HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-2025 City Council-Planning-Heritage Preservation Commission Joint Session Agenda Packet, amended 11-20-2025Saratoga City Council Meeting Agenda – November 17, 2025 - Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JOINT SESSION
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
AMENDED AGENDA
• 11-17-2025 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADDED
• 11-17-2025 PRESENTATION SLIDES ADDED
• 11-20-2025 POST MEETING SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ADDED
Public Participation Information
In accordance with Saratoga City Council’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 (if applicable) using the Zoom information below. In the event remote participation
technology is unexpectedly unavailable, the meeting 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);
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.
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 November 14, 2025.
Saratoga City Council Meeting Agenda – November 17, 2025 - Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM
Village Objective Design Standards Study Session Recommended Action:
Review the preliminary draft text of the Village Design Standards and supporting Zoning
Ordinance text amendments and provide feedback for incorporation into a draft Ordinance to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Draft text for Village Design Standards
Attachment B - Draft zoning text amendments for consistency with new Article
Attachment C - Ad Hoc Committee feedback
Attachment D - Public Correspondence
Desk Item (added 11-17-2025)
Presentation Slides (added 11-17-2025)
Post Meeting Supplemental Report (added 11-20-2025)
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
I, Janet Costa, Deputy 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 November 14, 2025 at the
City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at
www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 14th day of November 2025 at Saratoga, California.
Janet Costa, Deputy 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,
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: November 17, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
PREPARED BY: Cindy McCormick, Development Manager
SUBJECT: Village Objective Design Standards Study Session
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review the preliminary draft text of the Village Design Standards and supporting Zoning
Ordinance text amendments and provide feedback for incorporation into a draft Ordinance to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
Codified objective design standards that implement the City’s 2019 Village Design Guidelines are
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 hired Lisa Wise Consulting (“LWC”), who
prepared the City’s objective design standards for single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings,
and mixed-use projects, to lead the effort.
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. A summary of the stakeholder
interviews, community questionnaire, and community workshop input was presented at the June
25, 2025, Study Session. Additional input from the public was provided at the study session.
In addition to community input, the consultant received feedback from the City Council and
Planning Commission during the June 25 Study Session. An Ad Hoc Committee was also formed,
consisting of two members of the Heritage Preservation Commission and three Saratoga Historical
Foundation board members. The Ad Hoc Committee met on three occasions to discuss and provide
input on the Village Design Standards. A summary of the Ad Hoc Committee’s feedback is
provided in Attachment C..
3
DISCUSSION:
In addition to reviewing all of the public input to date, LWC utilized Chapters 1–6 of the 2019
Village Design Guidelines as the guiding principles for drafting the Village Design Standards. The
draft text is currently organized into the following sections that will be codified as a new Article
(Article 15-62) in the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance:
ARTICLE 15-62 - VILLAGE DESIGN STANDARDS
Purpose and applicability
Building massing standards
Building design standards
Site design standards
LWC has also drafted related amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency
with the new objective design standards:
ARTICLE 15-06: DEFINITIONS
Awning Valance - forthcoming
Belt Course - forthcoming
Forecourt - forthcoming
Shopfront Bay
ARTICLE 15-12 - R-1: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
15-12.108 - Building and Site Design Standards.
ARTICLE 15-30 - SIGNS
15-30.070 – Village Sign District.
ARTICLE 15-46 – DESIGN REVIEW: MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES
15-46.040 - Design review findings.
ARTICLE 15-58 – MIXED-USE AND MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
15-58.030 - Design standards, building placement, and articulation.
ARTICLE 15-65 – NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES
15-65.020 – Definitions
City staff and LWC are looking forward to receiving feedback on the draft text and illustrations.
During the Study Session, LWC will also be seeking specific feedback on the following:
• The “Village Sign District” only includes “lots with permitted nonresidential uses on Big
Basin Way” (15-30.020(v)1.). Is there value to broadening the district to include the whole
Village?
• 15-30.070 (b) (2) and (e) (3). Projecting Signs and Freestanding Signs.
4
o Should the standards for sign material and colors be more or less prescriptive than
proposed? For example, the standards could state that “signs must be constructed
primarily of the same materials or colors as used on the building cladding, or trim”
instead of the more subjective terminology from the Village Guidelines, which uses the
term “bear a relationship to.” Objective language is less critical here since signage is
generally unrelated to housing.
• 15-30.070 (e) (3). Freestanding signs.
o Should the City allow or prohibit new multi-tenant pole signs? Would they be
consistent with the Village character, provided the pole sign design bears a relationship
to the building architecture? Note, the amendment to the non-conforming section of the
Code ensures that the existing pole sign(s) in the Village would remain conforming
regardless of the new Village Design Standards.
o Should the City allow monument signs for properties with four or fewer uses (like the
Hero Ranch Kitchen monument sign)? Monument signs are currently limited to
properties with five or more uses.
o Should the City establish an upper limit to the number of tenants on a monument sign?
o Should the City require monument signs to be close to (e.g., within five feet) of a
building? A member of the public commented that the Deja building monument sign
placement detracts from the open space and its usability.
• 15-62.020. Upper-story step-backs.
o Should a step-back be required at the 3rd story and above? Or is a step-back at the 4th
story adequate? Should the step-back requirements apply throughout the CH-1, CH-2
and P-A, or only in certain locations to protect specific views?
• 15-62.030 (b). Building articulation and detail palette figures.
o LWC developed four palette illustrations based on community input about architectural
style in the Village. Inspiration for the palettes included: 14421 Big Basin Way (Palette
A); 14428 Big Basin Way (Palette B); 20648 4th Street (Palette C), and 14501 Big
Basin Way (Palette D).
o Are there other illustrative features or text that should be added or removed?
o Should the text be more prescriptive by requiring “all” design elements illustrated in a
particular figure to be included in a building design, or should an applicant be able to
choose which design elements, or from any Palette to include in their design?
o Is Palette B too contemporary? The Ad hoc committee recommended removing this
Palette, as not being compatible with the historic context of the Village.
o The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended prohibiting “modern tiles”, as illustrated in
Palette figures (b) and (c). LWC could redraw the palette to appear less contemporary,
however, the figure is illustrative only and not intended as a prescriptive elevation,
unless that is the direction the decision makers want to go.
• 15-62.020 (b) (2). Paseo requirement for buildings.
o Paseos can enhance pedestrian connectivity between Big Basin Way and parking,
which has been a focus of community feedback.
o The City may want to consider developing more specific guidelines for paseos, since
such amenities are typically established in a specific plan rather than zoning. For
example, a paseo can be a path alongside, not just through, a development. LWC also
notes that if parcels are assembled into larger sites, this standard would apply to
5
development on those sites. In the meantime, would there be value in including a
diagram of a paseo in the zoning ordinance?
• Prohibited colors. The Ad Hoc Committee asked to prohibit specific HEX code colors.
LWC will provide information on HEX codes for discussion at the Study Session.
Public Correspondence: The City received the attached correspondence from the public
(Attachment D).
Next Steps: The consultant will incorporate feedback from the study session into a draft ordinance
that will be presented to the Planning Commission at a noticed Public Hearing. The
recommendation of the Planning Commission will then be scheduled for a Public Hearing with the
City Council for final approval. However, if significant changes are proposed at the November 17
Study Session, the City will hold another study session with the Planning Commission to review
the updated text, before bringing a formal Ordinance to the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Draft text for Village Design Standards
Attachment B – Draft zoning text amendments for consistency with new Article
Attachment C – Ad Hoc Committee feedback
Attachment D – Public Correspondence
6
Draft Text
Draft Text Village Design Standards | City of Saratoga | 1
DRAFT TEXT VILLAGE DESIGN STANDARDS
Purpose and applicability
Building massing standards
Building design standards
Site design standards
VILLAGE DESIGN STANDARDS
Purpose and applicability.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Village design standards is to:
(1) Reflect the community’s quaint small-town identity, natural setting, and historic context;
(2) Foster a vibrant shopping and restaurant district and ensure that the Village continues t o
flourish as a vital and successful business district;
(3) Provide opportunities for community and civic activity, public gathering, and engagement;
(4) Establish objective design criteria that facilitates new development and viable retail and/or
mixed-use buildings that complement the context and human scale of the downtown; and
(5) Facilitate streamlined project permitting consistent with State law and the City’s Housing
Element.
(b) Applicability.
(1) In the event of conflict between development standards of the base zone; applicable design
standards of Article 15-58; applicable design standards of Article 15-59; and this Article
(Article 15-62), the standard of this Article applies.
(2) The Village design standards apply to all development within the boundaries of the
Saratoga Village as established in Figure 1: Saratoga Village Boundary.
