamlined ministerial review process. Projects which qualify for ministerial review would be
required to comply with all the Design Standards. All other projects would be subject to the Design
Standards but through the City’s discretionary design review process could be allowed to deviate when the
purpose and intent of the standard is met through alterative means.
The Zoning Ordinance, along with the standards for single-family residential districts, will regulate
development standards (such as building height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.), while the new objective
standards will regulate design criteria (such as site layout, building orientation, and building design) to
ensure that new single-family projects maintain a design quality reflective of Saratoga.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 25-001
10
RESOLUTION NO: 25-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 15 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE TO IMPLEMENT 2023-2031
HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS
APPLICATION ZOA25-0001
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to
the above-described application:
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et
seq.) requires that the City of Saratoga (the City) adopt a housing element for the eight-
year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of
1,712 housing units assigned to the City by the Association of Bay Area Governments,
including 454 units affordable to very-low income households, 261 units affordable to
low-income households, 278 units affordable to moderate-income households, and 719
units affordable to above moderate-income households; and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law also requires that the City rezone
properties as required to make sites available with appropriate zoning and development
standards to accommodate the portion of the City regional housing need for each income
level that cannot be accommodated on sites under existing City zoning; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2024, the City Council adopted the 2023-2031
Housing Element Update (Housing Element Update), which identifies those properties to
be rezoned to accommodate the City’s regional housing need, and on April 3, 2024
adopted Ordinance 399, which amended the City’s Zoning Code to include development
standards to accommodate the RHNA assigned to the City and to rezone the properties
identified for rezoning in the Housing Element Update, thereby implementing programs
of the Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations)
of the Saratoga City Code are being proposed to implement Housing Element Programs
1.2-3 (Encourage and Facilitate Lot Consolidation), 1.2-4 (Lot Consolidation Program),
3.2-9 (Amend the Design Review Findings for Single-Family and Multi-Family Projects
to Ensure they Promote Certainty and Objectivity), and 3.2.10 (Amend the Single-Family
Residential Design Review Handbook to have Objective Design Standards), and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2024, the Planning Commission held a Study
Session to review the proposed amendments, receive public comments, and provide
comments to staff; and
11
Resolution No. 25-001
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
Public Hearing on the legislation described above at which time all interested parties were
given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning
Commission considered the amendments, staff report, correspondence, presentations from
the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing.
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 City of Saratoga Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance to amend Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga
Municipal Code to implement 2023-2031 Housing Element Programs as shown in
Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 22nd
day of January 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Jonathan “JoJo” Choi
Vice Chair, Planning Commission
Attachment:
Exhibit A – Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
1871090.1
12
1
Exhibit A
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 15 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE INCLUDING THE
ADDITION OF ARTICLE 15-59: SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING DESIGN STANDARDS
The Planning Commission recommends that the Saratoga City Code be amended as set forth below.
Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to
be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font is readopted by this
ordinance. Text in italics (e.g., italics) is explanatory and not a part of the ordinance.
1. Definition of a “Block Face”
15-06.115
“Block face” refers to the five structures on either side of and on the same side of the right-of-
way as a subject property, or the structures between a subject property and the nearest
intersection, whichever is less.
2. Definition of “Ministerial Review”
“Ministerial review” is a review process by which the City is obligated to issue a permit to an
applicant provided the project meets all applicable development and design standards
established in the Zoning Code. Ministerial review may require administrative approval by
the Community Development Director to verify compliance with applicable standards;
however, ministerial review is based on objective standards only and is non-discretionary.
3. Definition of “Permeable Paving”
15-06.500 Repealed. Permeable Paving.
“Permeable paving” refers to a paving system that allows stormwater to seep through and
filter into the soil below. Permeable paving includes paving made of a porous material that
enables stormwater to seep through or blocks designed or spaced so that water can flow
through gaps into the soil. Also referred to as pervious concrete, porous concrete, gap-graded
concrete, and open pavers.
13
2
4. R-1 Single-Family Residential District
[Section 15-12.010; no change]
15-12.020 Permitted Uses
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the R-1 districts:
(a) Single-family dwellings including employee housing for six (6) or fewer employees.
(b) Dwelling units allowed per Article 15-57, Ministerial Consideration of Qualifying Projects.
(b) (c) Transitional and supportive housing, as defined by Government Code Section 65582,
subdivisions (g) and (j) and Low Barrier Navigation Centers, as defined by Government Code
Section 65660 as they may be amended from time to time.
(c) (d) Group homes, Class 1 and Class 2.
(d) (e) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use, including garages
and carports, garden sheds, greenhouses, shade structures, recreation rooms, home hobby shops,
cabanas, structures for housing swimming pool equipment, accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units as permitted pursuant to Articles 15-56 and 15-57 of this Chapter, and guest
houses.
(e) (f) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 15-40
of this Chapter.
(f) (g) Stables and corrals for the keeping for private use of one horse for each forty thousand square
feet of net site area; provided, however, that in the equestrian zone only, one additional horse may be
permitted on the first forty thousand square feet of net site area, and an additional horse may be
permitted for each additional forty thousand square feet of net site area. All horses shall be subject to
the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7-20.220 of this Code.
(g) (h) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests.
(h) (i) The keeping for private use of a reasonable number of domestic dogs, cats and other small
mammals, birds, fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set forth in Article 7-20 of this
Code, and subject also to the restrictions and standards prescribed in Section 15-11.020(h) of this
Chapter.
(i) (j) Except as specified in Section 15-12.030, recreational courts, to be used solely by persons
resident on the site and their guests.
(j) (k) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone
and other wireless communications, subject to design review under Article 15-46.
(k) (l) Rotating emergency shelter, provided the following conditions are met:
(1) The shelter is located on a property identified as community facilities site on the City’s General
Plan Land Use map.
(2) The number of occupants does not exceed thirty.
(3) The hours of operation do not exceed 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M.
14
3
(4) The operational period for each property does not exceed three months each year.
(5) An annual operational plan that has been approved by the City Manager, or his/her designee, and
the County Sheriff to be in compliance with the City’s administrative guidelines for rotating
emergency shelters. City may withdraw approval in the event the plan is not being followed. A
rotating emergency shelter may not operate without a City approved annual operational plan.
(l) (m) Manufactured homes.
[Section 15-12.030; no change]
15-12.040 One d Dwelling units per site
Not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on each site, except for:
(a) Aaccessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units permitted pursuant to Article
15-56 of this Chapter, and
(a) (b) additional Ddwelling unit(s) permitted pursuant to Article 15-57 of this Chapter.
[Section 15-12.050 ; no change]
15-12.060 Density of hillside subdivisions.
In the case of a hillside subdivision, as defined in Section 14-10.140 of the Subdivision Ordinance,
located within any R-1 district, the maximum number of dwelling units (density) shall be as follows,
unless otherwise provided in Article 15-57:
(a) Determination of density. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this Section, the
maximum density of a hillside subdivision shall be determined by dividing the net site area of the
property to be divided by the average acres per dwelling unit, rounding up to the next whole number
where a fraction of more than .50 is obtained.
(b) Average acres per dwelling unit. The average acres per dwelling unit shall be determined by
the following slope/density formula:
Average acres per dwelling unit = 1/1.089 — .01778 (S)
Where: S = average slope in percent, as calculated in accordance with Section 15-06.630 of this
Chapter.
(c) Reduction of density. The City may require a reduction in the number of dwelling units below
the maximum number otherwise permitted under subsection (a) of this Section if the City determines
that such reduction is necessary or appropriate by reason of site conditions including, but not limited
to, geologic hazards.
[Section 15-12.061; no change]
15
4
15-12.070 Site frontage, width and depth.
(a) The minimum site frontage, width and depth in each R-1 district shall be as follows, except to
the extent Article 15-57 provides otherwise:
District Site Frontage Site Width Site Depth
R-1-10,000 60 ft. 85 ft. 115 ft.
R-1-12,500 65 ft. 90 ft. 120 ft.
R-1-15,000 70 ft. 100 ft. 125 ft.
R-1-20,000 80 ft. 110 ft. 140 ft.
R-1-40,000 100 ft. 150 ft. 150 ft.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this Section:
(1) The site width of a corner lot shall be not less than one hundred feet.
(2) The minimum site frontage on a cul-de-sac turnaround shall be sixty feet where seventy-five
percent or more of the frontage abuts the turnaround.
(3) The frontage and width of an access corridor to a flag lot shall be not less than twenty feet.
15-12.080 Site coverage.
The maximum site coverage, as defined in Section 15-06.620(f), in each R-1 district shall be as set
forth in the following table and, where applicable, as allocated by Article 15-57, Ministerial
Consideration of Qualifying Projects. Solid surface decks and compacted surfaces made of porous
materials used for walkways, driveways and patios will be counted at only fifty percent of the total
area of such surfaces for determining the calculation of site coverage within this Section.
District Coverage (percent)
R-1-10,000 60
R-1-12,500 55
R-1-15,000 50
R-1-20,000 45
R-1-40,000 35
15-12.085 Allowable floor area for R-1, HR, ROS and A zone districts.
(a) Definition. "Floor area" is defined in City Code Section 15-06.280. As used in this Article, any
space with an interior height of fifteen feet or greater shall be double counted towards the
maximum floor area allowance. The allowable floor area is based upon the net site area
16
5
calculated in accordance with Section 15-06.620 and any slope reduction provided in Section 15-
12.085(c).
(b) Maximum standards. The standards set forth in this Section are intended to be maximum
figures and the Planning Commission may, in considering any application over which it has
design review authority pursuant to Section 15.45-060(a), require that the floor area be
reduced below the applicable standard if such reduction is necessary in order to make the
findings prescribed in City Code Section 15-45.080.
(c) Slope adjustment. If the average slope of the lot is more than ten percent, the net site area of the
lot shall be reduced as follows:
*Average Slope of the
Lot
Percentage of Net Site Area to be Deducted
10.01—20% 10% plus 2% for each 1 percent of slope over 10%
20.01—30% 30% plus 3% for each 1 percent of slope over 20%
Over 30% 60%
*Where the average slope is a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole
number.
(d) Maximum floor area for R-1, HR, ROS and A zone districts. The maximum allowable floor
area shall be the lesser of the standards specified in the two following tables, as allocated,
where applicable, pursuant to Article 15.57:
**Lot Size (Net Site
Area)
Floor Area Standard
4,999 sq. ft. or less 2,400 sq. ft. To be determined by Planning Commission
5,000—10,000 sq. ft. 2,400 sq. ft. plus 160 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over
5,000 sq. ft.
10,001—15,000 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. plus 170 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over
10,000 sq. ft.
15,001—40,000 sq. ft. 4,050 sq. ft. plus 78 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over
15,000 sq. ft.
40,001—80,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. plus 20 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over
40,000 sq. ft.
80,001—200,000 sq.
ft.
6,800 sq. ft. plus 10 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. ft. of net site area over
80,000 sq. ft.
200,000 + 8,000 sq. ft. is the maximum allowable square footage
Zone District Maximum Floor Area (for larger than standard lots)
R-1—10,000 4,400
17
6
R-1—12,500 4,830
R-1—15,000 5,220
R-1—20,000 6,000
R-1—40,000 7,200
HR and A 8,000
ROS In accordance with Section 15-20.085 of this Article
**Where the net site area over 5,000 square feet is a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to
the next whole thousand (i.e., 5,001 would be rounded up to 6,000).
15-12.090 Front, side, and rear setback areas.
(a) For any nonconforming site, as defined in this Chapter, the requirements provided in Section 15-
65.040(b) apply to the site. For any conforming site, the minimum setback area requirements in
the R-1 district, are as follows except as otherwise provided in Article 15-57:
(1) Front setback area. The minimum front setback area of any lot in each R-1 district shall be the
distance from the front lot line indicated in the following table:
District Front Setback Area
R-1-10,000 25 ft.
