HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-2025 City Council-Planning Commission Joint Session Agenda Packet, amended 06-25-2025Saratoga City Council Meeting Agenda – June 25, 2025 - Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT SESSION
JUNE 25, 2025
AMENDED AGENDA
• 06/25/2025 PRESENTATION SLIDES ADDED
• 06/25/2025 UPDATED MEETING VIEWING INFORMATION
Public Participation Information
In accordance with Saratoga City Council’s Remote Public Participation Policy, members of the
public may participate in these meetings in person at the locations listed below or via remote
attendance (if applicable) using the Zoom information below. In the event remote participation
technology is unexpectedly unavailable, the meetings will proceed in person without remote
participation.
Members of the public can view and participate in the 6:00 p.m. Joint Session by:
1. Attending the meeting in person at:
• Saratoga Civic Theater, Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga
CA 95070; OR
2. Accessing the meeting through Zoom
• Webinar URL: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88482254658
• Webinar ID 884 8225 4658 OR
• Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833 (*6 to unmute; *9 to raise hand);
• Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast
Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99 and calling in following the direction above; OR
• Viewing online at www.saratoga.ca.us/watch and calling in following the direction above.
Written Communication
Comments can be submitted in writing via the Council Comments Form. Written communications
will be provided to the members of the City Council and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in
supplemental meeting materials.
Public Comment
Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. The amount of time
for public comment may be reduced by the Mayor or by action of the City Council. Public
Comment will begin with speakers attending in-person first followed by those attending via Zoom.
Meeting Recording Information
In accordance with the Saratoga City Council’s Meeting Recording Policy, City Council Study
Sessions, Joint Meetings, Joint Sessions, Commission Interviews, Retreats, meetings with the
Planning Commission, and Regular Session Meetings are recorded and made available following
the meeting on the City website.
Saratoga City Council Meeting Agenda – June 25, 2025 - Page 2 of 2
6:00 PM JOINT SESSION
Saratoga Civic Theater, Council Chambers | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 19, 2025.
AGENDA ITEM
Village Objective Design Standards Study Session
Recommended Action:
Receive preliminary findings related to the City’s Village Design Standards project and
provide feedback for incorporation into a Final Analysis and Recommendations Memo.
Staff Report
Attachment A – 4/4/25 Stakeholder Interview Summary Memo
Attachment B – 5/30/25 Questionnaire Summary Memo
Attachment C – 5/30/25 Workshop Summary Memo
Presentation Slides (added 06-25-2025)
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
I, Britt Avrit, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting
of the City Council was posted and available for review on June 19, 2025 at the City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 19th day of June 2025 at Saratoga, California.
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials
provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials
distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials
distributed to the City Council by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City
website at www.saratoga.ca.us and are available for review in the office of the City Clerk at 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order, if
you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at
bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City
will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as
possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II]
SARATOGA JOINT STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: June 25, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
PREPARED BY: Cindy McCormick, Development Manager
SUBJECT: Village Objective Design Standards Study Session
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive preliminary findings related to the City’s Village Design Standards project and provide
feedback for incorporation into a Final Analysis and Recommendations Memo.
BACKGROUND:
Codified objective standards that implement the City’s 2019 Village Design Guidelines is required
pursuant to the City’s adopted and certified 2023-2031 Housing Element, Policy 3.3 (Establish
objective design standards to facilitate streamlined project permitting and update existing design
guidelines) and Program 3.3-3 (Preserve the Historic Character of Saratoga Village). The existing
Saratoga Village Guidelines will remain as currently written as recommended guidelines, however
subjective language is not enforceable for residential and mixed-use projects, pursuant to State
law. The City has hired Lisa Wise Consulting (“LWC”), who prepared the City’s objective designs
standards for single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and mixed-use projects, to lead the
effort. The update will build off Chapters 1–6 of the 2019 Village Design Guidelines to codify
objective design standards for the Village. LWC will also prepare related amendments to the City’s
Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency with the new standards adopted by the City Council. The
Village Design Guidelines can be viewed at:
https://ca-saratoga.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/102/Village-Design-Guidelines-
PDF?bidId=
Community input is an important part of the process. The community engagement program has
included stakeholder interviews with 13 members of the community, an online community
questionnaire with 241 unique responses and a 70% completion rate, and a May 15, 2025
community workshop with approximately 14 community members.
Community Questionnaire: An online questionnaire was developed and released publicly early
in the project to engage the community and gather a broad sample of input on all design topics that
the project will address. The intent of the questionnaire was to gauge the community’s preferences
and priorities as a first step in developing the objective design standards. The questionnaire
included 13 questions gauging basic demographic data of the respondent; respondent’s familiarity
with key documents and legislation; respondent’s preferences and priorities for various types of
3
Village design; and respondent’s view of different methods to create a welcoming and inviting
setting and enhance accessibility. A summary of the results and the complete questionnaire is
attached.
Stakeholder Interviews: LWC conducted interviews with 13 stakeholders to gauge insight into
the highest priority considerations for the Village Design Standards from the participant’s
perspective. The 35 to 60 minute interviews followed a list of 11 questions regarding the
interviewee’s relationship with the Saratoga Village; familiarity with the Village Design
Guidelines; opinions on the effectiveness, benefit, and shortcomings of the Village Design
Guidelines in achieving desirable and high-quality development and uses in the Village; opinions
on specific buildings that best represent the Saratoga aesthetic; and opinions on problematic
buildings or design elements in the Village. LWC also asked participants about design elements
that are important in establishing and maintaining the Village character, including scale and
massing of building, architectural style, building façade design and details, building materials and
colors, location and configuration of off-street parking, landscaping and streetscape design, and
encroachments/uses allowed onto the sidewalk. In addition to an open ended question on anything
the interviewee would like to add, LWC asked participants what particular uses/activities they
think should be allowed and prohibited in the Village. A summary of the results and the complete
list of questions are attached.
Community Workshop: The May 15th in-person workshop consisted of two tables with
approximately seven community members at each table. Following a presentation on the project
background, key takeaways from previous outreach efforts, and emerging direction on the Village
Design Standards, each group of seven participated in an approximately hour-long discussion
session on the three specific topics: street level design; architectural style, materials, and details;
and building massing. Several copies of tabletop materials were available to help inform and
provide images on which to base the discussions. Each table included at least one LWC planning
team member who introduced the activities, reviewed discussion ground rules, and facilitated the
group discussion. In addition, an LWC planning team member took notes of each discussion. After
the discussion, each group selected a volunteer to report back to the larger group on the major
takeaways of the small group discussion. A summary of the community input is attached.
The June 25, 2025 Joint Study Session with the Planning Commission and City Council will
include a presentation summarizing the community input received through the community
engagement program.
Saratoga Village Boundaries: The boundaries of the Saratoga Village for planning purposes are
set in Figure LU-3 in the General Plan and shown by the red line in the map below. The Village
includes various zoning designations, including single-family and multi-family residential uses,
commercial uses, office uses, and high-density mixed-use, which could include attached multi-
family condominiums, apartment dwellings, and commercial/ professional office uses up to three
stories in height, at a density of 30-40 du/ac.