Figure XX: Saratoga Village Boundary
7
Draft Text Village Design Standards
2 | Draft Text - Village Design Standards
Building massing standards.
(a) Upper story step-backs in the CH-1, CH-2, and P-A districts.
(1) Street-facing elevations in the CH-1, CH-2, and P-A districts: The third story and above
must be stepped-back a minimum of six feet from the second floor or located within a
sloped roof form.
(2) Interior side elevations in the CH-1 where abutting an R-1 zone, excluding creek-
adjacent parcels: The third story and above must be stepped-back a minimum of six feet
from the third floor or located within a sloped roof form.
(b) Building articulation in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts.
(1) In the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, all street-facing facades must be articulated into storefront
bays with a maximum horizontal dimension of fifty feet, distinguished by a change of plane
a minimum of twenty-four inches in depth from the building façade.
Figure XX: Required Articulation in the CH-1 and CH-2
8
Draft Text
Draft Text | 3
(2) Buildings over one hundred feet in width facing Big Basin Way and abutting a parking
district must provide a continuous at-grade paseo between the sidewalk and the rear
parking district. The paseo must be designed in accordance with the standards of Sectio n
15-62.xx.
Building design standards.
(a) “360-degree” design. All building elevations shall contain the same materials, color palette,
window and door design, proportions, and architectural features as the primary elevation .
(b) Roof form. All development in the Village is subject to the roof standards of Section 15-58.040(a)
in addition to the following design standards:
(1) False façades are allowed only in the restoration of a property on the Heritage Resource
Inventory. When used, false facades must include a cornice at least eighteen inches in
depth with decorative dentils or brackets.
(2) When terra cotta roof tiles are used in the Village, the primary building cladding material
must be stucco, the roof slope must be 5:12 or less, and windows must be recessed.
(3) A maximum of two roof forms or pitches may be visible from any public right-of-way.
(c) Frontage design.
(1) In the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, all street-facing facades must incorporate at least one of
the following:
a. An awning;
b. An overhang or recessed ground floor; or
c. A forecourt.
(2) Blank walls at the ground level must include architectural details, landscaping, and/or plant -
bearing trellises or lattices. Building walls on any level without a window, arched niche,
fountain, pattern of insets, mural, trellis, or a projection, offset, or recess of the building wall
at least one foot in depth are limited to 12 lineal feet.
(3) In the CH-1, CH-2 districts, all frontages must incorporate at least one of the following:
a. A plant-bearing pergola or trellis; or
9
Draft Text Village Design Standards
4 | Draft Text - Village Design Standards
b. Landscaping along at least fifty percent of the building or frontage.
(4) In the R-1 District, all street-facing and interior elevations must incorporate one of the
following:
a. A vertical projection or recess at least twenty-four inches in depth;
b. A chimney articulated along the exterior wall;
c. A window with a window grille/Juliet balcony; or
d. At least one bay window.
(5) Any downspout must be painted in the same color as the building surface against which it
lies.
(d) Entry design.
(1) Street-facing storefront entrance dimensions shall comply with Section 15-58.040(e) and
Figure 15.58.040-7, with the following exceptions:
a. The minimum clear height under an awning is seven feet.
b. The maximum storefront bay width is thirty feet.
(2) Rear entries facing parking districts shall comply with Section 15-58.040(e) and Figure
15.58.040-7, with the following exceptions:
a. The combined recess/awning projection depth is a minimum thirty inches.
b. The minimum clear height under an awning is seven feet.
c. A minimum four feet horizontal clearance between the edge of the building,
awning, or seating area and any parking district areas designated for vehicular
movement.
d. A plant-bearing pergola or trellis, planted areas, or planter boxes along at least
thirty percent of the base of the rear building.
(e) Windows design and details.
(1) Shutters must be the same size as the windows they frame.
(2) To establish inviting and transparent frontages, non-residential ground floor street-facing
window sill height shall be a maximum of thirty inches from the finished floor.
(3) Non-residential ground floor street-facing windows must be vertically oriented with clear
glazing.
(4) Windows must have a height to width ratio of at least 1.5:1 or must utilize muntins or grids
with a minimum height to width ratio of 1:1.
(5) For buildings with board and batten or horizontal siding as the primary building material, all
windows must have muntins and trim, including a header/lintel and sill.
(f) Non-residential ground-floor transparency.
10
Draft Text
Draft Text | 5
CH-1 and CH-2 Districts. On any ground floor street-facing façade, a minimum sixty
percent of the area between two and ten feet in height must include a transparent window
or door, as illustrated in Figure XX.
(g) Awning and canopy design.
(1) As illustrated below, allowed awning shapes are limited to traditional with or without
valance, concave, arch, waterfall, dome, or bullnose.
(2) Gable awnings are not permitted.
(3) Awnings and shade canopies must be of a durable, commercial-grade fabric or canvas
with a matte finish, and may be fixed or retractable.
(4) Awning valances may not exceed nine inches in height.
Figure XX: Awning Types
(h) Building materials and colors.
(1) Building material standards shall comply with Section 15-58.040(h), with the following
exceptions:
a. Galvanized or stainless metal is prohibited in the Village.
11
Draft Text Village Design Standards
6 | Draft Text - Village Design Standards
b. Unpainted concrete block or concrete masonry units are prohibited in the Village.
(2) Primary and secondary building colors must have a saturation value, within the HSV color
model, of seventy percent (70%) or less and a Light Reflecting Value (LRV) between 35
and 80.
(3) Color saturation may exceed seventy percent or LRV value may be outside the designated
range for accent materials applied to less than ten percent of building surface, awnings,
and fixtures.
(i) Architectural Details.
(1) In the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, street-facing facades must incorporate at least one of the
following:
a. Details that are consistent with Figure XX, Building Articulation and Detail Palette
A, including a continuous parapet and cornice, regularly spaced windows, a belt
course above the ground floor, and a building base at least eighteen inches from
grade.
b. Details that are consistent with Figure xx, Building Articulation and Detail Palette
B, including a flat roof, an overhang at least eighteen inches in depth, full-height
windows, and wood or stone details.
c. Details that are consistent with Figure xx, Building Articulation and Detail Palette
C, including terra cotta roof tiles, pitched roof, exposed rafter or bracket details,
wood or wrought iron trim, windows recessed at least two inches, and stucco
cladding.
d. Details that are consistent with Figure xx, Building Articulation and Detail Palette
D, including roof shingles or shakes, regul arly spaced windows with sills and
lintels, and horizontal or board and batten siding.
(2) Where a building exhibits a detail palette described in Figure xx a, b, c or d, any renovation
to the structure must preserve any feature that is demonstrative of the pa rticular detail
palette.
12
Draft Text
Draft Text | 7
Figure XX: Building Articulation and Detail Palette A
Illustrative only.
13
Draft Text Village Design Standards
8 | Draft Text - Village Design Standards
Figure XX:: Building Articulation and Detail Palette B
Illustrative only.
14
Draft Text
Draft Text | 9
Figure XX:: Building Articulation and Detail Palette C
Illustrative only.
15
Draft Text Village Design Standards
10 | Draft Text - Village Design Standards
Figure XX:: Building Articulation and Detail Palette D
Illustrative only.
16
Draft Text
Draft Text | 11
Site design standards.
(a) Building Placement
(1) CH-1 and CH-2 districts.
a. A minimum eighty percent of ground-floor building frontage must be built at the
front setback line to maintain a consistent street wall, as illustrated in Figure XX.
b. For buildings up to sixty feet wide, the portion of the building frontage located
behind the front setback line may exceed twenty percent if the setback area is
designed as a forecourt in accordance with the standards of Section 15-62.xx, Site
design.
(b) Design of setback areas.
(1) All areas between the street-facing property line and the ground floor must be improved to
visually distinguish the area from the public right-of-way, emphasize the building entrance
and pedestrian approach, and frame building transparency. The design shall include at
least one of the following elements:
a. Outdoor surfacing that is distinct from the adjacent sidewalk;
b. Low walls and fencing a maximum of thirty inches in height; or
c. Landscaping, planter boxes, and climbing vines.
(2) Where the street-facing setback is greater than ten feet in depth, outdoor dining or seating
areas are required.
(3) No street-facing setback may be used for parking in the CH-1, CH-2, or MU-HD districts.
(4) All areas between an interior property line and the ground floor must be either usable space
or landscaped and must be permanently maintained.
Figure XX: Design of Street-Facing Setbacks
17
Draft Text Village Design Standards
12 | Draft Text - Village Design Standards
(c) Publicly-accessible open spaces.