R-1-12,500 25 ft.
R-1-15,000 25 ft.
R-1-20,000 30 ft.
R-1-40,000 30 ft.
(2) Side setback area of interior lots. The minimum side setback area of any interior lot in each R-1
district shall be the distance from the applicable side lot line indicated in the following table for
each side setback area:
District First Floor Second Floor
Side Setback Area Side Setback Area
R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft.
R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft.
R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17 ft.
R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft.
18
7
R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25 ft.
(3) Side setback area of corner lots. The minimum side setback area of any corner lot in each R-1
district shall be the distance from the applicable side lot line indicated in the following table:
District First Floor
Interior
Second Floor
Interior
First Floor
Exterior
Second Floor
Exterior
Side Setback
Area
Side Setback
Area
Side Setback
Area
Side Setback
Area
R-1-10,000 10 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft.
R-1-12,500 10 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft.
R-1-15,000 12 ft. 17 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft.
R-1-20,000 15 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft.
R-1-40,000 20 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft.
(4) Rear setback area of corner lots. The minimum rear setback area of any corner lot in each R-1
district shall be the distance from the rear lot line indicated in the following table:
District First Floor Second Floor
Rear Setback Area Rear Setback Area
R-1-10,000 10 ft. 10 ft.
R-1-12,500 10 ft. 10 ft.
R-1-15,000 12 ft. 12 ft.
R-1-20,000 15 ft. 15 ft.
R-1-40,000 20 ft. 20 ft.
(5) Rear setback area of interior lots. The minimum rear setback area of any interior lot in each R-1
district shall be the distance from the rear lot line indicated in the following table:
District First Floor Second Floor
Rear Setback Area Rear Setback Area
R-1-10,000 25 ft. 35 ft.
R-1-12,500 25 ft. 35 ft.
R-1-15,000 30 ft. 40 ft.
R-1-20,000 35 ft. 45 ft.
R-1-40,000 50 ft. 60 ft.
19
8
[Sections 15-12.095 – 15-12.100; no changes]
15-12.108 Building and Site Design Standards.
The following structures must comply with the standards of Article 15-59 Single-Family
Dwelling Design Standards:
Single-family dwellings including employee housing for six (6) or fewer employees.
Dwelling units allowed per Article 15-57, Ministerial Consideration of Qualifying Projects.
15-12.110 Accessory uses and structures.
Accessory uses and structures shall comply with the regulations special rules as set forth in
Section 15-80.030 of this Chapter.
[Sections 15-12.120 – 15-12.160; no changes]
5. Lot Consolidation Incentives via a Graduated Density Scale
[Sections 15-21.010.120 – 15-21.090; no changes]
15-21.100 MU-MD district regulations.
(a) Site area. The minimum site area of any lot in a MU-MD district shall be ten thousand square
feet of gross site area.
(b) Site frontage, width, and depth. The minimum site frontage, width, and depth of any lot in a
MU-MD district shall be as follows:
Site Frontage: Sixty feet
Lot Width: Sixty feet
Lot Depth: One hundred feet
(c) Residential floor area. A minimum of fifty percent of building square footage, exclusive of
parking, shall be developed with residential uses (which uses shall not include garages or shared
utility, storage and laundry rooms).
(d) Density.
(1) Minimum density. The minimum residential density on any site in the MU-MD district shall be
fifteen dwelling units per acre of gross site area.
(2) Maximum density. The maximum residential density on any site in the MU-MD district shall be
determined by parcel size, as follows: twenty five dwelling units per acre of gross site area.
20
9
Parcel size (acres) Maximum density (dwelling units per acre of gross site area)
0 – 0.499 15
0.5 – 0.749 20
0.75 and greater 25
(f) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a MU-HD district
shall be seventy percent.
(g) Front, side, and rear setback areas. All required setbacks are applicable to a site prior to
development and only apply to the exterior property lines. For any nonconforming site in the
MU-HD district, as defined in this Chapter, the requirements provided in Section 15-65.040(b)
apply to the site. For any conforming site in the MU-HD district, the minimum setback area
requirements in the MU-HD district, are as follows:
(1) Front setback area. The minimum front setback area of any lot in a MU-HD district shall be five
feet.
(2) Side and rear setback areas. The minimum side and rear setback areas of any lot in a MU-HD
district shall be five feet, subject to the following exceptions:
(a) On a lot abutting any R-1 district, the minimum side setback area and rear setback area abutting
such district shall be fifteen feet
(b) No side setback is required for any lot that abuts a railroad right-of-way.
(3) Corner side setback area. The minimum corner side setback area of any lot in a MU-HD district
shall be five feet.
(h) Height of structures. No structure shall exceed thirty-five feet in height or three stories.
(i) Enclosure of uses. All uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure,
except for off-street parking and loading, outdoor dining associated with a restaurant or market,
nurseries when associated with a retail garden shop, private and common open space areas
associated with residential uses, outdoor play areas associated with daycare facilities, and other
uses of a similar nature.
(j) Screening and landscaping. An area not less than five feet in depth along all property lines that
abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or
pathways. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of
the site.
15-21.110 MU-HD district regulations.
(a) Permitted use. In addition to the permanent uses listed in Section 15-21.020(a) of this article,
the following permitted use shall also be allowed in a MU-HD district.
(1) Temporary seasonal Christmas tree and pumpkin sales on a site not less than nine and one-half
acres in size
(b) Site area. The minimum site area of any lot in a MU-HD district shall be ten thousand square
feet of gross site area.
21
10
(c) Site frontage, width, and depth. The minimum site frontage, width, and depth of any lot in a
MU-HD district shall be as follows:
Site Frontage: Sixty feet
Lot Width: Sixty feet
Lot Depth: One hundred feet
(d) Residential floor area. A minimum of fifty percent of the total building floor area on a site shall
be residential uses.
(e) Density.
(1) Minimum density. The minimum residential density on any site in the MU-HD district shall be
thirty dwelling units per acre of gross site area.
(2) Maximum density. The maximum residential density on any site in the MU-HD district shall be
determined by parcel size, as follows: forty dwelling units per acre of gross site area.
Parcel size (acres) Maximum density (dwelling units per acre of gross site area)
0 – 0.499 30
0.5 – 0.749 35
0.75 and greater 40
(f) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a MU-HD district
shall be seventy percent.
(g) Front, side, and rear setback areas. All required setbacks are applicable to a site prior to
development and only apply to the exterior property lines. For any nonconforming site in the
MU-HD district, as defined in this Chapter, the requirements provided in Section 15-65.040(b)
apply to the site. For any conforming site in the MU-HD district, the minimum setback area
requirements in the MU-HD district, are as follows:
(1) Front setback area. The minimum front setback area of any lot in a MU-HD district shall be five
feet.
(2) Side and rear setback areas. The minimum side and rear setback areas of any lot in a MU-HD
district shall be five feet, subject to the following exceptions:
(a) On a lot abutting any R-1 district, the minimum side setback area and rear setback area abutting
such district shall be fifteen feet
(b) No side setback is required for any lot that abuts a railroad right-of-way.
(3) Corner side setback area. The minimum corner side setback area of any lot in a MU-HD district
shall be five feet.
(h) Height of structures. No structure shall exceed thirty-five feet in height or three stories.
(i) Enclosure of uses. All uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure,
except for off-street parking and loading, outdoor dining associated with a restaurant or market,
nurseries when associated with a retail garden shop, private and common open space areas
22
11
associated with residential uses, outdoor play areas associated with daycare facilities, and other
uses of a similar nature.
(j) Screening and landscaping. An area not less than five feet in depth along all property lines that
abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or
pathways. All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of
the site.
15-21.120 MU-VHD district regulations.
(a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-21.020(a) of this Article,
the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a MU-VHD district:
(1) Permanent emergency shelters.
(2) Single-room occupancy buildings.
(3) Rotating emergency shelters meeting the requirements of Section 15-12.020(k).
(b) Site area. The minimum site area of any lot in a MU-VHD district shall be ten thousand square
feet of gross floor area.
(c) Site frontage, width, and depth. The minimum site frontage, width, and depth of any lot in a
MU-HD district shall be as follows:
Site Frontage: Sixty feet
Lot Width: Sixty feet
Lot Depth: One hundred feet
(d) Residential floor area. A minimum of fifty percent of the total building floor area on a site shall
be residential uses.
(e) Density.
(1) Minimum density. The minimum residential density on any site in the MU-VHD district shall be
eighty dwelling units per acre of gross site area.
(2) Maximum density. The maximum residential density on any site in the MU-VHD district shall
be determined by parcel size, as follows: one hundred fifty dwelling units per acre of gross site
area.
Parcel size
(acres)
Maximum density (dwelling units per
acre of gross site area)
0 – 0.499 80
0.5 – 0.749 115
0.75 and
greater
150
23
12
(f) Coverage. The maximum net site area covered by structures on any lot in a MU-VHD district
shall be ninety percent.
(g) Front, side, and rear setback areas. All required setbacks are applicable to a site prior to
development and only apply to the exterior property lines. For any nonconforming site in the
MU-VHD district, as defined in this Chapter, the requirements provided in Section 15-65.040(b)
apply to the site. For any conforming site in the MU-HD district, the minimum setback area
requirements in the MU-VHD district, are as follows:
(1) Front setback area. The minimum front setback area of any lot in a MU-VHD district shall be
five feet.
(2) Side and rear setback areas. No side or rear setback areas shall be required for any lot in a MU-
VHD district.
(3) Corner side setback area. The minimum corner side setback area of any lot in a MU-VHD
district shall be five feet.
(h) Height of structures. No structure shall exceed one hundred twenty-five feet in height or twelve
stories.
(i) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a
completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading, outdoor dining
associated with a restaurant or market, nurseries when associated with a retail garden shop,
private and common open space areas associated with residential uses, outdoor play areas
associated with daycare facilities, and other uses of a similar nature.
(j) Screening and landscaping. An area not less than five feet in depth along all property lines that
abut a street shall be landscaped with plant materials and/or improved with sidewalks or
pathways All planting materials shall permanently be maintained by the owner or occupant of
the site.
(k) Development and operational standards for single-room occupancy (SRO) buildings and
units.
(1) SRO buildings.
(a) Four square feet of common area per living unit shall be provided, with a minimum of two
hundred square feet in area of interior common space, excluding janitorial storage, laundry
facilities and common hallways.
(b) Laundry facilities must be provided in a separate room at the ratio of one washer and one dryer
for every twenty units or fractional number thereof, with at least one washer and dryer per floor.
(c) A cleaning supply room or utility closet with a wash tub with hot and cold running water shall be
provided on each floor of the SRO facility.
(2) SRO units.
(a) A unit shall have a minimum size of one hundred fifty square feet and a maximum of four
hundred square feet.
(b) A unit shall accommodate a maximum of two persons.
(c) A unit shall contain either partial or full bathroom facilities. A partial bathroom facility shall
have at least a toilet and sink; a full bathroom facility shall have a toilet, sink and bathtub,
shower, or bathtub/shower combination. If a full bathroom facility is not provided, common
24
13
bathroom facilities shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code for
congregate residences.
(d) A unit is not required to but may contain kitchen facilities. A full kitchen includes a sink, a
refrigerator and a stove, range top or oven. If any unit on a floor includes less than a full kitchen,
common kitchen facilities shall be provided with at least one full kitchen per floor.
(e) Each unit shall have a separate closet.
(f) All units shall comply with all requirements of the California Building Code. All units shall
comply with all applicable accessibility and adaptability requirements. All common areas shall
be fully accessible.
(3) SRO management.
(a) An SRO building with ten (10) or more units shall provide a twenty-four hour resident manager.