4
Saratoga Village Area Zoning Map
Each of these zoning districts have existing standards, codified in City Code:
Article 15-12 – R-1: Single-Family Residential Districts
Article 15-17 – R-M: Multi-Family Residential Districts
Article 15-18 – P-A: Professional and Administrative Office District
Article 15-19 – C: Commercial Districts
Article 15-21 – M-U: Mixed Use Zoning Districts
Article 15-30 – Signs
Article 15-58 – Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Design and Development Standards
Article 15-59 – Single-Family Dwelling Design Standards
Topics that are addressed in both the City Code and the Village Guidelines include:
• Requirements for the amount and design of common open space and public open space
• Building placement with respect to the right-of-way and other buildings
• Building scale and massing
• Building articulation, visual interest, and blank walls
• Screening – service areas, mechanical and electrical equipment
• Architectural integrity
• Building entry design
• Storefront design
• Window design
5
• Building materials and colors
• Signs
New Village-specific topics that could be included in the Village Standards include:
• Specific architectural styles in the Village
• Preservation of specific views
• Differences between standards on either side of Big Basin Way
• Planter boxes and other specific street frontage design elements in the Village
• Design of rear entries
• Non-residential window orientation and size
• Design of structures with historic features but not on the Heritage Resource Inventory List
• Water use/preservation in site design and unit design (appliances)
DISCUSSION:
The update will result in a complete set of objective design standards that will apply to projects
located within the Village boundaries (see map exhibit) that are subject to ministerial review under
state or local laws. The objective standards will address roof form, open space design, usability,
building articulation, entry design, architectural details, façade relief, canopies/overhangs/
awnings, corner design, screening of equipment and service areas, building materials, building
colors, signage, and historic preservation.
During the Study Session, the consultant will be seeking specific feedback on the following:
• In general, what is working and what is problematic about the existing Village Design
Guidelines?
• Are there specific areas or roadway intersections in the Village that need
special attention?
• Should public open space be required of Village development? If so, where and how
much? What are the design priorities?
• The following list is provided to inspire discussion and general feedback, rather than
solicit definitive direction.
o Section 2 (Vision): Should the Village Vision be updated or refined in any way?
o Section 4 (Land Use):
o Should “retail and restaurant uses” be “the predominant use of ground floor
commercial space fronting Big Basin Way in the CH-1 zone?
o Should “office and residential uses” be discouraged (or prohibited) on the ground
floor along Big Basin Way in the CH-1 zone?
o Should there be special rules or exceptions for use types on side streets (e.g.,
Fourth Street)?
o Should there be special rules or exceptions for residential uses?
6
o Should the City discourage “storefronts and single purpose non-retail buildings”
along the ground floor of Big Basin Way that are “not conductive to sound retail
principles”? And what does that mean for the City of Saratoga?
o Section 5 (Architecture and design):
o To what extent, should new construction “consider the context, scale and
character of surrounding structures”?
o Do the General Design Principles (e.g. roof form, architectural elements, utility
boxes, setbacks to accommodate outside uses, rear entries, storefronts, windows
and doors, planter boxes) still make sense?
o Do the restrictions on building materials (e.g., no painted brick) and colors
(“subdued”, “neutral”, “subtle”) still make sense?
o Should roof signs be prohibited, including signs extending above eave lines? Do
the limits on sign illumination still make sense?
o Section 6 (Historic Preservation):
o What role should the “overall historic context of the Village” play into the design
of new construction and improvements to structures not listed on the Heritage
Resource Inventory List?
Section 7 (Circulation), Section 8 (Public Improvements), and Section 9 (Opportunity Sites) are
not part of the update.
Next Steps: In addition to input gained during the community engagement effort, input gathered
at the joint Study Session will be reflected in a Final Analysis and Recommendations
Memorandum. LWC anticipates submitting a Public Review Draft of the Village Design Standards
for consideration by the Saratoga community in the fall of 2025.
To solicit feedback on the draft standards, the City will hold two study sessions, which may consist
of a Planning Commission Study Session, a City Council Study Session, and/or Joint Study
Session(s) with the Planning Commission and City Council. Based on the feedback received at the
public Study Sessions, LWC will prepare a final draft for review at a Public Hearing. Based on the
Planning Commission’s recommendations and City Council’s final review and required text
changes, LWC will prepare the final Village Design Standards amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – 4/4/25 Stakeholder Interview Summary Memo
Attachment B – 5/30/25 Questionnaire Summary Memo
Attachment C – 5/30/25 Workshop Summary Memo
1928782.1
7
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1
MEMO
To: Cindy McCormick, Development Manager, City of Saratoga
From: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
Date: April 4, 2025
Subject: Saratoga Village Design Standards - Stakeholder Interview Summary Memo
As part of the community outreach process for the Saratoga Village Design Standards project, the
project consultant, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC), conducted interviews with key stakeholders in
Saratoga Village. The stakeholder interviews gave the planning team insight into the highest priority
considerations for the Village Design Standards from the community’s perspective.
LWC conducted 12 interviews with a total of 13 individual stakeholders (one interview included two
interviewees). The interviews followed a list of 11 questions developed by LWC and reviewed and
approved by the City. Each interview took place over Zoom videoconference platform or telephone
between March 13 and March 20, 2025. Interviews were scheduled for 45 minutes each out of respect
for respondents’ time and generally lasted between 35 and 60 minutes.
At the beginning of each session, the interviewer spent a few minutes introducing the interview with
the following information:
Project Objective: Develop objective design standards for Saratoga Village based on the Saratoga
Village Guidelines.
Interview Purpose: The stakeholder interviews enable the consultant team and the City to get a
better understanding of Village design issues and priorities from the perspective of community
members and local stakeholders.
Confidentiality: Results from the interviews will be reported in aggregate form where comments
cannot be attributed to an individual unless consent to use affiliation or personally identifiable
information is granted by the interviewee. Your participation is completely voluntary. You can stop
the interview at any time.
Format: We will ask 11 questions. There are no right or wrong answers; you will not be judged on
your responses. Please answer each question as sincerely as you can. The interview is scheduled
to take no more than 45 minutes. There will be other opportunities for input throughout the
project.
Below is a record of responses by question that LWC recorded during the stakeholder interviews.
Following the record of responses is a summary of major takeaways and areas of consensus from the
stakeholder interviews.
Stakeholder Interview Responses
1. What is your relationship with the Saratoga Village (property owner, resident, neighbor,
business owner/operator, developer, designer, neighborhood organization)?
8
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2
About half of the interviewees (six) were residents of Saratoga, and about half (seven) were owners or
operators of a Saratoga business. Of those seven businesses, three are located in the Village. Three
interviewees were architects or designers who have worked on projects in the Village.
In terms of affiliations, interviewees included current and/or past members of the following groups:
the Wildfire Task Force, Saratoga Firewise Committee, Historic Preservation Commission, Saratoga
Historical Foundation, Planning Commission, City Council, Saratoga Neighborhood Vitality, Village
Gardeners, and the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce.
2. Please describe your level of familiarity with the Village Design Guidelines (no experience /
occasional use / very familiar)
Of the 13 interviewees, five were very familiar with the Village Design Guidelines document (three of
whom participated in the development of the current or a previous draft); four had some experience
referencing or using the Guidelines; and four had no experience with the document.
3. What aspects of the current Design Guidelines do you find effective or beneficial in
promoting desirable and high-quality development and uses in the Village?
Interviewees cited the following aspects of the Guidelines as effective and beneficial:
• The Vision described in the Guidelines is of a vibrant district that is a fun place to be, with
active uses, foot traffic, and energy.
• The emphasis on maintaining the historic character and charm of the Village.
• The focus on ground-floor retail along Big Basin Way.
• The emphasis on walkability and bike-accessibility. One interviewee noted that people can,
and do, walk to the Village.
• The focus on protecting the Village’s suburban character by discouraging tall buildings and
modern architectural styles. Two interviewees specifically noted that limiting buildings to 35
feet in height is especially important to residents on Oak Street, whose views would be
blocked by taller buildings.
4. What do you think are the shortcomings of the Design Guidelines in achieving desirable and
high-quality development and uses in the Village?
Interviewees made the following observations about the Guidelines:
• In articulating the Vision for the Village, using the term “quaint” is seen as detrimental, as it
conflicts with the goal of promoting vibrancy.
• The Guidelines should become objective and codified.
• The Guidelines feel restrictive and should be more supportive of business and economic
activity.