(1) All courtyards, paseos, and other publicly-accessible open spaces must adhere to the
following criteria:
a. Shall meet federal and state accessibility requirement and be visible from a public
street, parking district, or other on-site publicly-accessible areas and shall remain
accessible during business hours.
b. Shall not exceed five percent in slope.
c. Must be visually distinguishable from areas for vehicular travel. Materials may
include landscaping, flagstone, wood decking, textured pavement, pavers,
concrete, or other dust-free surfacing.
d. May include a public art feature.
(2) Courtyards open to and facing a public right-of-way must adhere to the following criteria:
a. Must be a minimum fifteen feet in width by twelve feet in depth.
b. Must be enclosed on at least two sides by building walls. One wall may be an
abutting adjacent building.
c. Must be level with the sidewalk and may not slope down away from the right-of-
way.
d. Must include seating. Seating can be built-in or moveable furniture.
(d) Screening.
(1) All outdoor refuse areas shall be fully enclosed by a solid wall or fence and solid gates of
sufficient height to screen the refuse bins and refuse at capacity from view from the public
right-of-way, from parking districts, and from view from the rear lot line of properties that
face Oak Street.
a. Screening materials must either be the same as those used for the primary
structure or wood.
b. The floor of any enclosure shall have a drain that connects to the sanitary sewer
system, and the refuse area shall meet all stormwater regulations.
c. Collection, storage or stacking of refuse is prohibited outside the refuse enclosure.
18
Draft Text
Draft Text | 13
(2) All building-mounted, ground-mounted, or roof-mounted equipment must be screened from
view from the public right-of-way using screening elements such as planting or screen walls
made of materials consistent with the qualit y and material palette used in the rest of the
project.
(e) Maintenance. Whenever screening or landscaping is required, the owner or occupant of the
property shall keep and maintain such screening and landscaping in good condition and repair.
1990565.1
19
Zoning Code Amendments
Public Review Draft Village Design Standards | City of Saratoga | 1
ARTICLE 15-06: DEFINITIONS
Awning Valance
Belt Course
Forecourt
Storefront bay
ARTICLE 15-12 - R-1: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
15-12.108 - Building and Site Design Standards.
ARTICLE 15-30 - SIGNS
15-30.070 – Village Sign District.
ARTICLE 15-46 – DESIGN REVIEW: MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES
15-46.040 - Design review findings.
ARTICLE 15-58 – MIXED-USE AND MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
15-58.030 - Design standards, building placement and articulation.
ARTICLE 15-65 – NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES
15-65.020 – Definitions
20
Zoning Code Amendments
2 | City of Saratoga | Public Review Draft Village Design Standards
ARTICLE 15-06: DEFINITIONS
“Awning Valance”
“Belt Course”
“Forecourt”
“Storefront bay" means a section of a building's ground-floor facade that is visually defined by the
building’s structural elements and improved with windows, signage, or other pedestrian-oriented
elements.
ARTICLE 15-12 - R-1: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
15-12.108 - Building and Site Design Standards.
(a) The following structures must comply with the standards of Article 15-59, Single-Family Dwelling
Design Standards:
(1) Single-family dwellings including employee housing for six or fewer employees.
(2) Dwelling units allowed per Article 15-57, Ministerial Consideration of Qualifying Projects.
(b) All buildings located in the R-1 zone within the Saratoga Village boundary must comply with
the standards of Article 15-62, Village Design Standards.
ARTICLE 15-30 - SIGNS
15-30.070 – Village Sign District.
In addition to other signs allowed pursuant to this Article, the following signs are allowed on lots in the
Village Sign District with a sign permit. Signs on lots in the Village Sign District shall also be consistent with
the Village Design Guidelines.
(a) Building signs.
(1) Primary building signs. Any number of permanent building signs, provided that the
aggregate area of all building signs for any one tenant shall not exceed one -half square
foot of area for each lineal foot of tenant frontage, as defined in Section 15-30.020, or forty
square feet, whichever is less.
(2) Wall signs on buildings with more than one entrance. One permanent building sign,
each not exceeding two square feet in area, over each additional entrance to the building .
(3) No building sign may cover any architectural element that serves to define a
storefront bay. This includes columns, muntins, transoms, and belt courses.
(b) Projecting sign.
(1) If one of the primary building signs permitted pursuant to subsection 15-30-.070(a)(1) is a
projecting sign, the maximum area for all building signs upon any one building shall be
increased by six square feet. However, no projecting sign permitted pursuant to this section
shall exceed ten square feet in area and if projecting outward from a building at a
21
Zoning Code Amendments
Public Review Draft Village Design Standards | City of Saratoga | 3
perpendicular angle, or six feet in area if hanging below an awning or covered
walkway. The bottom of the sign shall be at least seven feet above the grade below.
(2) The material and color palette of a projecting sign must bear a relationship to the
building’s architecture, cladding, or trim.
(c) Awning sign.
(1) Sign copy width: Sign copy (including all text and logos) may be a maximum forty
percent of the width of the valence or awning face on which it is displayed.
(2) Sign area. All awning sign copy (including text and logos) counts toward the total
allowable sign area.
(3) Number of signs: Maximum one sign per awning.
Figure 15-30.070-2: Awning Sign
(d) Electronic sign. One electronic sign (E.g., neon or L.E.D.) not exceeding two square feet in area,
provided that:
(1) The entire sign shall be comprised of one or a maximum of two solid colors.
(2) The sign shall not flash or be composed of a changeable message.
(3) The sign must be externally illuminated, halo-lit solid surface, or internally
illuminated individual channel cut letters.
(4) The sign shall not be illuminated when the use is closed.
(5) If the sign is located on a building, it shall count towards the maximum building sign
allowance.
(6) If the sign is located in a window, it shall count towards the maximum window coverage.
(e) Freestanding sign. One permanent freestanding sign per lot, as follows:
(1) Four or fewer uses. The sign shall only be a pole sign and not exceed nine square feet in
area or ten feet in height. An example is shown in Graphic 2.
22
Zoning Code Amendments
4 | City of Saratoga | Public Review Draft Village Design Standards
(2) Five or more uses. The sign shall only be a monument sign and shall not exceed fourteen
square feet in area, plus one additional square foot of area for each use over five uses.
The sign shall not exceed six and one-half feet in height.
(3) The material and color palette of a freestanding sign must bear a relationship to the
building’s architecture, cladding, or trim.
(f) Roof Signs. Roof signs and any signs extending above eave lines are not permitted in the
Village.
ARTICLE 15-46 – DESIGN REVIEW: MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES
15-46.040 - Design review findings.
(a) Except as to buildings subject to Section 15-46-040(b) or (c), the Planning Commission shall not
grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings:
(1) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features
and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations,
roofs, material, color and appurtenances.
(2) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a
common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in
appearance.
(3) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be
preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems
to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered
in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced.
(4) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the landscape and be nonreflective.
(5) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as
composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be
located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened.
(6) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with
other structures in the immediate area.
(b) For any multi-family dwelling, including any building that meets the criteria of Section 15-21.020(c),
the Planning Commission shall grant design review approval if it finds that the building meets the
objective design standards of this Code including, without limitation, those identified in Article 15-
58.
(c) For any development located within the boundaries of the Saratoga Village, the Planning
Commission shall grant design review approval if it finds that the building meets the
objective design standards of this Code including, without limitation, those identified
in Article 15-62.
23
Zoning Code Amendments
Public Review Draft Village Design Standards | City of Saratoga | 5
ARTICLE 15-58 – MIXED-USE AND MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
15-58.030 - Design standards, building placement and articulation.
(a) Building placement.
(1) R-M district. No building placement standards.
(2) CH-1 and CH-2 districts. A minimum eighty percent of ground -floor building
frontage must be built at the front setback line to maintain a consistent street wall,
as illustrated in Figure 15-58.030-1.
Figure 15-58.030-1: Building Placement, CH-1 and CH-2 Districts
(b) Upper-story step-back.
(1) P-A, R-M, C-V, and C-N, CH-1, and CH-2 districts. Requirements for upper-story step-
backs are established in the base zone standards
ARTICLE 15-65 – NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES
15-65.020 – Definitions
(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 num ber 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 April 5, 2025 is not considered a
non-conforming structure based on non-compliance with Article 15-59, Single-Family
Dwelling Design Standards.
24
Zoning Code Amendments
6 | City of Saratoga | Public Review Draft Village Design Standards
(4) A structure that received design review approval prior to XXX is not considered a
non-conforming structure based on non-compliance with Article 15-62, Village
Design Standards.
1990566.1
25
Colors.