An SRO building with less than ten units shall provide a management office.
(b) A management plan shall be submitted with the development application for an SRO building.
The management plan shall address management and operation of the facility, rental procedures,
safety, and security of residents and building maintenance.
(4) Off-street parking shall be provided consistent with Section 15-35-030.
(5) Tenancy of SRO units shall be for not less than thirty days.
(6) An existing structure may be converted to an SRO building, consistent with the provision of this
Section.
(l) Development and operational standards for Emergency Shelters.
(1) Shelter capacity. An emergency shelter for homeless persons shall contain no more than twenty
beds and shall serve no more than twenty persons nightly.
(2) Parking. On-site parking shall be provided based on one space for each employee on the
maximum staffed shift.
(3) Lighting. Exterior security lighting shall be provided. The lighting shall be stationary and
designed, arranged, and installed so as to confine direct rays onto the premises and to direct light
away from adjacent structures and public rights-of-way.
(a) Lighting in parking areas shall be maintained with a minimum of one foot-candle of illumination
at the ground level during the hours of darkness.
(b) All exterior doors shall be illuminated with a minimum of 0.5 foot-candle of light during the
hours of darkness.
(4) On-site waiting and intake areas. An interior waiting and intake area shall be provided which
contains a minimum of two hundred square feet. Waiting and intake areas may be used for other
purposes (excluding sleeping) as needed during operations of the shelter.
(6) On-site staff. At least one manager and one supporting staff member shall be on-site during all
hours of operation of the facility. Such manager and staff member must be individuals who do
not utilize the shelter's beds or other services and who reside off-site.
(7) Security. Security personnel shall be provided during operational hours whenever clients are on
the site. A security plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department Director
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
25
14
(8) Concentration of uses. No more than one emergency shelter shall be permitted within a radius of
three hundred feet of another emergency shelter.
(9) Length of stay. Each emergency shelter resident shall be allowed to stay for no more than ninety
days (cumulative, not consecutive) in a three hundred sixty-five-day period. Extensions up to a
total stay of one hundred eighty days in a three hundred sixty-five-day period may be granted by
the shelter provider if no alternative housing is available.
6. Fences
15-29.010 Height restrictions.
(a) General regulations. A building permit shall be required for any solid fence more than six feet
in height. Height maximums and permitted materials for fences shall be as follows:
(1) Solid fences. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no solid fence shall exceed six feet in
height. However, up to two feet of lattice (or similar material) that is at least twenty-five percent
open to the passage of light and air may be added to the top of a solid fence. A solid fence taller
than six feet shall not be permitted unless approved by the Planning Commission through the
exception process detailed in Section 15-29.090, or approved by the Community Development
Director pursuant to Sections 15-29.030, 15-29.040, or 15-29.050 of this Chapter.
(2) Open fences. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, open fencing, such as wrought iron,
wire material, split rail, chain link, or other similar fencing shall not exceed eight feet in height.
With the exception of chain link fencing, open fencing shall have openings sufficient to allow
the unobstructed passage of a sphere having a diameter of four inches. For chain link fencing, the
opening shall be two inches at minimum and no slats are allowed in any opening.
(b) Front setback area. No fence located within any required front setback area shall exceed three
feet in height.
(c) Exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence located within any required exterior
side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height.
(d) Exceptions. The height limitations do not apply to the following circumstances:
(1) Wrought iron entrance gates within the front setback area, designed with openings to permit
visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet, and shall be located a
minimum of twenty feet from the edge of street pavement.
(2) Safety railings that are required by the California Building Code shall be excluded from the
height requirements of this Section.
(3) Pedestrian entryway elements, such as arbors and trellises, when attached to a fence within a
front setback area or within an exterior side setback area, may be permitted to a maximum height
of eight feet, a maximum width of five feet, and a maximum depth of five feet.
(4) On any lot where the front setback area, or a portion thereof, of the subject property: (1) does not
have street frontage as defined by Section 15-06.290; and (2) the front lot line, or a portion
thereof, of the subject property abuts the side or rear setback area of an abutting property, the
maximum permitted fence height for a side or rear setback area shall be permitted within the
26
15
front setback area of the subject property where it abuts the side or rear setback area of an
abutting property.
(e) Street intersections. No fence, hedge, retaining wall, entryway element, pilaster, gate, or other
similar element located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street
intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or intersecting edges of the street pavement
where no curb exists, shall exceed three feet in height above the established grade of the
adjoining street.
(f) Driveway intersections. No fence, hedge, retaining wall, entryway element, pilaster, gate, or
other similar element located within a triangle having sides twelve feet in length from either side
of a driveway where it intersects with the edge of pavement on a street without a sidewalk (or, on
a street with a sidewalk, the back of the curb) shall exceed three feet in height above the
established grade of the adjoining street. Protected trees described in Section 15-50.050 of this
Code are not subject to this requirement.
(g) Vehicular obstructions. No fence, hedge, retaining wall, entryway element, or any other similar
element shall constitute an obstruction as provided for in City Code Section 10-05.030.
(h) Recreational courts. Fencing around recreational courts shall comply with the regulations
contained in Section 15-80.030(c) of this Chapter.
(i) Pilasters. Pilasters constituting a part of a fence, in reasonable numbers and scale in relationship
to the nature and style of the fence, may extend to a height of not more than two feet above the
height limit applicable to the fence containing such pilasters, but in no case shall the height of
pilasters exceed eight feet. If pilasters within the front setback area are attached to a wrought iron
entrance gate, the pilasters are permitted to a maximum height of seven feet.
(j) Light fixtures. The height of a fence shall not include light fixtures mounted thereon at the
entrance of driveways and sidewalks leading into a site. Not more than two such light fixtures
shall be installed at each driveway and sidewalk entrance.
(k) Swimming pool fences. Fences required for swimming pools are governed by the California
Building Code and City Code Section 15-29.020(e).
(l) Retaining walls. No retaining wall shall exceed five seven feet in height. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no retaining wall located in a front or exterior side setback area shall exceed three feet
in height.
27
16
15-29.020 Fencing within hillside districts.
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15-29.010 of this Article, fences located within an
HR or R-OS district shall comply with the following regulations:
(a) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing which constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single
site shall encompass or enclose an area in excess of six thousand square feet or 15 percent of the
gross site area, whichever is greater, unless approved by the Planning Commission. The fencing
shall meet the requirements stipulated in [Section] 15-29.010 of this Article. "Encompass and
enclose," as used in this section, shall mean to surround an area with a continuous fence or a
fence.
(b) Fencing outside area of enclosure. Except for fencing which constitutes part of a corral or
fencing required by the Building Code for swimming pools, fencing outside the area of enclosure
shall not exceed three feet in height, and shall be split rail fencing, stone wall, or stucco.
(c) Parallel retaining walls. Parallel retaining walls shall be separated by a horizontal distance of not
less than five feet. Where two or more retaining walls are approximately parallel to each other
and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or less, the combined height of such walls
shall not exceed ten twenty feet.
(d) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals utilizing
an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site.
(e) Swimming pool fences within hillside districts. When a fence already encompasses or encloses
six thousand square feet or more on a single site, and a swimming pool fence is required for a
swimming pool that is not located within the area of enclosure as described in Article [Section]
15-29.020(a), an additional area around the swimming pool may be enclosed with a fence,
provided the swimming pool fence follows the contour of the pool with no more than ten feet of
distance located between the fence and edge of water.
(f) [Exemptions.] The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any property located within and
constituting a part of Tract 7763, as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded in the office
of the County Recorder.
(g) [Stipulations.] Any property located within and constituting a part of Tracts 6526 and 6528
(Parker Ranch Subdivision), as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded in the office of
the County Recorder shall meet the regulations stipulated in Resolution FE-90-001 or successor
amendments.
[Sections 15-29.030 – 15-29.100; no changes]
7. Review of Single-Family Dwellings
Article 15-45 DESIGN REVIEW OF: SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
15-45.010 Purposes of Article.
The purpose of this Article is to establish standards and procedures to be followed with respect to the
design application review of single-family dwellings, Two-Unit Residential Developments,
Three-Unit Residential Conversions and certain accessory structures to ensure that new
development occurs in a manner which is consistent with the objectives of this Chapter, the
28
17
residential design standards contained in Article 15-59, Single-Family Dwelling Design
Standards, and the policies of the General Plan.
15-45.020 Compliance with development standards.
All structures requiring design review, as provided in Sections 15-45.060 and 15-45.065 of this
Article, shall comply with the floor area standards and setback requirements contained in this
Chapter or as such standards may be required by Article 15-57, Ministerial Consideration of
Qualifying Projects. In the event of a conflict between the development standards required by
this Article and the development standards required by Article 15-57, the requirements of
Article 15-57 shall prevail. In the event of a conflict between the floor area and setback
requirements in this Chapter, the more restrictive standard shall govern. The Planning Commission
shall have authority to grant a variance from such regulations pursuant to Article 15-70 of this
Chapter.
15-45.030 Repealed
15-45.050 Reserved
15 45.040 Creek Protection Setbacks
(a) Purpose, application. Where a protected creek passes through or along a building site or is
otherwise located on the site, and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks,
including creek banks and riparian habitat, a creek protection easement shall be required as set
out in City Code section 14 25.065, and building setbacks for any new construction shall be
measured from the top of the creek bank(s) away from the water course on the site rather than
from the property lines of the site. The required setback shall be the minimum setback prescribed
for the applicable zoning district.
(b) Existing structures. Any existing structure, which encroaches into the creek protection setbacks,
shall be considered nonconforming, and shall be regulated by Article 15 65, Nonconforming
Uses and Structures. Any new addition to an existing structure shall comply with the creek
protection setback requirements.
(c) Accessory structures. Accessory structure may be permitted within a creek protection setbacks
subject to compliance with the special rules as set forth in Section 15 80.030 of this Chapter.
(d) Location of top of creek bank. The site plans for the proposed new construction shall show the
location of the top of the protected creek bank. "Creek bank" means the sides of a watercourse,
the top of which shall be the topographic line roughly parallel to stream centerline where the side
slopes intersect the plane of ground traversed by the watercourse. Where creek banks do not
distinguishably end, the City or Santa Clara Valley Water District shall determine the top of such
banks.
29
18
15-45.050 Underfloor clearance.
(e) Each new single-family main structure, Two-Unit Residential Development, Three-Unit
Residential Conversion, accessory structures, or additions thereto, shall be designed to follow
the slope of the site so as to reduce the clearance between ground floor levels and natural or
finish grade, whichever measurement is greater, to not more than five feet. This does not apply to
any deck or balcony above ground floor level.
15-45.055 Single Family Residential Applicability of Residential Design Standards Review
Handbook.
(a) All structures requiring design review, as provided in Sections 15 45.060 and 15 45.065 of this
Article, shall be consistent with the design techniques described in the City of Saratoga Single
Family Residential Design Review Handbook. The Single Family Residential Design Review
Handbook embodies and illustrates the intent of the design review findings prescribed in Section
15 45.080 of this Article. All new or modified single-family dwellings Two-Unit Residential
Developments, and Three-Unit Residential Conversions shall be consistent with the
requirements of Article 15-59, Single-Family Dwelling Design Standards.
(b) A structure that received design review approval prior to [effective date of new ordinance]
is not considered a non-conforming structure if not in compliance with Article 15-59.
15-45.060 Planning Commission design review; public hearing.
(a) Pursuant to this Article, the following projects shall receive design review approval by the
Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district
to the extent not precluded by another section of this Chapter or State Law:
(1) Any new multi story main structure or multi story accessory structure.
(2) Any conversion of a single story structure to a multi story structure.
(3) Any new structure over eighteen feet in height or any existing structure that would exceed
eighteen feet in height as a result of the proposed construction.