• The Guidelines are outdated and overly prescriptive. We need to consider long-term
development. The Village is no longer the hub of commercial activities in Saratoga because
people have better options elsewhere, so the guidelines should better suit current needs.
• The Guidelines should allow for larger buildings and chain stores.
9
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3
• The Guidelines lack standards on color variation, façade articulation, and appropriate
roofing materials.
• The Guidelines should include requirements for public gathering areas.
• The Guidelines should address maintenance.
• The Guidelines should require all uses to include some amount of retail (e.g., coffee shop).
5. In your opinion, are there specific buildings that best represent the Saratoga aesthetic?
The most-cited examples of good Village design (at least four mentions each) included the following
buildings and specific features of those buildings:
• 14421 Big Basin Way (the Bank building) – specifically, its historic qualities.
• 14503 Big Basin Way (Bella Saratoga) – its sloped roof form with two distinct planes and its
outdoor seating area.
• 14487 Big Basin Way (Michael Anthony Hair Salon and USA Nails) – the elevated open space
is a positive design feature.
• 14663 Big Basin Way (Sue’s Gallery Café) – its contemporary style, the fact that it is large but
not overbearing, and its façade that is articulated into modules.
The next most-cited examples of good Village design (at least three mentions each) included the
following:
• 14630 Big Basin Way (Architect’s office) – its status as a historic landmark, recent design
improvements which fit in with the character of the village, and the fact that it looks
authentic despite it being taller than its surroundings.
• 14428 Big Basin Way (Wells Fargo Building) – its authentic Mid-century Modern style.
• 14557 Big Basin Way (Flowers Saratoga).
• 20648 4th Street (the historic Water Works building).
Other buildings cited as good examples included the following (up to two mentions each):
• 14583 Big Basin Way (Hero Ranch Kitchen) – specifically, the outdoor patio area.
• 14471 Big Basin Way (Big Basin Café) – the inside/outside part of the design.
• The Village Square at 4th and Big Basin Way – the Town and Country style of the
development which is appropriate to the Village. One interviewee called out the paseo as
especially well-designed, while another suggested that the design would be improved by
adding two levels of residential above.
• 14567 Big Basin Way (Deja & Co Exquisite Jewels) – the right (north) side is preferable to left
(south) side because of the upper-story step-back.
• 14560 Big Basin Way (formerly Pasta Armellino) – the recess in the façade, the upper-story
step-back, the pattern of roof shapes, the metal roof, and the wood trim.
• 14467 Big Basin Way (La Mere Michelle) – good design in general that supports a good mix of
uses.
10
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 4
• 14519 Big Basin (Mai’s Barber) – the Western Victorian style.
• 14612 Big Basin Way (Cinnabar Winery Tasting Room) – good design in general that supports
a good mix of uses.
• 14506 Big Basin Way (Diamond Music and Uncorked) – good elements of the design included
the frontage design (awning, large windows) and the incorporation of a second story above
the retail.
• 14540 Big Basin Way (historic office one-story structure in the parking district between 3rd
and 4th streets and Big Basin Way and Oak Street).
• 14550 Big Basin Way (La Fondue).
• 20645 4th Street (The Inn at Saratoga).
• 14529 Big Basin Way (Fine Vines).
• 14380 Saratoga Avenue (Fire Station).
Several interviewees also noted the importance of the area’s historic buildings in informing and setting
an example for future design in the Village. The discussion included the design of the Saratoga Foothill
Club at 20399 Park Place and the Federated Church at 20390 Park Place (both of which are Julia
Morgan buildings); 14519 Big Basin Way (the Daniel McCarty building, in the Western Victorian style);
and 14521 Big Basin Way (the Grover House adjacent to the McCarty building).
6. In your opinion, are there any problematic buildings or design elements?
Interviewees mentioned the following as problematic design features or examples of what should be
avoided in the future:
• 14523 Big Basin Way (formerly Blue Rock Shoot): About half of the interviewees cited this
building as an example of problematic design. Comments included:
o The design should more closely match the building two doors down (14519 Big Basin
Way) that it is referencing.
o The new frontage is not an improvement from the old frontage, which was more
engaging with its usable open space. The two-story wall plane is too big.
o The redesign should have included a step-back for the second story.
o The design of the columns is particularly poor/problematic.
• 14531 Big Basin Way (historic multi-family building on the corner of Big basin Way and 4th
Street). Comments included:
o The height is good, but the upper story should be stepped back.
o The front and side elevations look flat/monolithic.
• 14567 Big Basin Way (Deja & Co. Exquisite Jewels). Comments included:
o The building does not follow the Village Design Guidelines and does not fit the Village
aesthetic.
o The artificial plantings are undesirable.
11
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 5
• 14612 Big Basin Way (Cinnabar Winery Tasting Room). Comments included:
o The upper story appears too uniform and lacks sufficient articulation.
o The fact that the entrance and seating area are three feet above sidewalk elevation
detracts from the building’s approachability/pedestrian-friendliness.
• 14410 Big Basin Way (Chase site) – the architectural style is undesirable/”under-designed”
and the site is underutilized.
• 14663 Big Basin Way (Sue’s Gallery Café) – the building does not look like it belongs in the
Village.
• 14567 Big Basin Way – the paint job (contemporary) does not match the style of the building
(historic).
• 14421 Big Basin Way (the Bank building) – the maintenance and operations draw complaints.
• 14521 Big Basin Way (Grover House) – an example of problematic renovations of historic
buildings. The right side of the roof was cut off.
• 14585 Big Basin Way (realty office) – the entrance is poorly designed/not the right aesthetic
for the Village
• 14587 Big Basin Way (multi-family condominium development) – the removal of the
redwoods was problematic.
• 20640 3rd Street (office building behind Bella Saratoga) – the building lost its historic
authenticity in a renovation.
• 14555 Big Basin Way (Plumed Horse) – the roof is not historic looking and does not conform
to the uniformity of the Village.
• 14476 Big Basin Way (Bank of America).
• Dead patios – all outdoor open spaces should be designed to support and promote activity.
7. How important to you are the following design elements in establishing and maintaining
the Village character?
• Scale and massing of building. Eight interviewees indicated that building scale and massing
are important to the character of the Village. Specific comments related to building scale and
massing included the following:
o Keep buildings low-rise - nothing should be over two stories.
o Buildings should be limited to 35 feet and two stories on the uphill (east) side of Big
Basin Way, but three stories should be allowed on the creekside (west side) of Big Basin
Way.
o Height limits should be increased.
o We should build larger buildings with more housing. Many people who work in Saratoga
can’t afford to live in the City.
o Allow up to four stories.
o The 35-foot height limit is ridiculous; we should allow up to 50 or 60 feet.
12
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 6
o Larger buildings should be broken up into modules so they read as a series of smaller,
narrower buildings.
o It’s good when condos are oriented perpendicular to Big Basin Way.
o Upper-story step-backs should be required for large buildings.
o Mansard roofs are appropriate and should be encouraged in the Village.
o It is important that buildings don’t obscure natural light and views of the area’s natural
beauty.
• Architectural style. Seven interviewees indicated that architectural style is important to the
character of the Village. Comments related to architectural style included:
o Western Victorian style (3 mentions); Queen Anne and Spanish styles (2 mentions each);
Craftsman style (1 mention).
o Historic and historic-inspired buildings are most appropriate in the Village. We should
preserve the historic lumber town character of the Village. No contemporary styles.
o Maintaining a uniformity in sense of style is key.
o No modern styles. We need to preserve the small town, historic flavor. Design should fit
into the current streetscape. Saratoga is, and should remain, in the “Town & Country”
style.
o Facades should look traditional and/or historic, while rear elevations can have more
leeway with style.
o Neo-traditional styles are preferred. Facades should resemble historic buildings but with
natural building materials (as seen in Los Gatos).
o The Village has an eclectic mix of old and new styles. Historic buildings should be
preserved, but some attractive new buildings can be incorporated as well.
o The Village is supposed to be eclectic when it comes to architectural style.
o There should be a mix of the old and the new in the Village.
o Encourage modern styles. Designers should be creative and not be forced to adhere to
traditional styles. Don’t dwell on the past!