Applicant shall choose colors from vendor’s “historic” palette, and the colors shall
have an LRV between 35-60 and an HSV less than 70%.
The following HEX codes are not permitted:
o FECB01 - Saturated yellow
o B2C216 - Saturated green
o BF2D32 - Saturated red
o B54D7F - Saturated pink
o 0192C6 - Saturated blue
o 665385 - Saturated purple
Signs.
Rear signs should have same standards and style / color as front signs. Size
should be based on building frontage, per code.
Need to add language to require maintenance of signs (e.g., repair/replacement
of tattered, faded, etc.)
Dislikes: Plumed Horse awning – too modern. Japanese restaurant awning –
bright green
Views.
Anything over two stories shall be stair-stepped back, such that the average
setback for all floors is equal to the increased height above two stories. So, if a
building is three stories and the third story is 12 feet from the ce iling below to the
top of roof ridge, it shall have step-backs equal to the 12 additional feet. If a
building is two stories or less in height, it just needs to meet the general design
standards. Exceptions may be made by the HPC through a discretionary process
if the height is needed to accommodate an architectural style that is already
present in the Village.
“360-degree” design.
All sides should have the same standards
Palettes of design details.
Committee does not like drawing #2 because it is too modern looking
26
Eliminate lines on awning in drawing #3.
Drawings need to clearly indicate what is being illustrated (e.g., identify lines on
columns)
Drawings need to clearly indicate if the left side is related to the right side. If
related, make sure that the profile lines up
What does “natural” materials mean?
Modern tile shall be prohibited
27
Critical Meeting About Saratoga Village
Monday November 17th, 6:00 PM
13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, CA
Some Key Points:
● Policy can support the Village.
● State housing law requires us to have “objective standards” for only certain
housing projects; this does not stop us from having an overall vision
statement, and other goals and requirements, for all other building and
land use decisions in the Village.
● The state housing law should not be used as an excuse to throw away
Village Guidelines and policies that keep the Village a vibrant commercial
and community hub, as residents desire.
● We can build housing anywhere in Saratoga, including within a ½ mile, a
mile, 2 miles from the Village - but we should not build it instead of ground
floor storefronts in the Village, nor should we allow tall buildings that block
views in the Village.
● To comply with state housing law, we must make some changes to policy
language - but we have a choice, to do that one of two very different ways.
We can either strengthen policy for a vibrant commercial Village for the
community, or, we can eliminate language and reduce policies that support
our vision and goals for this. I hope we make the right choice.
———
Seeking feedback from the city attorney before Monday - to confirm if these
options comply with state law, and therefore can be considered at the
meeting.
These were suggested by an attorney, to meet state HCD requirements
while protecting community goals for the Village.
28
I believe we all want to support a vibrant Saratoga Village with options for all
ages, as an appealing pedestrian-centered downtown and a hub for our
community. And of course, we absolutely need to comply with state housing law
obligations as well. Fortunately, it does not seem these are in conflict.
I understand there is a tradeoff of risk: proactively writing policy that may not be
exactly what we want, in order to avoid challenges from a developer and/or the
state (which could possibly leave us in a worse position to protect the Village). It
is complex and there are unknowns.
And….
● We should not overcorrect, and “throw the baby out with the bath water” ,
by failing to clearly document and implement our community vision and
goals, as is allowed.
● We CERTAINLY want to have a transparent and clear conversation about
our actual choices, and not advance policy changes by saying they are
required to comply with state law if they are not.
I. The Core Legal Framework To Confirm
State housing law seems to require objective standards only for specific
streamlined housing applications: those qualifying under SB 35 (Gov. Code §
65913.4, extended through 2036 by SB 423), and similar statutes. For all other
building projects (commercial or housing) and for land use and programming
decisions, with our adopted housing element, we retain discretionary authority
with subjective standards allowed (should we choose).
This creates two distinct approval tracks: streamlined housing projects meeting
objective standards receive mandatory ministerial approval, while all other
projects (commercial and non-streamlined residential) can be subject to
discretionary review even when meeting objective standards, with a clear
process and clear standards based upon vision and goals set forth in the Village
Guidelines.
Therefore:
29
1. We can and should maintain all vision language in the Village Design
Guidelines (and General Plan) describing Saratoga Village’s character,
pedestrian orientation, and historic qualities, the vibrant pedestrian hub
with active storefronts that stakeholders and community questionnaire
respondents have overwhelmingly prioritized each time visioning exercises
were completed.
2. We must also adopt clear objective standards in the Zoning Code to be
referenced in the Village Guidelines, in line with state HCD housing law,
specifying that qualifying streamlined housing applications that comply with
these objective standards receive ministerial approval.
3. We can and should apply these objective standards to all Village projects
and decisions as baseline requirements. For projects other than
streamlined housing projects, we can also establish a process where
projects meeting the objective standards receive automatic approval, but
Planning Commission and full City Council may withhold approval, with a
clear process and standards. The process and standards should clarify
that denial is only through a Council vote with clear findings that the
project, despite meeting objective standards, would undermine the Village
vision and goals expressed in the Village Guidelines.
II. Objective Standards Should Protect Our Village
We should establish objective standards which advance, not undermine, our
Village vision. These must all be defined in measurable, specific ways that can
be applied uniformly without interpretation or discretion:
1) Ground floor active commercial use
Continue and strengthen our requirement for ground floor
commercial/retail/restaurant uses to maintain pedestrian vitality.
Our small Village needs all ground floor storefronts possible to support foot traffic
and sales volume for merchants, to ensure their survival and maximum
shopping/dining options for residents and guests. Each additional active
storefront supports sales for the others.
30
We can grandfather in existing tenants/owners granted a CUP for non active
commercial use, and should enforce the requirement as leases and ownership
turn over.
2) View corridor preservation
Preserve “line of sight” to the hills, as our scenic environment is the defining
characteristic of Saratoga Village and our competitive advantage versus
competing downtowns.
Objective standards can include things like: maximum heights at designated view
corridors; step-back formula; height measured from average sidewalk grade;
sight-line analysis from designated public viewpoints to identified ridgelines, etc.
3) Design compatibility
Objective standards defined carefully can include things like: specific materials;
ground floor window transparency; greenery planting standards; facade
articulation; upper story stepbacks; ground floor entries required every x feet of
street frontage; roofline requirements, etc.
III. Zoning Code Changes Needed First
Objective standards in Village Guidelines should reference zoning requirements.
Before adopting objective standards, the City should amend the Zoning Code:
1) Eliminate the CUP exception for non active commercial ground floor
uses
Our Zoning Code currently requires ground floor active commercial use in
CH-1/CH-2 Village zones, but allows discretionary CUP exceptions for non active
use commercial, residential or other uses. This has allowed our small Village to
bleed away the critical mass of storefronts needed for merchant viability and foot
traffic.
31
Also and very importantly - a discretionary CUP approach is problematic and
inconsistent with objective standards.
If desired, we can establish a review process for projects other than streamlined
housing. Projects meeting the objective standards would receive automatic
approval unless Planning Commission and full City Council vote to withhold
approval, with required findings that approval would undermine Village vision and
goals expressed in the Village Design Guidelines. This approach defaults to
approving projects that meet our standards, but preserves discretionary authority
for exceptional cases where the objective standards alone don’t capture Village
needs.
We should grandfather in existing tenants/owners granted a CUP for non active
commercial use, and should enforce the requirement as leases and ownership
turn over.
2) Codify view preservation as a zoning requirement
View corridor preservation should be established in the Zoning Code as a
requirement for all projects in Village zones, protecting the sight lines to the hills
that define Saratoga’s character.
This is not a frivolous aesthetic preference but an essential business decision,
protecting our primary competitive asset to maintain the foot traffic and sales
volumes our small Village needs to survive.
3) Reference these zoning requirements in objective standards in the
Village Guidelines
Once the objective standards are in the Zoning Code (described in Section II) ,
they are codified as measurable, enforceable standards. They can then be
effectively referenced in Village Guidelines. For streamlined housing applications,
compliance triggers ministerial approval.
Also….
32
IV. Blocking Businesses We Want: Parking Requirements
This is not a legal matter for the city attorney - but I believe this is an essential
matter to address while updating the Zoning Code and Village Guidelines.
Our zoning code currently requires a high number of dedicated parking spots, for
an active use commercial business to open in the Village. Some residents are
concerned about allowing any additional storefront to become a cafe or shop, if it
does not have a high requirement of dedicated parking (which most Village
businesses do not). I fully understand, as no one wants to make it harder to park
and patronize a Village businesses.