(4)(1) Any project that requires design review under the terms or conditions of any tentative or final
subdivision map, use permit, variance or conditional rezoning.
(5) Any new dwelling on a lot having a net site area of less than five thousand square feet.
(6) Any project that increases the cumulative floor area of all structures on a site to more than six
thousand square feet.
(7)(2) Any project that found to be , in the opinion of the Community Development Director,
may be significantly inconsistent with the design review Article 15-59, Single-Family Dwelling
Design Standards may seek discretionary approval pursuant to the applicable provisions of
the City Code. Findings required in Section 15 45.080 of this Article, or may cause excessive
damage to the natural environment, or may result in excessive intensification of the use or
development of the site.
(8) Any addition to a structure over eighteen feet in height that would expand the existing floor
area by more than fifty percent or modify the existing footprint by more than fifty percent.
30
19
(3) Any alternative design for a standard specified in Article 15-59 to be under Planning
Commission purview. The approval shall reference how the alternative design meets the
intent of the standard from which the variation is being sought.
(9)(4) Any project or project feature for which Planning Commission review is specified in this
Code.
(b) A public hearing on the application for design review approval under this Article shall be
required. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty
days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of
the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available
assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of
the site which is the subject of the application. Notice of the public hearing shall also be
published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior
to the date of the hearing.
(c) An application under this Article may be denied if the Planning Commission makes a
written finding, based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed project would
have a specific, adverse impact, upon public health and safety for which there is no feasible
method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
15-45.065 Administrative design review.
(a) Pursuant to this Article, the following projects that do not comply with all applicable design
standards shall receive administrative design review approval by the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of a building permit in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district to the extent
not precluded by another section of this Chapter (including without limitation Article 15-57,
Ministerial Consideration of Qualifying Projects) or State Law. The Director shall approve
projects upon making the findings listed in Section 15-45.080, Design Review Findings.:
(1) Any new single story residence single family dwelling or accessory structure greater than two
hundred fifty square feet in floor area.
(2) Any addition to an existing structure that would expand the floor area by more than fifty percent.
(3) Any addition to an existing structure that would expand the second story floor area by one
hundred square feet or more.
(4) Any addition to an existing structure that would modify the footprint by more than fifty percent.
(5) Any new or enlarged basement.
(6) Any new or replacement structure that results from a demolition as defined by Section 15-
06.195.
(7) Any single-story addition to an existing structure in excess of eighteen feet on a site where the
existing cumulative floor area of all structures on the site is more than six thousand square feet.
(8) Any single-story addition to an existing single-story structure in excess of eighteen feet in height
can be approved under as an administrative design review unless specifically required by Section
15-45.060.
(9) Any addition of a second story to an existing structure.
31
20
(10)Any alternative design for a standard specified in Article 15-59 to be under Community
Development Director purview. The approval shall reference how the alternative design
meets the intent of the standard from which the variation is being sought.
(b) The application for administrative design review approval shall comply with Section 15-45.070.
(c) If the Community Development Director intends to approve the application, a "Notice of Intent
to Approve" will be mailed to all property owners within two hundred fifty feet of the subject
property and to others as deemed appropriate. All interested parties will have fifteen calendar
days from the date of the "Notice of Intent to Approve" in which to review the application and
provide written comments to the Community Development Director. The Community
Development Director shall approve or deny the application within fifteen days of the close of
the review period and shall mail notice of the decision to the applicant and to any party that has
requested a copy of such notice. The Community Development Director's decision is appealable
to the Planning Commission within fifteen calendar days of the Director's decision to approve
the application. The Planning Commission at a public hearing will review any appeal and shall
approve the application if the project complies with Article 15-59. Notwithstanding, Section
15-45.110 or Section 15-90.020, the decision of the Planning Commission on the appeal shall be
final and not subject to appeal to the City Council.
(d) If the application is not approved by the Community Development Director, then the applicant
may file an appeal within fifteen calendar days of the Community Development Director's
decision or deadline to render a decision and have the application heard by the Planning
Commission at a de novo public hearing. The Planning Commission at a public hearing will
review any appeal and shall approve the application if the project complies with Article 15-
59.
15-45.066 Administrative ministerial review.
Pursuant to this Article, projects listed in Section 15-45.065(a) that comply with all applicable
design standards shall receive administrative ministerial review approval by the Community
Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit in any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS
district to the extent not precluded by another section of this Chapter (including without
limitation Article 15-57, Ministerial Consideration of Qualifying Projects) or State Law. In
such case, the project shall be approved ministerially.
[Section 15-45.070 ; no changes]
15-45.070 Reserved. Requirements for marking trees proposed for removal.
Trees proposed for removal in conjunction with a proposed project shall be clearly marked in the
field as set forth below.
(a) The applicant shall mark trees proposed for removal when notified to do so by the Community
Development Department or designated representative at least three business days prior to
advertising the public hearing for the project (or in the case of administrative design review at
least three business days prior to issuance of the "Notice of Intent to Approve"). Neither the
notice of public hearing nor the "Notice of Intent to Approve" (as applicable) for the project will
32
21
be mailed until the trees are marked to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director
and photographs of the marked trees are filed with the Community Development Department.
(b) Acceptable means of identifying trees include using fluorescent tape wrapped around the tree's
trunk, removable marking on the tree trunk that is easily visible, or another means approved by
the Community Development Director.
15-45.080 Design review findings.
If a project is subject to Planning Commission design review in accordance with Section 15.45-
060, except for Section 15.45-060(a)(3), or Administrative Design Review in accordance with
Section 15-45.65, except for 15-45.065(a)(10), tThe review authority Planning Commission shall
not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings. An approval
under Section 15.45-060(a)(3) requires only the finding set out in that section. These findings
are in addition to, and not a substitute for, compliance with all other Zoning Regulations (which
constitute the minimum requirements, as provided in City Code Section 15-05.050).
(1) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate
given the property's natural constraints.
(2) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If
constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees
approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak
trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set
forth in Section 15-50.080.
(3) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to
avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds.
(4) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with
the structure itself and with the neighborhood.
(5) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area, contains elements that are
complementary to the neighborhood streetscape, and, for sites located within the Wildland Urban
Interface Area, includes a five-foot-wide nonflammable buffer around the perimeter of all
structures.
(6) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to
utilize solar energy.
(76) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential
Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15 45.055.
(87) 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.
[Sections 15-45.085 – 15-45.120; no changes]
8. Design Review: Muli-Family Dwellings and Commercial Structures
33
22
[Sections 15-46.010 – 15-46.032; no changes]
15 46.035 Creek protection setbacks.
(a) Purpose, application. Where a protected creek passes through or along a building site or is
otherwise located on the site, and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks,
including creek banks and riparian habitat, building setbacks for any new construction shall be
measured from the top of the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the property lines of the
site.
(b) Existing structures. Any existing structures which encroach into the creek protection setbacks
shall be considered nonconforming, and shall be regulated by Article 15 65, Nonconforming
Uses and Structures. Any new additions to existing structures shall comply with the creek
protection setbacks.
(c) Accessory structures. Accessory structures for residential projects may be permitted within the
creek protection setbacks subject to compliance with the special rules as set forth in Section 15
80.030 of this Chapter. Accessory structures for nonresidential projects shall comply with the
creek protection setbacks.
(d) Location of top of creek bank. The site plans for the proposed new construction shall show the
location of the top of the protected creek bank. It shall be the applicant/property owner's
responsibility to accurately determine the location of the top of the bank as defined in Section
15 06.185 of this Chapter.
[Sections 15-46.040 – 15-46.070; no changes]
9. Ministerial Consideration of Qualifying Projects
[Sections 15-57.010 – 15-57.020; no changes]
15-57.030 Applicability.
(a) A Two-Unit Residential Development, Three-Unit Residential Conversion, or Urban Lot
Split may be located on parcels within all Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts with
the following exceptions:
(1) Any parcel where the Two-Unit Residential Development, Three-Unit Residential
Conversion, or Urban Lot Split would require demolition or alteration of any of the following
housing types:
(7) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels
affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
(ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid
exercise of its police power.
(iii) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant within the last three years.
34
23
(iv) A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner's
rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw
accommodations from rent or lease within fifteen years before the date that the development
proponent submits an application.
(2) A parcel located within a historic district or including a property included on the State's Historic
Resources Inventory, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or within a site that is
designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or districts pursuant to a
city or county ordinance.
(3) A parcel of one or more of the types specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of
Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6). Without limiting the foregoing, the most applicable of
those specifications to the City of Saratoga are the following:
(i) A Two-Unit Residential Development, Three-Unit Residential Conversion, or Urban Lot Split
may not be located on any parcel within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178, or
within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on the maps adopted by the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4202. As
to Two-Unit Residential Developments and Urban Lot Splits, This this subsection does not apply
to parcels that have been excluded from specific hazard zones by actions of the City pursuant to
Government Code Section 51179(b), or parcels that have adopted fire hazard mitigation
measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to
the development.
(ii) A Two-Unit Residential Development, Three-Unit Residential Conversion, or Urban Lot Split
may not be located on any parcel located within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined
by the State Geologist in any official map published by the State Geologist, unless the
development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the
California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part
2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by the
City of Saratoga Building Department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of
Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(4) A proposed Two Unit Residential Development or Three Unit Residential Conversion that
allows the demolition of more than twenty five percent of the existing exterior structural
walls, unless the development is on a site that has not been occupied by a tenant in the last
three years. (4) For a Three-Unit Residential Conversion, any parcel located outside the R-1-
20 and R-1-40 districts.
(5) For a Three-Unit Residential Conversion, any parcel that lacks adequate water and
sewer service to serve the additional units.
(b) An Affordable Multi-Family Dwelling may be located anywhere a multi-family dwelling is
permitted.
35
24
15-57.040 Development Standards.
Development pursuant to this Article shall comply with the following development standards and all
applicable objective standards of the City Code including without limitation Article 15-59, Single-
Family Dwelling Design Standards, except as otherwise expressly provided for in this section or in
Article 15-56, Accessory Dwelling Units. A project proposed as part of a Two-Unit Residential
Development, Three-Unit Residential Conversion, or on a lot created by an Urban Lot Split, which
does not meet the requirements of this Article may seek discretionary approval pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the City Code.
(a) Number and sSize of units. Dwelling units shall count toward the total maximum allowable
floor area set by applicable zoning regulations.
(1) The maximum allowable floor area, as defined in City Code section 15-06.280, for the two
lots created by an Urban Lot Split shall be allowable floor area for the original lot prior to the
Urban Lot Split. Each lot shall have a maximum allowable floor area that is the larger of (i)
the result of multiplying the allowable floor area for the original lot prior to the Urban Lot
Split by the ratio of the area of the newly-created lot to the area of the original lot or (ii) eight
hundred square feet per dwelling unit, whichever is greater. Where an existing structure uses
more than the floor area that would be allocated to its lot under method (i), the other lot shall
have an allowable floor area equal to the greater of (A) the difference between the maximum
for the two lots and the actual floor area already used, or (B) eight hundred square feet per
dwelling unit. When a lot is limited to eight hundred square feet per dwelling unit pursuant
to this section, no dwelling unit shall be greater than eight hundred square feet of floor area.
(2) The maximum allowable site coverage, as defined in Saratoga Municipal Code section 15-
06.620(f), for each lot created by an Urban Lot Split shall be the larger of (i) the result of
multiplying the allowable site coverage for the original lot prior to the Urban Lot Split by the
ratio of the area of the newly-created lot to the area of the original lot or (ii) the area required
to construct two dwelling units of eight hundred square feet floor area each.