• Building façade design and details. Six interviewees indicated that building façade design
and detail are important to the character of the Village. Comments related to façade design
included the following:
o Ground-floor windows and transparency are essential; standards should prevent large
planes of blank walls.
o A focus on façade articulation is important.
o Standards should require 360-degree design, where all building facades must
demonstrate the same level of detail and attention.
o Preserving historic false-front facades is important to maintaining Village character.
o A small overhang above the sidewalk doesn’t do much – it should be a full canopy.
13
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 7
o Pedestrians should not be able to see directly into bedrooms from the outside.
o Façades should be aesthetically pleasing and well maintained.
• Building materials and colors. Five interviewees indicated that building materials and
colors are important to the character of the Village. Preferences for materials and colors
included the following:
o Brick (six mentions), wood (four mentions), and stone (two mentions).
o No glass or aluminum.
o Metal roofs are appropriate.
o The best building material is people!
o The standards should introduce approved color palettes and requirements in variation
that is consistent with the Village’s historic architectural styles.
o Property owners shouldn’t be able to change the color of a building if the color is historic
and/or integral to the building’s architectural style.
o Earth tones are most appropriate for Village development.
o Prohibit neon signs.
• Location and configuration of off-street parking. Five interviewees indicated that off-
street parking configuration and location are important to the character of the Village.
Comments included related to parking included the following:
o Alleys can provide access from parking lots to the Village. Downtown Campbell is a good
example, where people park in the “perimeter” of the commercial center.
o There is a need for more way-finding signage for shared off-street parking, as visitors are
sometimes unaware it exists.
o The City should consider a parking structure for the Village.
o The corner parking on the Chase lot should stay.
o Off-street parking must be provided whenever street parking is removed.
• Landscaping and streetscape design. Four interviewees indicated that landscaping and
streetscape design are important to the character of the Village. Comments included:
o More landscaping is needed, with an emphasis on native and low-water-use plants. All
existing trees should be preserved and kept in good condition, and artificial plants
should not be allowed.
o Consistency in landscaping and lighting is most important. A lighting scheme with
planters was suggested. It would be great to have the “holiday vibe” year-round.
o Encourage open space and patios in front of new buildings, like the outdoor seating at
Sue’s Gallery Café.
o Incorporating public open space into new development should not be a priority –
continuity of active commercial uses is more important.
14
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 8
o The standards should encourage development that capitalizes on the creek, rather than
turning its back to the creek.
o Refuse areas should be enclosed/screened.
o Blaney Plaza is a good example of open space design.
o Sidewalk bulb-outs should be designed to be functional and inviting, not as barriers.
o A decorative arch or other signage above Big Basin Way (e.g., “Welcome to Historic
Saratoga Village”) would be welcomed, even if only displayed during events.
• Encroachments/uses allowed onto the sidewalk. Four interviewees indicated that
encroachments into the sidewalk are important to the character of the Village. In addition, all
interviewees discussed parklets, where on-street parking spaces become usable spaces for
adjacent businesses. Comments included:
o Allow uses to encroach on sidewalk. Encroachments are an essential part of what people
see and experience in the Village.
o The standards should support outdoor seating and dining. These areas are very useful
for Village-wide events and make the Village more walkable.
o Business owners should be able to place A-frames signs out for advertising and live
music.
o Yes to parklets! We should not be concerned about losing on-street parking. Parklets are
preferable to giving away value by offering free parking. Also, we should move toward
being less reliant on parking in general.
o Parklets should be well-designed, with a standard “look.”
o No parklets. It’s better that the space be used for parking. People want to park in front of
stores.
8. Are there any particular uses/activities that you think should be allowed in the Village?
In general, interviewees supported continuous active uses along Big Basin Way and discouraged
ground-floor residential and non-active commercial uses such as offices. Specific uses that should be
allowed or encouraged in the Village included:
• Food and dining uses, such as restaurants, frozen yogurt, açaí bars, salad bars, juice bars,
food halls, and bakeries.
• Retail options for all age groups, such as clothing boutiques, hardware stores, small
groceries, wineries/winery tasting rooms, and antique shops.
• Exercise related uses, such as yoga studios and gyms, with some amount of the floor area
(e.g., 10%), dedicated to retail.
• Service uses like bike repair shops and salons.
• Pop-up shops and events.
• Residential mixed-use development with ground-floor retail. Residential units on the ground
floor are only OK if they are located at the rear of the building or facing the creek.
15
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 9
• Lobbies and entrances to upper-story residential units are OK along Big Basin Way as long as
they are well-designed.
• Offices for uses such as real estate, insurance, architects, engineers, psychiatry, counseling,
and private tutoring are ok if not facing Big Basin Way or on a Big Basin Way corner lot.
• Outdoor dining/patios, pedestrian-oriented gathering space, and seating areas. Larger
buildings, in particular, should include a public gathering space.
9. Are there any particular uses/activities that you think should be prohibited in the Village?
• Ground-floor residential units facing Big Basin Way.
• Inactive office uses such as law offices, accountants, and banks facing Big Basin Way.
• Warehouses.
• Chain stores, such as Apple or Starbucks.
• Late night outdoor live music, as there are complaints from nearby residents. Enforcement
of the noise ordinance is inconsistent and often overly restrictive.
10. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Interviewees were forthcoming with additional input about other towns and downtowns that serve as
good examples and inspiration for the Village. These included:
• Downtown Carmel
• Gilroy
• Morgan Hill, specifically its thriving retail and open spaces
• Downtown Los Gatos, specifically how accessible the area is to residents and visitors
• Santana Row in San Jose, specifically its integration of residential, retail, and open spaces
• Downtown Bronxville, New York, specifically its continuity of active spaces
• Verona Condo in Cupertino, specifically its well-designed massing
Several comments were also related to implementation and processes. These included:
• Make it easier to improve existing conditions. Remove barriers for property owners to make
improvements to or in front of their properties.
• There should be more transparency on the part of the City and others in the community
about development plans and proposals. It is important that the discourse is not dominated
by a vocal minority.
• Village businesses are clearly not thriving, despite how some in the community may perceive
it.
Lastly, a few comments addressed lot consolidation. Interviewees noted that the Village is comprised
of small sites that develop “oddly,” so there is a need to make it easier to consolidate lots that can
accommodate larger developments.
16
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 10
11. If we have additional questions, or if we need clarification, may we contact you?
All interviewees agreed to be contacted with further questions or clarifications.
Stakeholder Interview Major Takeaways
The stakeholder interviews revealed a number of shared priorities and preferences as well as a few
areas where stakeholders as a group expressed ambivalence.
As for consensus, stakeholders agreed that design in the Village should reflect its historic character
and that the Village should be a place with activity, energy and foot traffic. All stakeholders expressed
a desire to see ground floor storefronts occupied with a range of retail and restaurants and with
outdoor spaces incorporated into a continuously active street frontage.
Stakeholders agreed that the best examples of Village character (the Bank building, the Bella Saratoga
building, the Michael Anthony Salon/USA Nails building, and the Sue’s Gallery Café building) are
appealing due to their historic features and their well-articulated façades and roofs. Other universally
valued qualities in building design included ground floor transparency, “360-degree” design, building
materials that reflect the Village’s historic character (brick and wood in particular), and ample
landscaping. Stakeholders also agreed that the most problematic design elements in Village buildings
are renovations that compromise historic character and qualities, removal of usable outdoor space,
and buildings that appear bulky and/or monolithic. Lastly, a majority of stakeholders expressed
support for outdoor dining parklets, even at the expense of on-street parking spaces.