Nonetheless, I truly believe it is essential to reform our parking requirements,
given the world today (with online shopping etc), and with the current state of our
Village where there just isn’t enough foot traffic or sales volume, for a single
restaurant to offer an affordable lunch option. We need to support any
businesses we can attract that will benefit our community and bring foot traffic, so
their customers can patronize other Village businesses, for more total customers/
sales.
A recent painful example: the small independent bakery Flower Flour gave up
their lease next to Cinnabar because they were not allowed to operate as retail
with a few tables and chairs on their patio outside, due to high parking
requirements to be a retail business. This is not good policy when we’re trying to
attract exactly such a neighborhood business.
Many Village merchants are raising prices just to stay in business due to low
sales (which hurts their sales further 🔄). Many are actively trying to sell (see the
website bizbuysell.com for the listings, although there are few buyers due to low
foot traffic). If an active use business wants to rent a storefront, we need to do all
we can to support them - not stop them because they don’t have their own
dedicated parking.
1. Transportation planning best practice: parking should be ~85% full within a
10-minute walk radius to balance convenience with efficient land use
2. The Village has ample parking capacity within this standard across our free
Village parking districts
33
3. We are adding signage to direct visitors to our newly repaved parking lots,
which will help, as many visitors simply don’t know where they can park.
4. Neighboring cities (Los Gatos, Campbell, others) routinely expect 10
minute walks during peak times
5. With a few more businesses opening up in the Village, yes, on a busy
Friday evening or during Village events, you might need to park a few
minutes away and walk. This is an inconvenience and I do not take this
lightly.
6. But here’s what we’re weighing: that occasional inconvenience versus
losing our Village entirely. Without the businesses that parking
requirements are currently blocking, the bakeries, wine bars, casual lunch
spots - we won’t have a Village worth parking for at all. Our merchants are
struggling now. More empty storefronts won’t make parking more
convenient; they’ll just mean there’s nowhere worth going.
7. If parking becomes truly scarce (we should be so lucky, indicating Village
success), we address it then, potentially with parking structures funded
through community benefit agreements that housing developers may be
obligated or eager to provide as part of meeting our housing requirements.
Policy solution:
Eliminate parking requirements for active use commercial in CH-1/CH-2 zones.
This removes the barrier preventing the businesses we desperately need.
If desired, we can establish a review process where businesses meeting the
objective standards would receive automatic approval , unless Planning
Commission and full City Council withhold approval, with required findings that
the proposed use would undermine Village vision and goals expressed in the
Village Design Guidelines. This approach defaults to approving businesses that
meet our standards, but preserves discretionary authority for exceptional cases
where the objective standards alone don’t capture Village needs.
Again, I understand that some residents may be concerned about new
businesses being permitted to open in our storefronts, without more than a
parking spot or two out front. Respectfully, I note that nothing in life is free of
tradeoffs. Parking a few minutes away for dinner on a Friday night or during an
34
unusually busy afternoon, or needing to be dropped off in front of a restaurant,
using periodic parking lots, is the norm in neighboring cities’ thriving districts. We
cannot let the fear of occasional inconvenience block the businesses that so
many in the community have repeatedly said they want.
Thank you for all!
Jacqui
Jacqueline Holmes
PS. An attorney I consulted believes no project proposed for the Village meets
the requirements to qualify for AB 2011 (the only statute that could impact rules
about commercial active use for ground floor). He also believes the city has a
strong defensible argument against any developer/state challenge for the Village,
given the small scale of our Village and our overall adopted housing element,
with no parcels on Big Basin Way in our RHNA site inventory.
Appendix
Current Parking Requirements
35
(b
36
CITY OF SARATOGA
Desk Item
MEETING DATE: November 17, 2025
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
PREPARED BY: Britt Avrit, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Village Objective Design Standards Study Session
Following publication of the agenda packet for the November 17, 2025, Joint Study Session,
written communications for the Agenda Item were submitted; the communications are attached.
Attachments Provided with the Staff Report:
Attachment A – Draft text for Village Design Standards
Attachment B – Draft zoning text amendments for consistency with new Article
Attachment C – Ad Hoc Committee feedback
Attachment D – Public Correspondence
Attachment Provided with this Desk Item:
Attachment E – Written Communications received through noon November 17, 2025
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
From:Cindy McCormick
To:Britt Avrit
Subject:FW: Saratoga Village 11/17 correspondence
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 11:26:07 AM
From: MARILYN MARCHETTI
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:51 AM
To: Cindy McCormick <cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us>; Craig Awbrey ; Bill
Cooper
Cc: Alexandra Nugent ; Annette Stransky
Subject: Saratoga Village - Proposed CODE CHANGES
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello Cindy, Planning Commission, and Heritage Preservation Commission
cc: City Council
For tonight's meeting please include this statement...
Please be sure that when the code is adjusted that it includes the following:
- NO HOUSING OR BUILDINGS HARMFUL TO THE COMMUNITY AND BUSINESSES
ALLOWED IN THE FIRST/MAIN FLOOR FACING BIG BASIN WAY
- HILL VIEWS ARE NOT BLOCKED FOR NEARBY RESIDENTS AND THE VILLAGE
- 35 FT. HEIGHT LIMIT FACING BIG BASIN WAY IS KEPT IN PLACE PER CURRENT
CODE (Three story limit from Big Basin Way elevation)
Though we need to comply with the state's housing law, we also need to be sure that we
protect the Village for our community when we make changes to our cities policies!
If the codes are changed to allow drastic changes that do not protect the Village, we will
lose the Village completely because residents and visitors will not want to visit the Village
and the businesses will suffer. (People living in housing in the Village will not help
businesses.)
We all understand we need to comply with the state's requirements, but we all want what is
best for one of our cities best treasures, our Village!
47
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn Marchetti
48
From:Matt Morley
To:Britt Avrit
Subject:Fw: Saratoga Village Policy: MONDAY
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 7:50:01 AM
Additional communication for tonight.
From: Jacqueline Holmes
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 6:44 PM
To: Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>; Matt Morley <mmorley@saratoga.ca.us>; Cindy
McCormick <cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us>
Subject: Fwd: Saratoga Village Policy: MONDAY
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I don’t know how many you will hear from, as I’m just sending it Sunday night.
But people do care.
WE CAN SUPPORT OUR VILLAGE
OR CHOOSE TO REDUCE IT
The city has drafted Zoning Code and Village Guidelines that fail to protect our
Village, needlessly opening it up to housing on the ground floor of Big Basin Way,
which will take the place of the shops, cafes, restaurants and other active gathering
spots we want.
We need your voice, so please speak up, by attending the meeting Monday,
and submitting an online comment now!!
We are committed to build housing throughout Saratoga, and we should - just not in
place of storefronts, on the ground floor of our small Village. Shouldn’t that be
obvious? It is standard best practice in urban planning to require commercial foot
traffic businesses on the ground floor of a pedestrian oriented downtown (“active
use”).
To protect storefronts for active use, we also need reasonable reform to parking
requirements for ground floor businesses on Big Basin Way. We can reform parking
requirements in careful and reasonable ways, and IF we should get too many active
businesses opening in our storefronts, generating too many customers - we can
always make the parking requirements more stringent at any time using language
that complies with state law. (And celebrate!!)
Attend Please:
Monday November 17th, 6:00 PM
13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, CA
49
Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88482254658
Webinar ID 884 8225 4658
Submit a Comment:
https://saratogaca.form.transform.civicplus.com/50019
(See our two specific asks below)
—-
WE ASK CITY COUNCIL TO:
1. URGENTLY AND SPECIFICALLY direct city staff to strengthen zoning
code, to ensure commercial ground floor active use is mandated as an effective
Objective Standard, for zones CH-1 and CH-2 in 15-19.050, and also for zones MU-
MD. Consider some % commercial ground floor active use requirement also for
zones P-A and R-M. Objective Standard means removing the language offering
CUP for non conforming use in 15-19.050, and ensuring language is explicit. This
action is required now before we submit our zoning code to the state, or active
storefronts cannot be protected when we receive applications of housing developers
even for the ground floor of Big Basin Way.
2. URGENTLY AND SPECIFICALLY direct city staff to reform parking
requirements to allow cafes and other active businesses in ground floor storefronts,
changing CH district parking requirements to an objective standard, without
discretionary CUP, so: dedicated parking spaces for restaurants/bars/wine tasting
are only required if their seating capacity (not standing capacity) is greater than 65
seats, and then should be required at a rate of 1 parking space for every 25 seats
above 65 seats, and dedicated parking spaces for retail shops are only required if
their square footage is greater than 2500 sq ft, and then should be required at a rate
of 1 parking space for every 250 sq ft above 2500 sq ft. Parking requirements
should be considered met and be ministerially approved if a business in the CH
district secures a parking agreement with the dedicated parking of another property
owner, as described in current code.