(3) If application of the development standards of the City Code or this Article to a Two-Unit
Residential Development or Three-Unit Residential Conversion would preclude construction
of dwellings with a combined floor area equal to the floor area allowed for a dwelling by the
underlying zoning district by City Code section 15-12.085, then the development may
exceed the maximum site coverage allowed for the underlying zoning district in City Code
section 15-12.080 and 15-13.080. Such exceedance shall be limited to the minimum site
coverage required to construct dwellings with the allowed floor area. For purposes of this
paragraph the "site" for the purpose of calculating site coverage shall be the lot on which the
Two-Unit Residential Development is to be constructed or as depicted in a site plan,
including one of the lots resulting from an Urban Lot Split.
(4) A dwelling unit constructed as a part of Two Unit Residential Development, Three Unit
Residential Conversion, or Urban Lot Split located partially or entirely within the side or rear
setback area set out in the City Code shall have a maximum floor area of one thousand
square feet.
(b) Accessory Dwelling Units. For purposes of City Code Section 15-56.020, a Two-Unit
Residential Development or a Three-Unit Residential Conversion shall be considered "an
existing or concurrently approved single-family dwelling unit."
36
25
(c) Maximum Height. No dwelling unit constructed pursuant to this Article as part of a Two-
Unit Residential Development or on a lot created by an Urban Lot Split shall exceed one
story two stories and a height of eighteen twenty-six feet, except as otherwise expressly
provided for in this section. No dwelling unit constructed pursuant to this Article as part of a
Three-Unit Residential Conversion shall exceed the height of the original structure subject to
the conversion.
A proposed dwelling unit subject to this subsection (c) which is located within either the required
side or rear setback area as set by the underlying zoning district shall not exceed a height of sixteen
feet.
(d) Setbacks. No dwelling unit constructed pursuant to this Article as part of a Two-Unit
Residential Development or on a lot created by an Urban Lot Split shall have an interior side or
rear setback of less than four feet. Notwithstanding, no setback shall be required for an existing
structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an
existing structure. A Three-Unit Residential Conversion shall be subject to the setback
requirements of the underlying zoning district. Attached covered patios constructed as part of a
Two-Unit Residential Unit shall comply with the applicable setback requirements of the
underlying zoning district.
(e) Accessory Uses and Structures. All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the
development regulations contained in Chapter 15 of the City Code.
(f) Decks. Roof decks are not permitted on any dwelling unit constructed pursuant to this Article as
part of a Two Unit Residential Development or Three Unit Residential Conversion.
(g)(f) Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical equipment and generators. No
HVAC mechanical equipment or generators, other than equipment associated with assessor dwelling
units, shall be allowed in any required front, side, or rear setback area of the underlying zoning
district. HVAC mechanical equipment and generators shall comply with the development regulations
contained in 15-80.030(l).
(h)(g) Off-Street Parking. One off-street parking space within an enclosed garage shall be required
per unit in Two-Unit Residential Developments, Urban Lots Splits, or Three-Unit Conversion, with
the exception that for Two-Unit Residential Developments and Urban Lots Splits, no off-street
parking shall be required if any of the following apply:
(1) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distances or either a high-quality transit
corridor, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155(b) of the, or a major transit stop, as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3.
(2) There is a designated parking area for one or more car share vehicles within one block of the
parcel.
37
26
(i)(h) Rental. No dwelling unit constructed as a part of Two-Unit Residential Development, Three-
Unit Residential Conversion or Urban Lot Split shall be rented for a period of less than thirty days.
(j)(i) Septic System. For any Two-Unit Residential Development or Three-Unit Residential
Conversion that will be connected to an onsite septic system, the applicant must provide a
percolation test showing compliance with applicable public health and safety standards and
completed within the last five years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last ten
years.
(k)(j) Adjacent or Connected Units. Proposed adjacent or connected dwelling units shall meet all
applicable building code standards and be designed sufficient to allow separate conveyance. An
Urban Lot Split may separate an existing accessory unit from its primary unit only if each unit meets
all building code and other applicable requirements.
(l)(k) Dedications. As to an Urban Lot Split, no provision of the City Code shall apply that requires
dedication of right-of-way or the construction of offsite improvements for the lots being created,
although easements may be required for the provision of public services and facilities to the resulting
lots.
(m)(l) Adverse Impacts. An application under this Article may be denied if the Chief Building
Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing
development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in
Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment
and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse
impact.
15-57.050 Urban Lot Splits.
A parcel map for an Urban Lot Split shall be allowed subject to ministerial review if the parcel
map for the lot split meets all of the requirements in this section.
(a) Parcel Map. A parcel map for an Urban Lot Split shall be allowed with ministerial approval if
the parcel map for the lot split meets all of the following requirements:
(1) The parcel is located within a Single-Family Residential Zoning District.
(2) The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of
approximately equal lot area provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than forty percent of
the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.
(3) Both newly created lots are no smaller than one thousand two hundred square feet.
(4) Each lot resulting from the Urban Lot Split adjoins the public right-of-way via a twenty foot
street frontage or have access to the public right-of-way via a recorded twenty foot wide access
easement benefiting the lot; if necessary to allow one lot resulting from an Urban Lot Split to
meet this requirement, the other lot shall provide such an access agreement.
(5) Urban Lot Splits dividing a parcel with an existing street frontage of less than eighty feet
provides only a single driveway curb cut providing access to both lots created by an Urban Lot
Split, via a twenty foot wide access easement as needed.
(6) The Urban Lot Split does not result in a new lot with a width that is less than fifty percent of the
width of the original parcel. For purposes of this Article "width" means "site width" as defined
in City Code Section 15-06.620(d).
(7) The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an Urban Lot Split as provided for
in this Article and Government Code section 66411.7.
38
27
(8) The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic
Resources Inventory, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or within a site that
is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or districts pursuant to a
city or county ordinance.
(9) Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the
owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an Urban Lot Split.
(10) The Urban Lot Split conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map
Act [Division 2 (commencing with Government Code Section 664100 66410)] and the City
Code, except as otherwise expressly provided for in this section.
(11) The landowner provides all easements required for the provision of public services and facilities
to the resulting lots.
(b) Number of Units. Section 15-57.040(b) notwithstanding, no more than four dwelling units shall
be allowed on any parcel created by the use of an Urban Lot Split or any parcel that is the site of
a Three-Unit Residential Conversion. For purposes of this provision, "unit" means any dwelling
unit, including, but not limited to, a unit or units created pursuant to Government Code Section
65852.21, a primary dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Government Code
Section 65852.2, or a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined in Government Code Section
65852.22.
(c) Development Standards. Residential uses are the only allowed uses of a lot created by an
Urban Lot Split. Development standards for residential development on each new lot resulting
from an Urban Lot Split shall conform to section 15-57.040 of this Article Development
standards shall be applied to each new building individually. If application of the development
standards of the City Code, including this Article, to an Urban Lot Split would have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting lots or that would
result in a unit size of less than eight hundred square feet, the lots shall conform as closely as
possible to those standards while allowing the construction of two dwelling units of eight
hundred square feet floor area on each lot. Sections 15-57.050(a)(2) and (3) are not subject to
this exception.
(d) Accessory Dwelling Units. Notwithstanding Government Code Section 65852.2 or 65852.22,
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units shall not be permitted on any
lot resulting from an Urban Lot Split on which a Two-Unit Residential Development has been
approved under this Article.
(e) Nonconforming Zoning Conditions. Correction of nonconforming zoning conditions shall not
be required as a condition for ministerial approval of a parcel map application for the creation of
an Urban Lot Split.
(f) Residency Requirement. An applicant for an Urban Lot Split shall sign an affidavit stating that
the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units on the resulting lots as their principal
residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the Urban Lot Split. In
the event that the applicant cannot sign such affidavit because the land to be subject to the Urban
Lot Split is vacant or they occupy a unit on the land but intend to demolish that unit within three
years, the applicant will qualify for ministerial approval as set out in this article by signing an
alternative affidavit. The alternative affidavit shall state the reason for using this alternative
affidavit and that the applicant (i) intends to initiate approval of at least one housing unit on the
property within three years from the date of approval of the Urban Lot Split and (ii) intends to
occupy one of the units so constructed as their principal residence for a minimum of three years
39
28
from the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for the residence to be occupied and any
dwelling units for which the applicant simultaneously applies. No affidavit requirement shall
apply to an applicant that is a "community land trust," as defined in Revenue and Taxation Code
Section 402.1(a)(11)(C)(ii) , or is a "qualified nonprofit corporation" as described in Revenue
and Taxation Code Section 214.15.
15 57.060 Tree Protection.
The applicant for any project subject to this Article that would remove, damage, prune, or encroach
upon a protected tree as defined in City Code section 15 50.050 shall:
(b) Provide an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation plan as described in City Code sections 15
50.130 and 140 as part of the application materials.
(c) Before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for any dwelling unit, plant new trees equal to
the value of removed trees in accordance with the ISA Tree Valuation Formula contained in the
April 2000 ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal.
10. Single-Family Dwelling Design Standards (New Article)
Article 15-59 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING DESIGN STANDARDS
Purposes and Applicability.
The purpose of these design standards is to guide the design of Single-Family Dwellings, Two-
Unit Residential Developments, and Three-Unit Residential Conversions and to support the
implementation of the Housing Element of the General Plan. The goal is to establish objective
standards that will provide consistent guidance for future development of single-family
dwellings and single-family duplex and triplex conversions and implement the Housing
Element in a consistent manner throughout the City. It is further the goal of these standards to
ensure that new residential development is designed to be compatible with adjacent residential
development.
15-59.020 Development Standards.
Development standards for Single-Family Dwellings, Two-Unit Residential Developments, and
Three-Unit Residential Conversions are determined by the base zoning district and Article 15-
57, Ministerial Consideration of Qualifying Projects.
15-59.030 Design Standards – Building Massing and Scale.
(a) Street-facing façade massing and scale.
(1) Street-facing second story facades must be either:
40
29
(i) Stepped-back a minimum five feet from the ground floor façade directly below for a
minimum 40 percent of the façade width; or
(ii) Embedded within a sloped roof form that meets the first story eave.
Figure 15-59.030-1: Second Story Street-facing Facades
(2) Overhanging second stories are not permitted.
(3) Second story plate height may not exceed twice that of the ground floor plate height.
(4) Where a continuous eave line exists along a block face:
(i) New development must conform by establishing a continuous eave line within ten inches of
the average eave height along the block face.
(ii) Additions and remodels must preserve any existing eave that conforms to the block face’s
continuous eave line.
Figure 15-59.030-2: Continuity of Eaves Line
(b) Interior side and rear facade massing and scale.
(1) Two-story interior side facades facing an R-1 district and two-story rear facades of corner
lots facing an R-1 district must incorporate a minimum of two vertical planes. Each plane
must be at least 80 square feet in surface area and must be offset a minimum of four feet
from any adjacent plane.
41
30
(2) Two-story rear facades of interior lots facing an R-1 district may be a maximum 60 feet in
length without a full-height vertical change in plane at least eight feet in depth.
(c) Roof form.
(1) Roof forms shall be limited to:
(i) Gables, (with or without dormers),
(ii) Hip roof,
(iii)Shed roof, or
(iv) Flat roof.
(2) Dormers which are decorative only (“false” dormers) are not permitted. Where dormers
are used, each dormer must be a minimum 8 feet in width.
(3) Where sloped roof forms are used, all portions of the roof that are visible from the public
right-of-way must be sloped.
(i) Sloped roof forms that are flat at the top are not permitted.
(ii) Structures with sloped roof forms visible from the public right-of-way and a flat roof form
behind that is not visible from the public right-of-way are permitted.
(4) To ensure that primary roof forms, secondary roof forms, and additions are compatible in
form and slope, a maximum of three roof forms may be visible from the public right-of-
way on any one structure.