Topics that escaped consensus included building height and architectural style. In terms of height,
preferences ranged from no more than two stories to up to 60 feet. Some felt that taller building
should be allowed on the creek side of Big basin Way, while others felt that a uniform low building
height maximum was appropriate throughout the Village. Similarly, stakeholders expressed a range
of opinions on architectural style, from a preference for a uniform Western Victorian style throughout
the Village to support for modern and contemporary design.
17
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1
MEMO
To: Cindy McCormick, City of Saratoga
From: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
Date: May 30, 2025
Re: Saratoga Village Design Standards Community Questionnaire: Summary
DRAFT
As part of the Saratoga Village Objective Design Standards Project (Project), the City of
Saratoga, in collaboration with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC), is preparing objective design
standards and related zoning amendments to implement Housing Element Program 3.3-3:
Preserve the Historic Character of Saratoga Village. Initiated in early 2025, the project will
translate the Village Design Guidelines, last updated in 2019, into objective development
standards and codify them in the Saratoga Zoning Code.
The Project includes a robust community engagement program. Included is a project website
(https://www.saratoga.ca.us/688/Village-Design-Standards), a series of 12 stakeholder interviews,
the Saratoga Village Objective Design Standards Online Questionnaire, a community
workshop, and a Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session.
The Online Questionnaire was developed and released publicly early in the Project to engage
the community and gather a broad sample of input on all design topics that the project will
address. Ultimately, the Questionnaire will enable the community’s preferences and priorities
to directly shape the outcome of the objective design standards. This Memo summarizes the
methodology and results of the Questionnaire.
Methodology
In order to reach the greatest number of individuals, the consultant team developed the online
Community Questionnaire in the user-friendly platform SurveyMonkey. It was active for 33
days, from April 3 to May 6, 2025. LWC provided the link to the Questionnaire for City staff
to promote and distribute to the community before and during that time. The Questionnaire
received 241 unique responses and had a 70% complet ion rate—a high rate compared to
typical public survey completion rates, which average 20–30%.
The Questionnaire, developed in collaboration with the City planning staff, included 13
questions and took respondents approximately 6 minutes to complete. Of the 13 questions,
6 were multiple choice, 5 were “select all that apply,” and 2 were open-ended. Participants
were assured that data from the Questionnaire would be released in aggregate format where
comments cannot be attributed to any individual.
Following the Welcome page, the Questionnaire included questions gauging basic
demographic data of the respondent; respondent’s familiarity with Key documents and
legislation; respondent’s preferences and priorities for various types of Village design; and
respondent’s view of different methods to create a welcoming and inviting setting and
enhance accessibility. The complete Questionnaire is provided in the Appendix: Saratoga
Village Design Standards Online Questionnaire.
18
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2
Summary of Questionnaire Results
Part 1: Respondent Profile
Q1 Connection to Saratoga. Almost all respondents (93%) identified as residents of
Saratoga; 12% identified as landlord, property manager, or owner of a property in Saratoga ;
6% identified as an owner or operator of a Saratoga business; 4.5% were employed in
Saratoga. Less than 3% wrote in ‘Other’ and no one identified as a developer, builder,
contractor, architect, or designer.
Q2 Tenure in Saratoga. Over 27% of respondents have lived in Saratoga for more than 26
years and 32% have lived in Saratoga for 11 to 25 years. Less than 2% of respondents have
lived in Saratoga for less than a year.
Q3 Age. The ages of respondents skewed towards the mature. 36% were 45 -54, 20% were
55-64, and 23% were over 65 years old. There were no respondents between the range of
24 years or younger, and the age group of 24 -34 comprised only 5% of responses.
Q4 Frequency of visiting the Village. 29% of respondents visit the Village a few times per
month, 22.8% visit a few times per week, 17% visit daily. Fewer than 18% of respondents
had never visited or rarely visit.
Q5 Reasons for visiting the Village. 78% of respondents visit for dining, while 20% visit
for shopping. Outdoor recreation and entertainment/events each attract a similar share of
visitors, ranging from 21–22%. 12% use the Village as a place to visit friends and family, and
11% visit for personal or medical appointments. 7% of visitors come for work purposes. 27%
selected “other,” with common responses including walking, banking, and yoga.
Part 2: Familiarity with Key Documents and Legislation
Respondents were asked about their familiarity with recent State legislation relevant to the
Project and existing regulatory documents in the City of Saratoga. In general, respondents
expressed some familiarity with the City of Saratoga General Plan and City of Saratoga Zoning
Code, but more mixed levels of familiarity with City of Saratoga Village Design Guidelines and
Senate Bill 330.
Q6 How familiar are you with the following items?
Part 3: Saratoga Village Architecture and Design
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
City of Saratoga General
Plan (2024)
City of Saratoga Zoning
Code
City of Saratoga Village
Design Guidelines (2019)
Senate Bill 330 (required
ministerial approval for
residential projects)
Very familiar Somewhat familiar Have heard of it Never heard of it
19
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3
Respondents were shown a map of the Village before being asked a series of questions about
Village architecture and design. The map graphic included images of buildings that reflect the
Village’s small-town atmosphere and notes highlighting design elements that may contribute
to its unique character. Below is the map graphic, followed by the questions 7 and 8 responses.
Q7 In your opinion, how closely should the design of new development in the
Village resemble the existing Saratoga Village aesthetic?
New projects should match as closely as possible the design and scale of existing buildings in the Village.
New projects should exhibit design features that are typical of existing Village buildings to maintain some
visual continuity and transitions in scale.
It is not important that new development is consistent with the design and scale of existing buildings.
20
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 4
Q8 Indicate your opinion about each statement below as it relates to design in the
Village:
Responses to these questions showed that, in general, the community prefers that new
projects exhibit design features that are typical of existing Village buildings to maintain some
visual continuity and transitions in scale (59%). 20% responded that new projects should
match as closely as possible the design and scale of existing buildings in the Village.
There was general consensus on several architectural elements. 74% of respondents agreed
that all roof- and building-mounted equipment must be screened from public view. 70%
indicated that all building elevations should match the quality of the front façade, with
consistent use of materials, trim, and windows. 58% supported the idea that storefronts
should feature horizontally-oriented display windows, a defined building base, and vi sual
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
All roof-mounted and building-mounted equipment
(mechanical units, EV charging panels, etc.) must be
screened from view from the right-of-way.
All building elevations should exhibit the same quality as
the building’s façade (e.g., windows, trim, materials,
color).
Storefronts should have horizontally-oriented display
windows, a building base, and a clear distinction
between the ground floor and upper levels.
Awnings should be required on all storefronts to add
character and provide shade and weather protection.
Retail, restaurants, and other active commercial uses
should be required on the ground floor.
Building façades should only use natural materials like
wood, stucco, brick, tile, or stone.
Tall buildings should be allowed next to low-rise
buildings without a transition in height.
Modern and contemporary styles of architecture are
welcome additions to the Village.
Signage should not obscure architectural elements or
façade transparency.
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
21
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 5
separation between floors. 63% agreed that façades should use only natural materials, such
as stucco, wood, or brick.
There was more mixed input, however, on some topics. Regarding whether awning should be
required to add character and provide shade, 47% said yes, 18% said no, and 33% were
neutral. Respondents were also split on architectural style—45% agreed and 41% disagreed
that “Modern and contemporary styles of architecture are welcome additions to the Village.”
51% supported buildings next to low-rise buildings without a transition in height.
Part 4: Visitor Experience and Community Vision
Q9 What design elements are most important in creating a welcoming and inviting
setting?