These parking reforms will allow active businesses to fill out ground floor storefronts
- and IF we should have a rush of businesses renting our storefronts, generating a
rush of customers, we can always adjust the parking requirements at any time, as
long as they are written as objective standards to be enforceable under state law.
We are fortunate to have our shared Village parking lots now updated in such good
condition, with wayfinding signs on their way to direct visitors to parking. Many long
term residents who previously did not want to reduce parking requirements , now
see this as a wise path forward, given current needs of the Village and new state
law.
—-
More info …
50
Our Proposed Framework
1. We can and should maintain all vision language in the Village Design
Guidelines (and General Plan) describing Saratoga Village’s character,
pedestrian orientation, and historic qualities, for the vibrant pedestrian hub
with active storefronts , which the community has overwhelmingly prioritized
each time visioning and surveys were completed.
2. We must adopt clear objective standards in the Zoning Code to be
referenced in the Village Guidelines, in line with state HCD housing law,
specifying that qualifying streamlined housing applications that comply with
these objective standards receive ministerial approval. This is the only way
our community priorities can be enforceable. If our zoning code sets forth
objective standards that are explicit, specific and measurable, they are
enforceable. These objective standards must support our community goals
for the Village, promoting active storefronts, line of sight to the hills, and
design compatibility.
3. We can and should apply these objective standards to all Village projects
and decisions, as baseline requirements. For projects other than qualified
streamlined housing applications (which are required to be ministerially
approved on that basis alone), we can also choose to establish a “two-track”
process, where projects meeting the objective standards receive default
approval but Planning Commission and full City Council may withhold
approval via a specified process, with a Council vote affirming that the project,
despite meeting objective standards, would undermine the Village vision and
goals expressed in the Village Guidelines.
City memo and drafts are here:
https://www.saratoga.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_11172025-1385
—-
Background:
Due to new state housing law, Saratoga must update our current zoning code
language and submit it to the state. Any requirements, we must set as “Objective
Standards”. The city is updating other policies to keep them enforceable - but is
leaving policies for active storefronts “as-is”, which means they become completely
unenforceable.
Our clause inviting discretionary CUP waivers in the zoning code, makes our current
code not objective standards.
If we do not act now to update this, loss of storefronts will accelerate, because we
will not be able to deny a housing application, even for the ground floor with
entrance on Big Basin Way, unless our zoning code has objective standards
requiring active use.
51
We cannot afford to lose any more storefronts on the ground floor with an entrance
on Big Basin Way - we need them for our Village to survive and thrive, with enough
foot traffic and sales to support more businesses we want, like affordable lunch
spots.
(A major reason our Village is struggling, is that bit by bit, storefront by storefront,
the city has given a waiver/CUP for too many non active businesses, like
professional offices, to locate on the ground floor on Big Basin Way. These may be
wonderful neighbors - but by giving up so many storefronts, the cumulative impact in
our physically small Village is that foot traffic and sales have fallen below “critical
mass”. This zoning code change of creating objective standards/eliminating waivers,
which is needed for state law, will also be a benefit as it will keep ground floor
storefronts facing Big Basin Way for active use like cafes, shops and restaurants.
This will be from now on with new leases, and not affect existing office tenants.)
To protect storefronts for active use, we also need reasonable reform to parking
requirements for ground floor businesses on Big Basin Way, removing dusctetionary
CUP decisions. This is both necessary for state law if we want policies about active
use and parking to be enforceable, and it can be a good thing if done carefully. Right
now a storefront of 1500 sq ft needs 20 dedicated parking spots, ie a dedicated
parking lot, to open as a cafe or bakery. This is why Flower Flour bakery formerly
next to Cinnabar had to give up their lease, with their two tables on the patio outside
and two tables inside. We can reform parking requirements in reasonable ways, to
allow active businesses to fill out ground floor storefronts - and IF we should get a
rush of small businesses renting our storefronts, generating a rush of customers, we
can always adjust the parking requirements at any time, as long as we write them as
objective standards. And we can celebrate our new neighbors and options!
To support the city, we as residents have consulted an attorney for a clear
framework, for how to do this while complying with state housing laws (see link to
full document below).
If we don’t take action on this policy now, we will not have a Village to support.
Full details here :
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14lwVqn3wYvuAyLewElbjvWuVl3LddjP7_9IWJ5wUD_k/edit?
usp=drivesdk
52
From:Cindy McCormick
To:Jacqueline Holmes; Britt Avrit
Cc:Bryan Swanson
Subject:RE: Comments for packet
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 8:53:07 AM
Attachments:Vill.pdf
Jacqui
All public comments need to go to the City Clerk for processing. Britt is copied here
for your convenience.
Thank you for including me.
Cindy
From: Jacqueline Holmes
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 8:37 AM
To: Cindy McCormick <cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>
Subject: Comments for packet
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Cindy,
Here are comments for the packet.
These can REPLACE my prior comment, if it’s not too late….
Otherwise please include these also, as this represents the work of several residents
other than myself.
Thank you - and I am truly sorry re last minute!!!
J
Jacqueline Holmes
53
WE ASK CITY COUNCIL TO:
1. URGENTLY AND SPECIFICALLY direct city staff to strengthen zoning code, to ensure
commercial ground floor active use is mandated as an effective Objective Standard, for zones
CH-1 and CH-2 in 15-19.050, and also for zones MU-MD. Consider some % commercial ground
floor active use requirement also for zones P-A and R-M. Objective Standard means removing
the language offering CUP for non conforming use in 15-19.050, and ensuring language is
explicit. This action is required now before we submit our zoning code to the state, or active
storefronts cannot be protected when we receive applications of housing developers even for
the ground floor of Big Basin Way.
2. URGENTLY AND SPECIFICALLY direct city staff to reform parking requirements to
allow cafes and other active businesses in ground floor storefronts, changing CH district parking
requirements to an objective standard, without discretionary CUP, so: dedicated parking spaces
for restaurants/bars/wine tasting are only required if their seating capacity (not standing
capacity) is greater than 65 seats, and then should be required at a rate of 1 parking space for
every 25 seats above 65 seats, and dedicated parking spaces for retail shops are only required
if their square footage is greater than 2500 sq ft, and then should be required at a rate of 1
parking space for every 250 sq ft above 2500 sq ft. Parking requirements should be considered
met and be ministerially approved if a business in the CH district secures a parking agreement
with the dedicated parking of another property owner, as described in current code.
These parking reforms will allow active businesses to fill out ground floor storefronts - and IF we
should have a rush of businesses renting our storefronts, generating a rush of customers, we
can always adjust the parking requirements at any time, as long as they are written as objective
standards to be enforceable under state law. We are fortunate to have our shared Village
parking lots now updated in such good condition, with wayfinding signs on their way to direct
visitors to parking. Many long term residents who previously did not want to reduce parking
requirements , now see this as a wise path forward, given current needs of the Village and new
state law.
—-
Our Proposed Framework
1. We can and should maintain all vision language in the Village Design Guidelines (and
General Plan) describing Saratoga Village’s character, pedestrian orientation, and
historic qualities, for the vibrant pedestrian hub with active storefronts , which the
community has overwhelmingly prioritized each time visioning and surveys were
completed.
2. We must adopt clear objective standards in the Zoning Code to be referenced in the
Village Guidelines, in line with state HCD housing law, specifying that qualifying
54
streamlined housing applications that comply with these objective standards receive
ministerial approval. This is the only way our community priorities can be enforceable. If
our zoning code sets forth objective standards that are explicit, specific and measurable,
they are enforceable. These objective standards must support our community goals for
the Village, promoting active storefronts, line of sight to the hills, and design
compatibility.
3. We can and should apply these objective standards to all Village projects and
decisions, as baseline requirements. For projects other than qualified streamlined
housing applications (which are required to be ministerially approved on that basis
alone), we can also choose to establish a “two-track” process, where projects meeting
the objective standards receive default approval but Planning Commission and full City
Council may withhold approval via a specified process, with a Council vote affirming that
the project, despite meeting objective standards, would undermine the Village vision and
goals expressed in the Village Guidelines.
—-
Key Points:
1. Residents want Saratoga Village as a vibrant commercial and community hub. We want
proactive efforts from the city for this. Recent activism and surveys show this.
2. We want active storefronts on the ground floor on Big Basin Way, cafes/ shops/
restaurants/ etc, and we want to maintain our inspiring environment to best serve our
community and to compete with neighboring city downtowns.