(5) Where a façade incorporates a secondary volume such as a bank of bow windows or other
projection, the roof form above the projection must reflect the change in building volume
below. Large roofs forms that are independent of the volumes below are not permitted (see
Figure 15-59.030-3: Roof Forms
(d) Residential privacy.
(1) Upper-story balconies, roof decks, and other habitable outdoor space must maintain a
minimum five feet clear from the minimum setback line abutting an R-1 district and must
include an opaque wall at least four feet in height as measured from the floor of the
outdoor open space.
(2) Upper-story floor-to-ceiling windows or doors are not allowed on facades within five feet of
the minimum setback line abutting an R-1 district.
42
31
(3) All windows on the second story or above and within 15 feet of an interior or rear property
line must:
(i) Be angled a minimum of thirty degrees a measured perpendicular to the adjacent side
setback line;
(ii) Have a minimum sill height of forty-two inches from finished floor; or
(iii) Use permanently translucent or frosted glazing.
Figure 15-59.030-4: Residential Privacy
(4) Where a second story is located within 15 feet of an interior or rear property line, a six foot
fence or hedge that is six feet tall at maturity is required along the property line opposite
from any fenestration and opposite the wall segments four feet on either side of the
fenestration.
(5) Where ground-floor full-height windows or transparent doors face an interior side or rear
property line abutting an R-1 district at any distance from a property line, a six-foot fence
or a hedge that is six feet tall at maturity is required along the property line from the
fenestration and opposite the wall segments four feet on either side of the fenestration.
15-59.040 Design Standards – Building Design.
(a) Building orientation and entrance design.
(1) For single-family dwellings, the principal entrance must be located on the street-facing
façade and must incorporate a projection, recess, or combination of projection and recess
at least 40 square feet in area, with a minimum depth of five feet.
43
32
Figure 15-59.040-1: Entry Protection
(2) For duplex and triplex conversions:
(i)At least one principal entrance to a primary dwelling unit must be located on the street-
facing façade and must incorporate a projection, recess, or combination of projection and
recess at least 40 square feet in area, with a minimum depth of five feet. The covered area
may support one entrance, two entrances, or a shared entrance.
(ii) Side or rear-facing principal entrances to primary dwelling units shall incorporate a
projection, recess, or combination of projection and recess at least 20 square feet in area,
with a minimum depth of five feet.
(3) Where a façade incorporates a projecting entry feature:
(i) The horizontal width of the entry feature may not exceed 25 percent of the façade width.
(ii) Eaves of a roofed projection may not exceed the eave height of the first story eaves.
Figure 15-59.040-2: Entrance Features
(4) Alternative designs that create a welcoming entry feature facing the street may be
approved by the Director pursuant to Article 15-45.065(a)(10).
(b) Window placement and design.
44
33
(1) Passive cooling. On south-facing facades and facades within 15 degrees of south-facing,
overhangs and eaves must be incorporated into roof and façade design to block direct
sunlight in the summer months.
(2) Required windows. All habitable rooms require at least six square feet of window surface.
Rooms not considered habitable include bathrooms, closets, hallways, storage areas, and
utility rooms.
(3) Window shape. Windows may be square, rectangular, or arched. Where clerestory
windows are incorporated into a façade design, windows may be irregular in shape to
follow the contours of the roofline.
(4) Window recess or trim. Trim at least two inches in width and ¾-inch in depth must be
provided around all windows, or windows must be recessed at least 2.5 inches from the
plane of the surrounding exterior wall.
(5) Figure 15-59.040-3: Window Design
(4) Window materials. Foam window trim is not permitted on street-facing windows.
(5) Glazing. Reflective glazing is prohibited.
(6) Shutters. Shutters width may be a maximum 50 percent of the width of the window.
Figure 15-59.040-4: Shutter Width
45
34
(c) Blank Walls. No wall on any level, except for garages, may run in a continuous plane of
more than 20 feet without a window or a projection, offset, or recess of the building wall at
least four feet in depth.
(d) Garage design.
(a) Garage door width. The total width of garage doors on front-facing garages may not
exceed 50 percent of the width of the façade.
(b) Attached garage height. The plate height of an attached single-story garage may not exceed
the first floor plate height of the rest of the structure.
(c) Garage design.
(i) Building materials and colors of garages (attached or detached) must be consistent with that
of the rest of the structure.
(ii) Garage doors must be recessed a minimum of four inches from the face of the garage.
(iii)Garage doors must be articulated with windows, paneling, recesses, or other details that
provide visual relief.
Figure 15-59.040-5: Garage Door Articulation
(d) Three-car garages. A garage with three or more doors, or garages designed to
accommodate three or more non-tandem parked cars, must be designed such that the
entrance to one of the three parking spaces is set back from the other two by a minimum of
two feet.
(e) Building materials and colors.
(1) Building materials. Building elevations must incorporate at least two distinct non-reflective
materials and textures: a primary material that comprises 50 percent or more of the façade
excluding transparent surfaces and a secondary material that comprises no more than 30
percent of the façade excluding transparent surfaces. Accent materials may be used on
46
35
trim and architectural details, comprising no more than 10 percent of the façade excluding
transparent surfaces.
(2) Material change. When there is a change in exterior building material, the material change
must occur at the inside corner of a building form, or a minimum of two feet beyond an
outside corner.
(3) Material durability/protection.
(i) Exterior finish materials shall have an expected lifespan of no less than 30 years per
manufacturer’s specifications.
(ii) Exterior timber shall be protected from decay by stain and sealant.
(iii) Exterior ferrous metals shall be protected from corrosion either by the use of galvanized,
stainless, or weathering steel.
(4) Prohibited materials. The following are prohibited as building cladding materials:
(i) Synthetic stucco.
(ii) Ribbed metal.
(iii) Mirrored metal finishes.
(iv) Vinyl.
(v) Aluminum.
(5) Building colors. A maximum of four colors shall be applied to the building façade.
(6) Roof materials. Roof materials and colors are limited to the following.
(i) Composition shingle.
(ii) Spanish barrel tile, regularly or irregularly laid, and brown or brown/red in color.
(iii) Standing seam metal.
(iv) Concrete roof tiles; or
(v) Cool roof membrane.
(vi) Alternative roof materials that are similar to the above in form and color may be approved
by the Director pursuant to Article 15-45.065(a)(10).
(f) “360-degree design” requirements. All buildings must be designed with “360-degree
design” where each exterior wall is designed equivalent to the primary facade in the extent
of building articulation, level of detail, quality of exterior materials, and consistent with the
color scheme of the primary facade. Details include but are not limited to window and door
trim, window and door recesses, cornices, brackets, columns/arches, and roof forms.
(g) Additions and remodels. Notwithstanding the design standards of this Article, the following
elements of additions to and remodels of existing buildings must be consistent with the
design of the existing building:
(1) Plate heights. On each story, the plate height of the addition must be the same as that of the
existing adjacent space.
47
36
(2) Roof forms. Roof forms of additions must extend and be consistent with the existing
structure’s roof in terms of slope and form.
Figure 15-59.040-6: Roof Forms of Additions
(3) Materials and colors. The same building material and colors must be used on an addition.
If the same materials and colors are not attainable, alternate materials may be used
provided the resulting design complies with the standards of Section 15-59-040(e), Building
materials and colors.
15-59.050 Design Standards – Site Design.
(a) Fencing and screening.
(1) Fence design. Where fences or gates incorporate decorative pilasters or posts, the post or
post cap design must incorporate a building material or color that is consistent with that of
the primary structure.
(2) Prohibited materials: Chain link fences are prohibited in the front or street-side setback.
(3) Visibility of solar panels. Rooftop solar panels shall have a low-profile, flush-mounted
design, with a maximum of 6-inch gap between the solar panel and the roof material. If
solar panels are mounted on a flat roof and are tilted or angled to maximize solar energy
production, building parapets or other architectural elements shall provide screening from
view from the right-of-way. Screening shall be architecturally continuous with the building
in color, material, and trim cap detail.
(4) Visibility of building-mounted utilities. Electrical panels, EV charging panels, and other
building-mounted utilities may not be located on the front façade and must be screened
from visibility from the public right-of-way.
(5) Visibility of ground-mounted utilities. Ground-mounted mechanical or electrical
equipment shall be screened using plant materials, fencing, or walls from public right-of-
way. Conduits shall not be exposed on exterior walls and shall be embedded either in walls
or landscaping.
(b) Paving. In addition to the standards of Section 15-12.095 – Landscaping, the following
standards are required of single-family site design and single-family duplex/triplex
conversion site design:
48
37
(1) A continuous paved walkway at least four feet in width is required between the sidewalk or
other public right-of-way and all primary entrances, whether shared or individual, to all
dwelling units on-site.
(2) Where paving is at least 35 percent open, allowing grass or moss to grow through, 50
percent of the surface area counts toward the maximum amount of paving allowed in the
required front setback per Article 15-12.095.
(3) Permeable paving is not permitted in areas that are:
(i) Greater than a 2 percent slope.
(ii) Seasonally wet (e.g., creek beds); or
(iii) Adjacent to a building foundation unless measures are taken to prevent infiltration under
the structure (e.g., a waterproof membrane is installed to protect the foundation).
(c) Landscaping and Low-Impact Design.
(1) Landscaping plans must comply with Article 15-47 – Water Efficient Landscaping to meet
local priorities for native and drought tolerant landscaping,
(2) Landscaping plans must comply with Article 15-50 – Tree Regulations to meet local
priorities for protection of existing tree canopy.
(3) Site design must be consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook strategies for on-site retention and
infiltration.
(4) In the Wildland Urban Interface, a five-foot-wide nonflammable buffer is required around
the perimeter of all structures.
(5) Sites must be graded such that runoff from driveways, walkways, roofs, and patios is
directed onto vegetated areas.
(6) Compacted soils are limited to a maximum of 20 percent of the on-site landscaped area.
(7) Landscape design.
(i) For each 50 linear feet of street-facing lot frontage, a minimum of one tree that reaches a
mature height of 35 feet at maturity, or 25 feet in areas with overhead utility lines, is
required.
(ii) Where trees are planted in a yard abutting a façade that is within 15 degrees of south-
facing, the trees must be deciduous and provide a canopy at least 15 feet in diameter at
maturity.
(iii) Landscaped areas in the front and street-side yards must include at least four varieties of
live trees, shrubs, or other plant materials. Landscaping installed alongside fences,
climbing vines on fences, and varieties planted in permanent planter boxes count toward
this minimum.
(iv) At least eight percent of the front and street-side yard must be planted with a species that
is at least three feet in height at maturity.
49
38
11. Nonconforming Uses and Structures
[Section 15-65.010; no changes]
15-65.020 Definitions.
The following definitions apply throughout this Article, unless the context or the provision clearly
requires otherwise:
(a) Maintenance means routine, recurring, and usual activities for the preservation, protection, and
keeping of a structure for its intended purposes in a safe and continually usable condition for
which it was designed. Repainting or reroofing (in kind) of a structure is an example of
maintenance.
(b) Demolition means either of the following:
(1) Removal or covering of more than fifty percent of the exterior walls of an existing structure so
the walls no longer function as exterior walls and removal of more than fifty percent of the
existing roof structure and exterior roof sheathing; or
(2) Removal or covering of more than fifty percent of the exterior walls of an existing structure so
the walls no longer function as exterior walls and removal of more than fifty percent of interior
walls.
The exclusive removal of interior walls without any modification or removal of exterior walls or
any modification or removal of the existing roof structure and exterior sheathing is not
considered a demolition.
(c) Repair or alteration means any work (after December 2, 2015) that does not constitute a
demolition of the structure as defined by this Code.
(d) Nonconforming structure means a structure lawfully existing on the effective date of a change
in a development standard established by this Code and continuing since that date in
nonconformance to the development standard. The use of this term in this Article shall refer only
to a legal nonconforming structure.