The top-ranked approach (75% of respondents selected) was the use of planter boxes,
landscaping, and paving to help guide foot traffic. This was followed by 62% supporting
continuous active uses on the ground floor facing Big Basin Way, while placing non -active
uses on side streets and upper stories only. 52% preferred preserving and accentuating
historic design as a way to enhance the character of the area. Other favored strategies
included incorporating operable windows, sliding glass doors, and other features that promote
façade transparency and permeability (48%). Covering blank walls with murals, trellises,
vines, or similar methods was also identified as a valuable way to enliven the streetscape
(46%). The open-ended “other” response field generated the following word cloud
distribution:
Q10 What elements would you like to see, or see more of, in the Village?
The most desired element, selected by 83% of respondents, was continuous, engaging, and
well-maintained storefronts. Close behind, 81% supported creating an active streetscape with
outdoor dining, public art, live music, or other events. Expanded public spaces, including new
public plazas, parklets, and other gathering areas, were favored by 59% of respondents.
Additionally, 23% selected “other,” with popular write-in responses including more businesses,
music, and parks. The open-ended “other” response field generated the following word cloud
distribution:
Q11 What are the most important considerations in p romoting safe and efficient
circulation and accessibility in the Village?
The top-ranked priority, selected by 66% of respondents, was improving the public right -of-
way through sidewalk installation and repair, curb and gutter upgrades, landscaping, street
lighting, and similar enhancements. The next highest priority, chosen by 59%, was imp roving
pedestrian access with better wayfinding signage and lighting between parking areas and key
destinations. Reducing the number of driveways along Big Basin Way to promote continuous
pedestrian flow was supported by 47% of respondents. Additionally, 23% highlighted the
need for more bicycle parking, and 18% selected “other,” with common write-in responses
22
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 6
including parking availability and overall safety. The open-ended “other” response field
generated the following word cloud distribution:
Q12 Are there any particular buildings that are good examples of what you’d like to
see more of?
Commonly mentioned buildings and businesses included Sue’s Café, Bella Saratoga, Hero
Ranch Kitchen, Flowers, Mangia Mornings, The Venue, and La Fondue. Many of th ese places
were noted for their outdoor dining spaces, architectural charm, and inviting ambiance.
Several respondents also referenced the appeal of mixed-use or historic styles, such as those
found in Downtown Los Gatos, Santana Row, and Villa Montalvo. The Bell Tower, Blue Rock
Shoot building (both pre- and post-renovation), and the Village Square were also noted. A
few responses mentioned buildings with eclectic styles, modern touches, or woodsy charm,
while others emphasized that it’s not about the arch itectural style itself, but about how well-
maintained, welcoming, and active the storefronts are. Below is the word cloud distribution
for this open-ended question:
Q13 Optional - Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Respondents shared a broad range of suggestions and concerns for question 13. Many
expressed a desire for a more vibrant, lively Village—including more restaurants, cafés, and
outdoor dining options, as well as live music, festivals, and family-friendly activities. Several
called for architectural consistency that preserves Saratoga’s historic charm, while others
advocated for modernization and more flexibility in design and business types. Some
respondents voiced frustration with empty or underutilized storefronts, high rents, and an
overabundance of non-retail uses like offices. Parking availability and better signage were
common concerns, as were traffic issues and noise from cars and motorcycles on Big Basin
Way. A number of responses referenced the success of nearby communities like L os Gatos,
Campbell, and Burlingame as inspiration. Below is the word cloud distribution for this open-
ended question:
23
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 7
24
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 8
Conclusions and Next Steps
The Online Questionnaire provided valuable insights into the Saratoga community’s
preferences about Village design and views on the defining characteristics of the Village.
Responses—primarily from longtime residents—revealed strong support for preserving the
Village’s small-town charm through visual continuity, quality materials, and thoughtful
transitions in building scale. Most respondents favored new development that reflects the
character of existing buildings without requiring replication, and there w as broad agreement
on key design principles such as screening equipment, consistent façade treatment, and the
use of natural materials. While opinions on modern architecture and awnings were more
mixed, the feedback points to a desire for flexibility as lo ng as additions feel cohesive and
demonstrate architectural integrity. High interest in storefront transparency, murals, and
outdoor programming—like dining and live music—reflects a strong community vision for a
more vibrant and engaging Village.
The planning team will use the input received through the Questionnaire in translating
Chapters 1–6 of the 2019 Village Design Guidelines into codified, objective standards . The
feedback, along with feedback from stakeholder interviews and the May 15 community
workshop, will help ensure the standards speak to, and meet the community’s needs and
expectations for, the Village. The planning team will present and received further input on
emerging draft standards at a June 25, 2025 Joint Planning Commission and City Co uncil
public study session, and expects to release a draft of the new standards for public review in
the fall of 2025.
25
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 9
Appendix: Saratoga Village Design
Standards Online Questionnaire
26
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 10
27
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 11
28
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 12
29
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 13
30
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 14
31
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 15
32
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1
MEMO
To: Cindy McCormick, City of Saratoga
From: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
Date: May 30, 2025
Re: Saratoga Village Design Standards Community Workshop: Summary DRAFT
As part of the Saratoga Village Objective Design Standards Project (Project), the City of Saratoga, in
collaboration with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC), is preparing objective design standards and related
zoning amendments to implement Housing Element Program 3.3-3: Preserve the Historic Character of
Saratoga Village. Initiated in early 2025, the project will translate the Village Design Guidelines, last updated
in 2019, into objective development standards and codify them in the Saratoga Zoning Code.
The Project includes a robust community engagement program including a project website
(https://www.saratoga.ca.us/688/Village-Design-Standards), a series of 12 stakeholder interviews, an online
Community Questionnaire, a Community Workshop, and a Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study
Session. This memo summarizes the input received at the Community Workshop.
Workshop Overview
The City held the community-wide workshop on Thursday, May 15th, 2025 from 7 to 9 pm (see Appendix
1: Workshop Agenda). Advertised on the City’s website, the workshop was conducted in-person in the S. Ku
Hall at the Joan Pisani Senior Center and attended by approximately 14 community members seated at two
eight-person round tables. The objectives of the workshop were to:
Provide a brief background on the project to date.
Present the planning team’s initial findings and recommendations.
Invite community members to participate in developing the emerging design standards.
The workshop began with a presentation by the Consultant Team on the project background, key takeaways
from previous outreach efforts, and emerging direction on the Village Design Standards (see Appendix 2:
Consultant Presentation).
Following the presentation, each group of seven community members participated in an approximately
hour-long discussion session on the three specific topics: street level design; architectural style, materials,
and details; and building massing. Several copies of tabletop materials were available to help inform and
provide images on which to base the discussions (see images in the sections below). Each table included at
least one planning team member who introduced the activities, reviewed discussion ground rules, and
facilitated the group discussion. In addition, a planning team member took notes of each discussion using
a flip-chart on an easel. After the discussion, each group selected a volunteer to report back on the larger
group on the major takeaways of the small group discussion.
Below is a summary of the feedback gathered during the group discussion, organized by activity.
33
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2
Community Input
Activity 1: Street-Level Design
Activity 1 prompted participants to think about and lend input on how frontage design can best activate
sidewalks and encourage pedestrian interest and activity. The following images, printed on several color
11x17s, were provided as a basis for the discussion:
Strong support. The community voiced the most support for awnings and sidewalk seating. Participants
noted that awnings and outdoor dining provide space for congregating, which is most essential in making
the street active and lively.
Some support. Elements that received some support included full-height windows, recessed storefront
design, arcades, and planters/landscaping.
No support. Notably, participants indicated that terraces and forecourts, which introduce a separation
between the private and public realm, are not a preferred way to activate the Saratoga Village street level,
and that businesses should be up front and visible.
Related comments:
We need more public dining and gathering areas on the sidewalk. Big Basin Burger Bar is a good
example of outdoor dining.