3. Our Village is already suffering, below the critical mass of foot traffic and sales needed to
support the businesses we want. This is because the city had the right policy previously
for active use, but wrote in an invitation for waivers (CUP), and gave too many of these
waivers, which has allowed too many storefronts to become quiet offices. Cumulatively
this has hurt our foot traffic. This is a concern, even though we value and appreciate
these businesses as neighbors, who are obviously not individually responsible for this
overall dynamic which we as a city allowed, bit by bit, storefront by storefront.
4. However, loss of storefronts will now accelerate. Due to state law , we will no longer be
able to enforce our policy at all, without action now, as we prepare to submit our zoning
code to the state.
5. State housing law requires “objective standards” : we can adopt objective standards
which strengthen our Village goals. Instead, the city’s drafted proposal fails to codify our
policies for ground floor active use into objective standards. This renders our policies
unenforceable. Our clause inviting discretionary CUP waivers in the zoning code for Big
Basin Way, makes our current code not objective standards.
6. Neighboring cities are maintaining best practice zoning requirements that support their
needs for ground floor commercial active use, translating them into objective standards,
and we should do the same.
7. We are not blocking housing. Saratoga should honor its adopted housing element plan
with the locations we committed to, none of which are on Big Basin Way. BBW is a
fraction of Saratoga’s land and our only pedestrian downtown. We can build housing in
55
Saratoga, including within a ½ mile, a mile, 2 miles from the Village - even on upper
floors in the Village.
8. That does not preclude Saratoga from common best practice zoning code policies, to
support a small commercial downtown, which the community desires. Best practice for
Saratoga Village is requiring active storefronts, and also, maintaining some height limits
to protect views and light.
9. To protect storefronts for active use, we also need reasonable reform to parking
requirements for ground floor businesses on Big Basin Way. This is both necessary for
state law if we want policies about active use and parking to be enforceable, and it can
be a good thing if done carefully.
10. Right now a storefront of 1500 sq ft needs 20 dedicated parking spots, ie a dedicated
parking lot, to open as a cafe or bakery. This is why Flower Flour bakery formerly next to
Cinnabar had to give up their lease, with their two tables on the patio outside and two
tables inside. We can reform parking requirements in reasonable ways, to allow active
businesses to fill out ground floor storefronts - and IF we should get a rush of small
businesses renting our storefronts, generating a rush of customers, we can always
adjust the parking requirements at any time, as long as we write them as objective
standards. (And we can celebrate our new neighbors and options!)
11. We see the city is failing to protect our active use requirements with their drafted
updates. Therefore, we are concerned the drafts may not be protecting our “line of sight”
goals either. We must preserve line of sight to the hills, as our scenic environment is the
defining characteristic of Saratoga Village and our competitive advantage versus
competing downtowns. This is not a frivolous aesthetic preference but an essential
business decision, protecting our primary competitive asset to maintain the foot traffic
and sales volumes our small Village needs to survive.
12. We are not sure why the staff memo asking questions of city Council and staff, mentions
“3rd floor and above” and 4th floor, when we understand 3 stories has been our limit,
and therefore should be effectively codified into objective standards. We need
clarification.
13. We must craft our height and setback requirements carefully as objective standards, to
actually meet our goals. These must be crafted with technical knowledge, as poorly
written standards will be unenforceable, given state law.
14. No one wants state challenges of our adopted housing element. But this is not a credible
risk, with zoning policies that are objective standards, based on these recommendations
of standard best practices zoning code to protect the community interest in a viable
downtown commercial core.
Legal Defensibility
1. HCD Statutes & Guidance
Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires jurisdictions to analyze “potential and actual
governmental constraints” on housing development. HCD guidance directs that “a determination
56
should be made for each potential constraint as to whether it poses as an actual constraint.”
Housing Element Law requires evaluation of “whether development standards impede the ability
to achieve maximum allowable densities.”
Ground-floor commercial storefronts in the Village, representing a fraction of a percent of city
land, with zero RHNA sites on Big Basin Way, do not constrain Saratoga’s ability to meet
housing obligations. This is the context-specific analysis Housing Element Law requires.
Additionally, state housing law explicitly contemplates and permits the requirements we are
seeking. HCD’s own guidance lists ‘residential allowed only above first floor commercial’ as an
acceptable zoning approach for mixed-use zones.
“Options to adjust for the realistic development capacity of nonresidential, nonvacant, or
overlay zoned sites may include:
• Performance standards mandating a specified portion of residential
development in mixed use or nonresidential zones (e.g., residential allowed only
above first floor commercial).”
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/buildin
g-blocks/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning
2. AB 2011 Application
AB 2011 (Government Code Section 65913.4) is the only statute identified that can impact
ground floor commercial requirements. However, we do not believe any site in the Village can
meet the AB 2011 requirements, as the Village roadway does not align with all requirements as
a qualifying commercial corridor.
IF the city were to specifically confirm that a site in the Village could qualify for AB 2011, then,
our zoning and Village Guidelines should explicitly add that qualifying AB 2011 projects receive
ministerial approval under AB 2011 objective standards requiring 50% ground floor retail as the
floor requirement, which is specifically allowed per the AB 2011 statute.
No other California housing statute addresses ground-floor commercial requirements, and none
prohibits cities from maintaining commercial zoning in limited downtown districts that are not
relied upon for RHNA compliance.
Why This Framework Is Sound
● It applies objective, measurable standards
● It affects a tiny geographic area
● It doesn’t prevent the city from meeting housing obligations
● It follows the same approach as neighboring cities
● It provides a ministerial path for qualifying housing projects
57
California housing law (SB 35, SB 423 etc) requires objective standards for qualifying
streamlined housing projects, but does not prohibit cities from maintaining commercial zoning
requirements in limited geographic areas, especially in established downtown commercial
districts.
Is This Legal? Yes.
● Limited scope — The Village is a tiny fraction of Saratoga’s land area. Courts
consistently uphold commercial preservation in small, defined districts.
● Objective standards codified in zoning can include use requirements — these can be
written binary and measurable, not subject to interpretation. Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(5)
defines objective standards as those involving “no personal or subjective judgment.”
● No city has been successfully challenged on this standard best practice.
● This doesn’t constrain housing production — upper floors remain available for housing in
the Village, and many other locations in Saratoga. The Housing Element identifies zero
RHNA sites on Big Basin Way.
Is This Risky? No.
If the city claims that maintaining Village protections creates legal risk from state challenges or
developer lawsuits - that risk assessment is incorrect.
No California city has been challenged, never mind lost a case, for maintaining objective
standards that support common best practice zoning policies for small pedestrian downtowns,
including ground-floor active commercial use, view corridor preservation, and design
compatibility standards. The litigation that exists involves the opposite situation: cities being
sued by the state for blocking housing development by prohibiting ground-floor residential
throughout entire commercial zones.
The real risk runs in the opposite direction: weakening protections unnecessarily. Once
ground-floor storefronts convert to other uses, they cannot be recovered. The Village’s viability
as a commercial district—and its economic benefit to the entire community—will be permanently
undermined.
We are not asking the city to take legal risks. We are asking the city to follow the same
approach as neighboring cities, supported by clear statutory analysis, with low legal risk and
high community benefit.
58
Village Design Standards
City of Saratoga
Joint HPC / Planning Commission /
City Council Study Session
November 17, 2025, 6pm
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA
59
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 2
Agenda
1.Staff Introduction and Meeting Structure
2.Project Overview
3.Community Outreach and Input
4.Overview of the Recommended Code Amendments
5.Discussion
60
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 3
LWC’s Housing Element Implementation efforts for the City of Saratoga:
Background
•ODS for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development and Related Zoning Amendments
o Initiated Fall 2022
o Public Study Session Spring 2023
o Adopted Spring 2024
•ODS for Single-Family Residential and Related Zoning Amendments
o Initiated Summer 2024
o Public Study Session Fall 2024
o Adopted January 2025
•Village Design Standards and Related Zoning Amendments
o Initiated January 2025
o Public Study Session June 2025
o Public Study Session November 2025
61
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 4
Project Objectives
•Implement HE Program 3.3-3: Preserve the Historic Character of Saratoga Village:
Review and update the Village Design Guidelines for compliance with SB 35.
o Translate Chapters 1–6 of the 2019 Village Design Guidelines into objective design standards
o Ensure that the standards support the required ministerial pathway for residential projects (SB330, SB35)
o Integrate standards into the City’s Zoning Ordinance (new Article 15-62)
•Project will not:
o Modify allowed land uses (permitted, CUP, etc.)
o Modify existing development standards (height,
density, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.)
o Modify parking ratios
o Address the design of the public right-of-way
o Designate the Village as a Historic District
•Project aims to:
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
62
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 5
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
Where are the recommended Code amendments?