(1) A structure that was not originally constructed in conformance with regulations applicable at the
time is not a legal structure.
(2) A structure that solely lacks the required number of off-street parking facilities, but otherwise
conforms to City code is not considered nonconforming.
(3) A structure that received design review approval prior to [effective date of new ordinance]
is not considered a non-conforming structure if not in compliance with Article 15-59.
(e) Nonconforming use means a use lawfully existing on the effective date of a change in a use
restriction and continuing since that date in nonconformance to the use restriction. Site and
structural dimensions are not considered use restrictions and are instead development standards
applicable to structures. The following pre-existing uses shall constitute a nonconforming use
subject to the provisions of this Article unless a conditional use permit is subsequently granted
for such use:
50
39
(1) A use established prior to any City regulation requiring a conditional use permit for such use, but
which by virtue of later-adopted City regulation(s) becomes a use allowed only upon the
granting of a conditional use permit; and
(2) A use being conducted under a valid conditional use permit, but which by virtue of later-adopted
City regulation(s) becomes a use no longer allowed to continue.
The use of this term in this Article shall refer only to a legal nonconforming use. A use that was not
originally commenced in conformance with regulations applicable at the time is not a legal use.
(f) Reconstruction means either of the following:
(1) Any construction work that results from a demolition as defined by this Code or modification of
the footprint of a structure by more than fifty percent; or
(2) Moving a nonconforming structure or a structure being used for a nonconforming use to any
other location on the parcel or adjoining parcels (whether the structure movement is in whole or
in part).
Repair or alteration work which does not include any proposed exterior changes to a nonconforming
structure is not considered reconstruction or expansion.
(g) Statement of acknowledgment of legal nonconforming status means a document in form and
content approved by the Community Development Director and recorded in the office of the
County Recorder documenting the extent to which a use or structure on the subject property is
nonconforming, but legal pursuant to the terms of this Article.
(h) Work means any work, whether structural or nonstructural, that is done to a structure including
repair, alteration and reconstruction, but excluding maintenance and the replacement of the
interior or exterior wall coverings, fixtures, or windows or doors (without altering their
respective openings).
12. Miscellaneous Regulations and Exceptions
[Sections 15-80.010 – 15-80.160; no changes]
15-80.165 Creek protection setbacks.
(a) Purpose, application. Where a protected creek passes through or along a building site or is
otherwise located on the site, and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks,
including creek banks and riparian habitat, a creek protection easement shall be required
as set out in City Code section 14-25.065, and building setbacks for any new construction
shall be measured from the top of the creek bank(s) away from the water course on the site
rather than from the property lines of the site. The required setback shall be the minimum
setback prescribed for the applicable zoning district.
(b) Existing structures. Any existing structure, which encroaches into the creek protection
setbacks, shall be considered nonconforming, and shall be regulated by Article 15-65,
Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Any new addition to an existing structure shall
comply with the creek protection setback requirements.
51
40
(c) Accessory structures. Accessory structure may be permitted within a creek protection
setbacks subject to compliance with the special rules as set forth in Section 15-80.030 of this
Chapter.
(d) Location of top of creek bank. The site plans for the proposed new construction shall show
the location of the top of the protected creek bank. "Creek bank" means the sides of a
watercourse, the top of which shall be the topographic line roughly parallel to stream
centerline where the side slopes intersect the plane of ground traversed by the watercourse.
Where creek banks do not distinguishably end, the City or Santa Clara Valley Water
District shall determine the top of such banks.
*** End of Amendments ***
52
CITY OF SARATOGA
Memorandum
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
From: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Kyle Rathbone, Associate Planner
Date: January 22, 2025
Subject: Application ZOA24-0003: City Wide. Amend Zoning Standards –
Supplemental Memo No 1
Please see attached email public comment received after publication of the packet.
53
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Friday, January 17, 2025 10:11 PM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Bill & Lisa Liu
Phone Number Field not completed.
Email Address
Comments Hello Commissioners, We heard that the Commission will
consider changes to the processes that all for public notification
and input SFR projects at your Wed Jan 22 meeting. We
believe that the proposed changes to remove all processes that
allow for public notification and public input in all future
developments of single family residential project plans go too
far to try and maintain a certified Housing Element. Ever since
my family and we moved to Saratoga in 1991, the city council
and planning commission have touted Saratoga as a
"residential community with a rural atmosphere". It is even
codified in our City Code of Ordinances and in our General
Plan - "Maintain the predominantly small-town residential
character of Saratoga, which includes a mix of larger
residential parcels, long established neighborhoods, scenic
hillsides, and open space areas." If the proposed changes of
not requiring public noticing requirements and limiting the
application of the Administrative Ministerial Review process,
the public will lose all of its ability to achieve these Saratogan
goals. Please continue public notification and public input in all
future developments of single family residential project.
Thank you.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
54
CITY OF SARATOGA
Memorandum
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
From: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Kyle Rathbone, Associate Planner
Date: January 22, 2025
Subject: Application ZOA24-0003: City Wide. Amend Zoning Standards –
Supplemental Memo No. 2
Please see attached email public comment received after publication of the packet.
55
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 12:04 PM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name --
Phone Number Field not completed.
Email Address
Comments On housing element, very dense housing should be zoned and
focused towards Saratoga Sunnyvale road, north of cox
avenue. The same for the large plot west of the 90-Units along
cox avenue.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
56
CITY OF SARATOGA
Memorandum
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
From: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Kyle Rathbone, Associate Planner
Date: January 22, 2025
Subject: Application ZOA24-0003: City Wide. Amend Zoning Standards –
Supplemental Memo No 3
Please see attached email public comment received after publication of the packet.
57
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 8:28 AM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Henry Coles
Phone Number
Email Address
Comments Dear Planning Commission, I believe nearby homeowners
should be notified prior to considering the issue of construction
permits. I don't know the radius but it should be at least the
adjacent proprieties plus one or a minimum of 200 feet which
ever is more.
Thanks for your consideration,
-Henry Coles
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
58
Frances Reed
From:Anil Kumar
Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 7:47 PM
To:Planning
Cc:Rafik Bawa
Subject:Amendments to Saratoga City Code
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I understand that the Planning Commission will consider amendments to Saratoga City Code to align
with some newly adopted and certified Housing Elements. One of the proposed changes will remove
all processes that allow for public notification and public input in all future developments of single
family residential project plans.
The removal of public notification and public input is a step too far and unnecessary to satisfy the
State Housing and Community Development Department ("HCD"). Such satisfaction, including for
new developments which might alter traffic or endanger residents due to environmental
changes, should be provided with an efficient community input process.
Regards,
Anil
--
Anil Kumar | Managing Partner |
59
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 9:28 AM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name jane Lin-Li
Phone Number Field not completed.
Email Address
Comments Dear Commissioners:
I strongly urge you to not be intimidated by HCD's threat about
losing Housing Element (HE) certification; the whole HE
concept and implementation are flawed to begin with. Recent
SoCal fires should be reminder to Gavin Newsom's
administration that NOT every city is a good candidate for
maximizing for human habitation. Being right next to the Santa
Cruz Mountain range, Saratoga's fire risk is right in our
backyard. The 2020 Big Basin Fire is still too fresh on our
minds.
But what has easing, eeeeeaaaaasing, the city's Planning
Process has got to do with HE certification?? The threat is
nothing but a mob's bullying! Informing the neighborhood of
proposed substantial projects and allowing expressing of
opinions keep peace. When keeping peace and maintaining a
friendly community is on the agenda of the new mayor, it's hard
to fathom that you might even consider voting against keeping
peace. In any case, reducing communication is never a good
idea; experts would argue to always air on the side of over-
communicating. It's especially super not nice to not inform
those who would be affected.
I urge you to vote against reduction of neighborhood
communication.
Truly yours,
jane
60
CITY OF SARATOGA
Memorandum
To: Saratoga Planning Commission
From: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Kyle Rathbone, Associate Planner
Date: January 22, 2025
Subject: Application ZOA24-0003: City Wide. Amend Zoning Standards –
Supplemental Memo No. 4
Please see attached email public comment received after publication of the packet.
61
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 10:47 AM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Ray Froess
Phone Number
Email Address
Comments I understand that the Planning Commission is considering an
amendment to Saratoga City Code to align with the newly
adopted and certified Housing Element that will remove all
processes allowing public notification and public input in future
developments of single-family residential project plans. We are
disgusted with the State forcing additional housing on us. Now
they want to hide it from us until it's too late to stop. My wife
and I insist on full transparency and encourage the City to fight
back.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
62
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:02 AM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Mohini Balakrishnan
Phone Number
Email Address
Comments Honorable Planning Commissioners,
During this special meeting, you the Planning Commission will
consider amendments to Saratoga City Code to align with the
newly adopted and certified Housing Element. One of the
proposed changes will remove all processes that allow for
public notification and public input in all future developments of
single family residential project plans. I believe the removal of
public notification and public input is a step too far to appease
the State Housing and Community Development Department
("HCD"), this significant change in processes requires
community input.
The core of democracy is citizen participation; and the first job
of government is to be transparent, to be informative, and to
encourage citizen participation.
Let me remind you of your responsibilities to uphold your
commitments to our City Code of Ordinancesand in
our General Plan - "Maintain the predominantly small-town
residential character of Saratoga, which includes a mix of
larger residential parcels, long established neighborhoods,
scenic hillsides, and open space areas."
Kindly stay firm and modify the proposed changes to include
public noticing requirements and limit the applicaiton of the
Administrative Ministerial Review process. the public will lose
all of its ability to achieve these Saratogan goals.
Sincerely
63
Mohini Balakrishnan
Villa Oaks Lane
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
64
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:04 AM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Mohini Balakrishnan
Phone Number
Email Address
Comments Honorable Planning Commissioners,
During this special meeting, you the Planning Commission will
consider amendments to Saratoga City Code to align with the
newly adopted and certified Housing Element. One of the
proposed changes will remove all processes that allow for
public notification and public input in all future developments of
single family residential project plans. I believe the removal of
public notification and public input is a step too far to appease
the State Housing and Community Development Department
("HCD"), this significant change in processes requires
community input.
The core of democracy is citizen participation; and the first job
of government is to be transparent, to be informative, and to
encourage citizen participation.
Let me remind you of your responsibilities to uphold your
commitments to our City Code of Ordinancesand in
our General Plan - "Maintain the predominantly small-town
residential character of Saratoga, which includes a mix of
larger residential parcels, long established neighborhoods,
scenic hillsides, and open space areas."
Kindly stay firm and modify the proposed changes to include
public noticing requirements and limit the applicaiton of the
Administrative Ministerial Review process. the public will lose
all of its ability to achieve these Saratogan goals.
Sincerely
65
Mohini Balakrishnan
Villa Oaks Lane
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
66
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:48 AM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Brian Berkeley
Phone Number
Email Address
Comments In Saratoga, we should not only respect the rights of the
residents who have made a home here, but also we should
work together to foster good neighborly harmony. Accordingly, I
believe that the single family residential planning process
should require public noticing prior to project plan approval.
While it is understandable that city leaders may have concerns
about overbearing state authorities once again invoking the
Builders Remedy, the minimal step of providing notification to
residents near a proposed project would provide opportunity for
comment and potentially to have neighbor voices heard by an
applicant who is willing to harmonize with their future
neighbors. Thank you for your consideration and for your
service to Saratoga.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
67
Frances Reed
From:Planning
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:56 AM
To:Frances Reed
Subject:Fw: 1-22-2025 proposed change that will remove all processes that allow for public
notification and public input in all future developments of single family residential
project plans
From: Jon Kwong <
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 10:07 AM
To: Planning <planning@saratoga.ca.us>
Cc: Belal Aftab <belal@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>;
Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>
Subject: 1-22-2025 proposed change that will remove all processes that allow for public notification and public
input in all future developments of single family residential project plans
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
On 1-22-2025, you will consider proposed change that will remove all processes that allow for
public notification and public input in all future developments of single family residential project
plans.