34
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3
Food service uses are good because passer s-by can see the activity. If we allow a wall around a
front patio, it should be low, so that the view of the activity inside is not obscured. The front should
be enclosed but not too enclosed.
Street-level design should include patios and seating and should be designed such that people
want to spend time there.
Frontage design should blur the line between the public and private realms.
Big Basin Way is dying out! We need to limit the ground floor to active uses.
Recessed storefronts should have a historic “look.”
We are letting office uses move into ground floor spaces. This is not supposed to be allowed, so
we need better enforcement.
Residential uses on the ground floor should only be allowed if there is some community benefit to
it -- for example, a nice-looking lobby or a day care that is part of a residential development.
Awnings should be well-maintained.
Different uses and activities have different needs (e.g. restaurants vs. retail).
In the small groups, workshop participants discussed the example images,
shared ideas about other projects and designs, brainstormed, sketched, and
jotted down notes.
35
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 4
Activity 2: Style, Materials and Details
Activity 2 prompted participants to think about and lend input on the architectural styles, materials and
details that are most appropriate for Village development. The following images, printed on several color
11x17s, were provided a basis for the discussion:
Strong support. The community voiced the most support for the Western Victorian and Craftsman styles,
and for wood, stucco, brick, and stone as building materials.
Some support. Elements that received some support included Italianate and Modern styles, and tile as a
building material.
No support. The community noted that Contemporary styles are not appropriate in the Village. They also
stated that the steel and glass building is a bad example for the Village, as the style is wrong and it has
insufficient articulation.
Related comments:
Western Victorian is great, but would people build it today?
People visit the Village for its historic charm. Any new development should reflect existing historic
character.
New development should emulate the McCarty building; specifically, its bell tower and setback.
When it comes to architectural style, authenticity is essential. Don't copy a historic design.
Diversity and vibrancy are good for us. Eclecticism and a mix of historic styles are our strengths.
Let’s work on seamless transitions between new and old.
36
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 5
The Village should be eclectic in nature. We shouldn’t just copy existing buildings and styles.
Modern updates to the Village can potentially work, bringing modernity, youth, and vibrancy.
We should prioritize fire-resistance and sustainability in building materials.
Stone is a good building material but it should be a vibrant color.
The existing charm that we want to see more of includes false fronts, wood façades, big arched
windows.
Buildings should favor earth colors (natural and subdued).
Let’s avoid cheap-looking buildings, fake flowers.
Vinyl and plastic are not appropriate in the Village.
Corbels should be encouraged on building facades. The wood and corbels of the Michael
Anthony building are a great example.
Utilities should be screened.
The existing sign guidelines and regulations are good, and should be followed and enforced.
Include landscaping and flowers in way-finding signage.
Plan landscaping and signs so that signs do not become blocked by trees.
Activity 3: Building Massing
Activity 3 prompted participants to think about and lend input on desired building massing in the Village
development. The following materials, printed on several color 11x17s, were developed to give participants
a sense of existing scale and massing in the Village and to serve as a basis for the discussion:
The small groups spent about 20
minutes on each of the three activities.
37
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 6
38
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 7
Strong support. The community indicated the most support for the building with a step-back at the 4th
story; the building with a step-back at the 2nd story; and the building showing façade depth and height
articulation.
Some support. Examples that received some support included the building with a differentiated 4th story;
the building with a step-back at the 3rd story; and the building with vertical breaks separating the volume
into smaller volumes. Limited support was shown for the building with a mansard roof.
Related comments:
The building with a differentiated 4th story lacks character.
The building at 4th Street and Big Basin Way is too massive and blocky for the Village.
It doesn’t matter how tall the building is as long as the portions above the second story are stepped
back.
Taller buildings should be built on the creek side.
Avoid mansard roofs. The example shown feels too massive.
Elevated open spaces like balconies, porches and decks are great - we should encourage more of
it. It also can turn a step-back into useable space, which is nice.
We should make sure balconies visible from the right-of-way aren’t cluttered with bikes, laundry,
etc.
We should install paseos that extend from shared parking in the rear of a block though to Big Basin
Way. There are lots of good examples of this (Edinburgh, Los Gatos). It g ets people to walk from
their parked cars and laces usable open space into site plans.
39
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 8
Look out for sightline of hills. New development should protect view sheds.
Building massing and articulation must match the style/character of the building.
Rooftop equipment should be enclosed/screened.
After the discussions concluded, one representative from each small group reported back
to the larger group on their table’s main discussion points and areas of consensus.
Conclusions and Next Steps
The Community Workshop provided a hands-on opportunity for interested community members to learn
and ask questions about the project, and engage with example images, maps, each other, and project
consultants. In general, participants expressed support for preserving the Village’s small-town charm while
encouraging activities and active uses at the ground level along Big Basin Way. Awning, gathering spaces,
and outdoor dining were strongly encouraged. Preferred building materials reflected the historic nature of
the area, with support for wood, stucco, brick, and stone; upper story step-backs; and façade articulation.
The planning team will use the input received at the Workshop in translating Chapters 1–6 of the 2019
Village Design Guidelines into codified, objective standards. The feedback, along with feedback from
stakeholder interviews and the online Community Questionnaire, will help ensure the standards speak to,
and meet the community’s needs and expectations for, the Village. The planning team will present and
received further input on emerging draft standards at a June 25, 2025 Joint Planning Commission and City
Council public study session, and expects to release a draft of the new standards for public review in the fall
of 2025.
Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda
40
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 9
41
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 10
Appendix 2: Consultant Presentation
42
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 11
43
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 12
44
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 13
45
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 14
46
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 15
47
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 16
48
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 17
49
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 18
50
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 19
51
Village Design Standards
City of Saratoga
Joint Planning Commission/City
Council Study Session
June 25, 2025, 6pm
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA
52
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 2
Agenda
1.Project Overview
2.Community Outreach and Input
3.Design Topics for Discussion
4.Discussion
53
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 3
Project Objectives
•Implement HE Program 3.3-3: Preserve the Historic
Character of Saratoga Village.
o Translate Chapters 1–6 of the 2019 Village Design Guidelines into
objective design standards
o Provide clear, enforceable, illustrated regulations
o Integrate standards into the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Municode Article 15
o Comply with State law (SB 330)
•Standards should:
o Preserve and reinforce the Village's historic character
o Acknowledge existing patterns of development
o Reflect community desires/priorities
o Be consistent with existing planning documents
o Lead to outcomes that the community supports
•Excellence in design
•Sensitive site planning
•Neighborhood
compatibility
•Predictable and high-
quality design
54
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 4
Article 15-05 – General Provisions
Article 15-06 – Definitions
Article 15-10 – Establishment of Zoning Districts
Article 15-11 – A: Agricultural District
Article 15-12 – R-1: Single-Family Residential Districts
Article 15-13 – HR: Hillside Residential District
Article 15-15 – Agricultural Preserves
Article 15-16 – P-C: Planned Combined District
Article 15-17 – R-M: Multi-Family Residential Districts
Article 15-18 – P-A: Professional and Admin. Office District
Article 15-19 – C: Commercial Districts
Article 15-20 – R-OS: Residential Open Space District
Article 15-21 – MU: Mixed-Use Districts
Article 15-29 – Fences
Article 15-30 – Signs
Article 15-35 – Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities
Article 15-40 – Home Occupations
Article 15-44 – Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Article 15-45 – Design Review: Single-Family Dwelling
What parts of the Code will the project address?