The core of democracy is citizen participation; and the first job of government is to be transparent,
to be informative, and to encourage citizen participation.
If you need a reminder, please be reminded that totalitarian governments do not hold public
hearings, and do not send public notifications, and do not allow public input.
Please, please do not start on the slippery slope.
Please do not even entertain the notion of not sending public notification, and not encouraging
public input on ANY development project.
BR
Jon Kwong
68
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 12:01 PM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Joseph Cichanowicz
Phone Number
Email Address
Comments In Saratoga, we should not only respect the rights of the
residents who have made a home here, but also we should
work together to foster good neighborly harmony. Accordingly, I
believe that the single family residential planning process
should require public noticing prior to project plan approval.
While it is understandable that city leaders may have concerns
about overbearing state authorities once again invoking the
Builders Remedy, the minimal step of providing notification to
residents near a proposed project would provide opportunity for
comment and potentially to have neighbor voices heard by an
applicant who is willing to harmonize with their future
neighbors.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
69
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 1:06 PM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Mona Kaur
Phone Number
Email Address
Comments Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to raise significant concerns about the proposed
amendments to the Saratoga City Code aimed at aligning with
the 2023-2031 Housing Element. While I understand the
necessity of complying with state mandates, these
amendments risk violating residents’ constitutional rights,
compromising public transparency, and undermining public
safety.
1. Violation of Constitutional Right to Due Process
The proposed elimination of public notification and input for
single-family residential developments under the Administrative
Ministerial Review process raises serious due process
concerns.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,
along with Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution,
protect individuals from being deprived of property or other
vested rights without due process of law. By removing public
notice and the opportunity for input, the city deprives affected
property owners of the ability to:
- Be informed of proposed developments that could directly
impact their property, privacy, and safety.
- Participate in meaningful dialogue about these developments.
The courts have long recognized that land-use decisions must
include procedural safeguards to protect property owners’
rights. The proposed changes effectively silence residents and
undermine their ability to address legitimate concerns, leaving
70
them without recourse.
2. Overreach Beyond State Mandates
While state laws like SB 9 and SB 35 require streamlined
ministerial approval for specific projects, the proposed
amendments extend far beyond these requirements.
Expanding Administrative Ministerial Review to all single-family
residential developments—including those unrelated to SB 9 or
SB 35—needlessly removes safeguards designed to protect
the community’s interests.
Instead of broadly eliminating public engagement, the city
should limit the streamlined process to developments explicitly
required by state law. Public notification and transparency are
critical for fostering trust and avoiding unintended
consequences, such as inappropriate development or safety
risks.
3. Public Safety in Sensitive Areas
In wildfire-prone zones like the Saratoga hillsides, public input
plays a vital role in identifying and addressing safety concerns,
including:
- Inadequate evacuation routes and emergency access.
- Insufficient water supply for firefighting.
- Infrastructure deficiencies that could exacerbate fire risks.
Removing public engagement in these areas could lead to
developments that fail to meet fire safety standards under
Public Resources Code 4290 and 4291, endangering lives and
property. Public participation is not a procedural formality—it is
a necessary safeguard for public safety.
4. Objective Design Standards and Privacy
The introduction of objective design standards under Article 15-
59 is a step toward compliance with state law, but privacy and
neighborhood compatibility must remain priorities. Without
discretionary review, these standards must be clear,
enforceable, and sensitive to Saratoga’s unique residential
character.
Recommendations
To address these concerns, I respectfully urge the Planning
Commission to:
Reinstate Public Notification and Input:
- Require on-site signage and mailed notices for all
developments, including SB 9, SB 35, and builder’s remedy
projects, to preserve transparency and community awareness.
Limit Administrative Ministerial Review:
71
- Restrict its application to projects explicitly mandated by state
law, ensuring public notification and input remain part of
Saratoga’s planning process for all other developments.
Prioritize Safety in Fire-Prone Areas:
- Require compliance with PRC 4290 and PRC 4291 for all
projects in wildfire zones, ensuring public safety is a primary
consideration.
Strengthen Objective Design Standards:
- Incorporate robust protections for privacy and compatibility
into objective standards to address concerns previously
managed through discretionary review.
Conclusion
The proposed amendments, as written, risk violating residents’
due process rights, compromising public safety, and eroding
public trust. Saratoga’s commitment to maintaining its small-
town, residential character must not be sacrificed to meet state
mandates. By prioritizing transparency, safety, and
constitutional protections, the Commission can ensure a
balanced approach that aligns with state law while respecting
the rights and values of Saratoga residents.
Thank you for considering these critical issues. I urge you to
revise the proposed amendments to reflect a more equitable
and community-centered approach.
Sincerely,
Mona
Heber Way, Saratoga
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
72
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 1:11 PM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Marcia Fariss
Phone Number Field not completed.
Email Address
Comments It is my belief that neighbors should always be notified when
projects affect the exterior appearance of the neighborhood.
So, yes, notices should be sent to neighbors for additions, and
any other modifications to a residence that affects its
appearance. If a change is usage is involved, I'd add that to the
notification process. And, neighbors further away from the
project--not just 500 feet which is the current code.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
73
Frances Reed
From:Planning
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 2:14 PM
To:Frances Reed
Subject:Fw: Concerns Regarding Proposed Amendments to Saratoga City Code and
Potential Constitutional Violations
From: Mona Kaur-Freedland
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 1:07 PM
To: Planning <planning@saratoga.ca.us>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Amendments to Saratoga City Code and Potential Constitutional Violations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to raise significant concerns about the proposed amendments to the Saratoga City Code
aimed at aligning with the 2023-2031 Housing Element. While I understand the necessity of
complying with state mandates, these amendments risk violating residents’ constitutional rights,
compromising public transparency, and undermining public safety.
1. Violation of Constitutional Right to Due Process
The proposed elimination of public notification and input for single-family residential developments
under the Administrative Ministerial Review process raises serious due process concerns.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, along with Article I, Section 7 of
the California Constitution, protect individuals from being deprived of property or other vested rights
without due process of law. By removing public notice and the opportunity for input, the city deprives
affected property owners of the ability to:
Be informed of proposed developments that could directly impact their property, privacy, and
safety.
Participate in meaningful dialogue about these developments.
The courts have long recognized that land-use decisions must include procedural safeguards to
protect property owners’ rights. The proposed changes effectively silence residents and undermine
their ability to address legitimate concerns, leaving them without recourse.
2. Overreach Beyond State Mandates
While state laws like SB 9 and SB 35 require streamlined ministerial approval for specific projects,
the proposed amendments extend far beyond these requirements. Expanding Administrative
Ministerial Review to all single-family residential developments—including those unrelated to SB 9
or SB 35—needlessly removes safeguards designed to protect the community’s interests.
Instead of broadly eliminating public engagement, the city should limit the streamlined process to
developments explicitly required by state law. Public notification and transparency are critical for
fostering trust and avoiding unintended consequences, such as inappropriate development or safety
risks.
74
3. Public Safety in Sensitive Areas
In wildfire-prone zones like the Saratoga hillsides, public input plays a vital role in identifying and
addressing safety concerns, including:
Inadequate evacuation routes and emergency access.
Insufficient water supply for firefighting.
Infrastructure deficiencies that could exacerbate fire risks.
Removing public engagement in these areas could lead to developments that fail to meet fire safety
standards under Public Resources Code 4290 and 4291, endangering lives and property. Public
participation is not a procedural formality—it is a necessary safeguard for public safety.
4. Objective Design Standards and Privacy
The introduction of objective design standards under Article 15-59 is a step toward compliance with
state law, but privacy and neighborhood compatibility must remain priorities. Without discretionary
review, these standards must be clear, enforceable, and sensitive to Saratoga’s unique residential
character.
Recommendations
To address these concerns, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to:
1. Reinstate Public Notification and Input:
o Require on-site signage and mailed notices for all developments, including SB 9, SB
35, and builder’s remedy projects, to preserve transparency and community
awareness.
2. Limit Administrative Ministerial Review :
o Restrict its application to projects explicitly mandated by state law, ensuring public
notification and input remain part of Saratoga’s planning process for all other
developments.
3. Prioritize Safety in Fire-Prone Areas:
o Require compliance with PRC 4290 and PRC 4291 for all projects in wildfire zones,
ensuring public safety is a primary consideration.
4. Strengthen Objective Design Standards:
o Incorporate robust protections for privacy and compatibility into objective standards
to address concerns previously managed through discretionary review.
Conclusion
The proposed amendments, as written, risk violating residents’ due process rights, compromising
public safety, and eroding public trust. Saratoga’s commitment to maintaining its small-town,
residential character must not be sacrificed to meet state mandates. By prioritizing transparency,
safety, and constitutional protections, the Commission can ensure a balanced approach that aligns
with state law while respecting the rights and values of Saratoga residents.
Thank you for considering these critical issues. I urge you to revise the proposed amendments to
reflect a more equitable and community-centered approach.
Sincerely,
Mona
Heber Way, Saratoga 75
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 2:15 PM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Susan freeman
Phone Number
Email Address
Comments We all deserve to be provided with public notice about what our
neighbors intend to do with their property. We live here
because we want to know and care about what others do with
their property . It will indeed effect our property value and the
beauty we bought into. We care about what happens in the
neighborhood.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
76
Frances Reed
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 4:18 PM
To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi;
Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Planning Commission Comments Form
Your Name Jerry Schaaf
Phone Number
Email Address
Comments Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the pending
decision allowing housing projects to bypass public comments
and broader community awareness in favor of expedited
approval. While I understand the need to address housing
challenges, excluding public input undermines transparency
and erodes trust in the planning process.
Community voices are essential to ensuring that projects are
thoughtfully integrated into neighborhoods, addressing
concerns such as infrastructure, safety, and overall impact.
Rushing these decisions without public engagement risks
creating long-term issues that could have been mitigated
through collaborative dialogue.
I urge the commission to prioritize inclusive decision-making by
rejecting this proposal that removes public review and
feedback on these critical projects.
Sincerely,
Jerry Schaaf, Saratoga resident
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
77
Frances Reed
From:Frances Reed
Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 4:24 PM
To:DList - Planning Commission
Subject:FW: Comments regarding this evening's Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Commissioners –
Below is an email addressed directly to the Commission.
Frances Reed | She/Her | (408) 868-1222
Administrative Analyst | City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070
freed@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us
From: Bruce Parnas <
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 4:08 PM
To: Planning <planning@saratoga.ca.us>
Subject: Comments regarding this evening's Planning Commission Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi folks,
I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission Meeting this evening, but I did want to share
comments in advance of the meeting.
I understand that one of the topics on the agenda is the removal of the Notification Process for
neighbors of a new development project. I also understand
that this restriction is not required for compliance with the HCD requirements. As such, it is
something that the city of Saratoga is considering choosing
to do.
I would very strongly request that the city not take this step. Notification of neighbors within (at least)
a 500 foot radius is a minimum expectation for the residents of
your city. In reality, the ability to provide feedback is even more important, although this option may
have been removed outside of your control. If not, then this
ability should absolutely not be abrogated.
My concern is that the requirements for a new development (traffic and fire access, infrastructure,
etc.) may not be adequately considered before approving a larger project,
78
and that has an impact on all residents in the area. The ability to question these decisions is crucial.
Again, I would like the ability to provide input to the process, but this may not be allowed. However,
the right to receive notification is allowed by HCD, and the city would be
acting prroly in the interests of its residents to remove this right.
Please no not do this.
Thanks for your time.
Cheers,
Bruce
79