Article 15-46 – Design Review: Multi-Family Dwellings and Comm. Structures
Article 15-47 – Water-Efficient Landscaping
Article 15-48 – Limitations on Wood-Burning Fireplaces
Article 15-50 – Tree Regulations
Article 15-52 – Small Wind Energy Systems
Article 15-55 – Conditional Use Permits
Article 15-56 – Accessory Dwelling Units
Article 15-57 – Ministerial Consideration of Qualifying Projects
Article 15-58 – Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Design and Development Standards
Article 15-59 – Single-Family Dwelling Design Standards
Article 15-60 – Temporary Uses
Article 15-62 – Village Design Standards (NEW)
Article 15-65 – Nonconforming Uses and Structures
Article 15-70 – Variances
Article 15-80 – Miscellaneous Regulations and Exceptions
Article 15-81 – Housing Density Bonus
Article 15-85 – Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations
Article 15-90 – Appeals
Article 15-95 – Violations and Enforcement
55
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 5
Project Process and Schedule
56
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 6
Saratoga Village
•Saratoga Los Gatos Road /
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Ave / Big
Basin Way
o 161 parcels
o 36 developable acres
o total 45 acres
•Heart of the City since its
establishment circa 1850
•Village Design Guidelines
adopted in 1992, updated in 2019
57
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 7
Saratoga Village
•Zoning districts:
o Commercial
•CH1
•CH2
o Mixed Use High Density
o Professional & Admin
o R-1-10,000
o R-M-3,000
o R-M-4,000
•Saratoga Creek, Blaney Plaza,
historic structures nearby and
within Village
58
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 8
Existing Built Form
59
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 9
Village Design Guidelines
60
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 10
Village Design Guidelines
Standards to be
addressed in the
Design Standards
61
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 11
Village Design Guidelines
8 design
guidelines for
materials and
colors
62
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 12
Stakeholder Interviews
•12 interviews, held on March 13 - 20, 45 minutes each, Zoom
o 6 Saratoga residents, 7 owners/operators of a Saratoga business (3 in Village), 3
architects/designers
•Familiarity and High-priority elements:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar No Experience
Familiarity with Village Design
Guidelines
Number of Attendees
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Scale and Massing of Building
Architectural Style
Building Facade Design and Details
Building Materials and Colors
Location and Configuration of Off-Street Parking
Landscaping and Streetscape Design
Encroachments/Uses Allowed onto Sidewalk
How important are the following design elements in
establishing and maintaining village character?
63
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 13
Stakeholder Interviews
•General consensus:
o Design in the Village should reflect its historic character
o Village should be a place with activity, energy, and foot traffic
o Ground floor storefronts should offer a range of retail and restaurants with
continuously active street frontage and outdoor spaces
o Dining parklets, even at the expense of on-street parking spaces
•Mixed input:
o Building height: Max 2 stories to up to 60 feet
o Architectural style: Western Victorian, Modern, Contemporary design
64
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 14
Stakeholder Interviews
Best examples of
Village character:
The Bank building Sue’s Gallery Café building
Bella Saratoga building Michael Anthony Salon/USA Nails
building
65
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 15
Online Questionnaire
•13 questions, open 5 weeks (April 3 – May 6)
•241 responses
•94% Saratoga residents
•Most visit the Village frequently, especially for dining and shopping
•Familiarity with key documents and legislation:
o General Plan and Zoning Code: Very familiar
o Village Design Guidelines: Somewhat familiar
o Senate Bill 330: Unfamiliar
66
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 16
Online Questionnaire
•General consensus:
o 74% - roof- and building-mounted equipment must be screened from public view
o 70% - all building elevations should match the quality of the front façade, with consistent
use of materials, trim, and windows
o 58% - storefronts with horizontally-oriented display windows, a defined building base, and
visual separation between floors
o 63% - only natural materials for facades (stucco, wood, or brick)
•Mixed input:
o Requiring awnings to add character and provide shade? 47% yes / 18% no / 33% neutral
o Modern and contemporary styles of architecture in the Village? 45% yes /41% no
o Transitions in height between high and low-rise buildings? 51% supported
67
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 17
Online Questionnaire
•Creating a welcoming and inviting setting, ranked order:
1.Planter boxes, landscaping, and paving
2.Continuous active uses on ground floor facing Big Basin Way, with non-
active uses on side streets and upper stories only
3.Preservation/accentuation of historic design
4.Façade transparency/permeability (operable windows, sliding glass
doors)
5.Murals, trellises, and vines, over blank walls
•Accessibility, ranked order:
1.Right-of-way improvements (sidewalk installation/repair, curb and gutter
upgrades, landscaping, street lighting, etc.)
2.Pedestrian access, wayfinding signage, and lighting between parking and
destinations
3.Minimize driveways off of Big Basin Way
18% wrote in other
ideas: outdoor
seating, more trees,
real flowers
18% wrote in other
ideas: sufficient
parking, more
lighting
68
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 18
Community Workshop
•Thursday, May 15th, 2025 from 7
to 9 pm in the S. Ku Hall at the
Joan Pisani Senior Center
•Attended by approximately 14
community members
•3 Group activities:
o Street-level design
o Architectural style, materials, and
details
o Building massing
69
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 19
Community Workshop
•Strong support:
o Awnings and sidewalk
seating
•Some support:
o Full-height windows,
recessed storefront design,
arcades, and
planters/landscaping
•No Support:
o Terraces
o Forecourts
70
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 20
Community Workshop
•Strong support:
o Styles: Western Victorian and
Craftsman styles
o Building materials: Wood,
stucco, brick, and stone
•Some support:
o Styles: Italianate and Modern
o Building materials: Tile
•No Support:
o Styles: Contemporary
o Building materials: steel and
glass
71
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 21
Community Workshop
•Strong support:
o Upper story step-backs
o Façade depth
o Height articulation
•Some support:
o Building with vertical
breaks separating the
volume into smaller
volumes
•Limited support:
o Building with mansard roof
72
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 22
Outline for Discussion
•15-62.010 Purpose
o Confirm Guidelines’ Vision, compliance with SB330
•15-62.020 Applicability
o Confirm boundary, which supersedes in case of conflict
•15-62.030 Village Style
o Identify Village Styles for reference
•15-62.040 Building Massing and Scale
o Building placement, envelope, roof
•15-62.050 Building Design
o Articulation, corners, details, windows, entries, materials, colors, historic features
•15-62.060 Site Design
o Public open space, common open space, public art, screening, signage
73
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 23
Discussion Points
•Roof form
•Open space design,
usability
•Building articulation
•Entry design
o Simplicity with variation
o View preservation
o Transparency
o Public/private transition
o Rear vs. street-facing
o Architectural integrity
o Break up massing
o Transitions to R-1 districts
o Upper-story step-backs
o Congregating areas
o Support programming
74
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 24
Discussion Points
•Architectural details,
façade relief
•Canopies/overhangs/
awnings
•Corner design
•Screening of
equipment, utilities,
service areas
o Ample articulation
o Continuous visual interest/
limit on blank walls
o Architectural integrity
o High-quality materials
o Architectural consistency
o High-quality awning
materials
o Architectural consistency
o “Wrap” the corners
o Enhanced visibility
o Identify corners
75
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 25
Discussion Points
•Building materials
•Building colors
•Signage
•Historic preservation
o Natural materials, textures
o Varied palette
o Subdued, earthy colors
o Architectural integrity
o Highlight existing features
o Secretary of the Interior’s
Guidelines
o Limit improvements/
modifications
o High-quality materials
o Architectural consistency
o Coordinate as appropriate
with Sec. 15-30-070
76
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 26
•What is working and what is problematic about the Village Design Guidelines?
•Are there specific areas or intersections in the Village that need special attention? (e.g.,
open spaces, frontage design, other)
•Should there be different standards for CH 1 & CH2?
•How closely should the standards regulate Architectural Style -- i.e., adherence to a
particular "look"?
•Are there elements within the Village Guidelines document that need refinement to
help the City achieve its Vision (Section 2) for the Village?
o Section 4 - Land Use
o Section 5 - Architecture & Design
o Section 6 - Historic Preservation
Discussion
77
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards5/15/2025 | 27
Thank you!
78