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
63
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 6
Project Process and Schedule
64
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 7
Saratoga Village
•Saratoga Los Gatos Road /
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road /
Big Basin Way
o 161 parcels
o 36 developable acres
o 45 acres
•Heart of the City since its
establishment circa 1850
•Village Design Guidelines
adopted in 1992, updated in 2019
65
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 8
Saratoga Village
•Zoning districts:
o Commercial Historic 1 and 2
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
66
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 9
Existing Built Form
67
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 10
Village Design Guidelines
68
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 11
Village Design Guidelines
Standards to be
addressed in the
Design Standards
69
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 12
Village Design Guidelines
8 design
guidelines for
materials and
colors
70
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 13
Community Outreach
and Input
71
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 14
March 2025; 12 interviews, 13 individuals
General consensus:
•Design should reflect Village’s historic
character
•Create sense of place with activity, energy,
and foot traffic
•(FYI Only) Ground floor storefronts should
include retail and restaurants with active
street frontage and outdoor spaces
•(FYI Only) Allow dining parklets, even at the
expense of on-street parking spaces
Stakeholder Interviews
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?
Mixed input:
•Building height: Max 2 stories
•Styles: Western Victorian, Modern, Contemporary
72
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 15
General consensus:
•74% - roof- and building-mounted
equipment must be screened from public
view
•70% - all building elevations should match
the quality of the front façade, with
consistent use of materials, trim, and
windows
•58% - storefronts with horizontally-oriented
display windows, a defined building base,
and visual separation between floors
•63% - only natural materials for facades
(stucco, wood, or brick)
Online Questionnaire
Mixed input:
•Requiring awnings to add
character and provide shade?
47% yes / 18% no / 33% neutral
•Modern and contemporary styles
of architecture in the Village?
45% yes /41% no
•Transitions in height between
high and low-rise buildings? 51%
supported
April-May 2025; 13 questions; 241 responses
73
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 16
Community Workshop
May 15, 2025; 14 attendees
Strong support:
•Awnings and sidewalk
seating
Some support:
•Full-height windows,
recessed storefront
design, arcades, and
planters/landscaping
Little support:
•Terraces, forecourts
74
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 17
Community Workshop
May 15, 2025; 14 attendees
Strong support:
•Styles: Western Victorian and Craftsman styles
•Building materials: Wood, stucco, brick, and stone
Some support:
•Styles: Italianate and Modern
•Building materials: Tile
Little support:
•Styles: Contemporary
•Building materials: steel and glass
75
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 18
Community Workshop
May 15, 2025; 14 attendees
Strong support:
•Upper story step-backs
•Façade depth
•Height articulation
Some support:
•Building with vertical breaks
separating the volume into
smaller volumes
Limited support:
•Building with mansard roof
76
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 19
Ad Hoc Committee Input
Building Colors
•Use LRV and HSV as quantitative measures of
allowed color palette
•Ensure “historic palette” is used
•Prohibit specific HEX codes
“360-Degree” Design
•Require same design on all sides of building
Signs
•Apply same design standards to signs in the
front and the rear
•Regulate sign colors and awning style
Views/Step-backs
•Require step-back for anything over two stories,
with average step-back equal to increased height
above two stories
o Exceptions may be made by HPC through a
discretionary process if the height is needed
to accommodate an architectural style that is
already present in the Village.
Design Details
•Remove modern-looking palette “B”
•Remove modern looking tile from palette
•Be more specific in call-outs on palette drawings
77
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 20
Overview of
Recommended Village
Design Standards
78
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 21
15-62 Village Design Standards
Purpose
•Reflect small-town identity
•Shopping and restaurant district
•Community and civic activity
•Objective design criteria for
new development to
complement existing
•Streamline permitting (State
Law and Housing Element
consistency)
79
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 22
Building Massing Standards
Upper story step-backs, CH-1, CH-2, and P-A:
•Street-facing elevations: 3rd story and above
stepped-back min. 6 ft or located within a sloped
roof form
Interior side elevations in CH-1 abutting an R-1,
excluding Creek-adjacent parcels:
•3rd story and above stepped-back a min. of 6 ft or
located within a sloped roof form
15-62 Village Design Standards
80
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 23
Building Articulation: CH-1 and CH-2 districts
•Street-facing facades articulated into
storefront bays at max. 50 ft, depth
change min. 24 in.
•Buildings >100 ft in width facing Big
Basin Way and abutting a parking
district to the rear must provide a
continuous at-grade paseo between
sidewalk and parking district
15-62 Village Design Standards
81
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 24
Building Design Standards
•“360-degree design” required
•Max. 2 roof forms or pitches visible from right-
of-way
•False facades allowed only in the restoration
of Historic Resource Inventory properties, and
must include a cornice 18” deep with
decorative dentils or brackets
•Terra cotta only when:
o Stucco as primary building cladding material
o Slope roof 5:12 or less
o Recessed windows
15-62 Village Design Standards
82
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 25
Architectural details
palette A
•Continuous parapet and cornice
•Regularly spaced windows
•Belt course above the ground floor
•Building base at least eighteen
inches from grade.
83
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 26
•Flat roof
•Overhang at least eighteen inches
in depth
•Full-height windows
•Wood or stone details
Architectural details
palette B
84
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 27
•Terra cotta roof tiles
•Pitched roof
•Exposed rafter or bracket details
•Wood or wrought iron trim
•Windows recessed at least two
inches and stucco cladding
Architectural details
palette C
85
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 28
•Roof shingles or shakes
•Regularly spaced windows with
sills and lintels
•Horizontal or board and batten
siding
Architectural details
palette D
86
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 29
Frontage design
15-62 Village Design Standards
•CH-1, CH-2 street-facing elevations must incorporate awning,
overhang or recessed ground floor, or forecourt
•CH-1, CH-2, P-A, MU-HD frontages must incorporate plant-
bearing pergola or trellis, or landscaping along at least 50% of
building or frontage
•Blank walls max. 12 ft
•All R-1 elevations must incorporate vertical projection or recess
min. 24 inches, chimney articulated along exterior wall, window
with grille/Juliet balcony, or bay window
•Downspouts painted in the same color as the building surface
87
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 30
Entry Design
15-62 Village Design Standards
Stoop
Porch Dooryard
Terrace Shopfront
•As established in citywide design standards for multi-
family and mixed-use entrances apply except:
o Storefront entrances:
•Min. clear height 7 ft under an awning
•Max. 30 ft storefront bay width
o Rear entrances facing parking districts:
•Min. 7 ft clear height under an awning
•Min. 30 inches combined recess/awning projection depth
•Min. 4 ft horizontal clearance between edge of the
building, awning, or seating area and areas for vehicular
movement
•Plant-bearing pergola or trellis, planted areas, or planter
boxes along min. 30% of the rear building base
88
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 31
Ground floor non-residential transparency; Window design
15-62 Village Design Standards
•Min 60% transparency between 2 and 10 feet
•Non-residential ground floor street-facing windows:
o Sill height be max. of 30 inches from finished floor
o Vertically oriented
o Clear glazing
•Windows height-to-width ratio at least 1.5:1, or must include
muntins or grids with a min. height-to-width ratio of 1:1
•Where primary building material is horizontal siding or board &
batten, windows must have muntins, trim, header/lintel, sill
•Shutters same size as windows
89
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 32
Awning and canopy design
•Materials
o Durable, commercial grade fabric or canvas
o Matte finish
o May be fixed or retractable
•Valance max. 9 inches
15-62 Village Design Standards
90
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 33
Building materials and colors
•As established in citywide design standards for multi-family
and mixed-use except:
o Galvanized or stainless metal is prohibited
o Unpainted concrete blocks or concrete masonry units are prohibited
•Required for primary and secondary buildings:
o HSV (Hue, Saturation, Value) of ≤70% and LRV (Light Reflectance
Value) between 35 and 80
o Color saturation may exceed 70% or LRV value may be outside the
designated range for accent materials applied to less than 10% of
building surface, awnings, and fixtures
15-62 Village Design Standards
Colors allowed by
standards
Colors prohibited by
standards
91
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 34
Design of setback areas
•Must be improved to visually distinguish from public right-of-way, emphasize the building entrance and
pedestrian approach, and frame building transparency: outdoor surfacing, distinct from adjacent sidewalk,
low walls and fencing a min. of 30 inches in height, landscaping, planter boxes, and climbing vines
15-62 Village Design Standards
•Where setback exceeds 10’,
outdoor seating/dining required
•No parking in street-facing setback
in the CH-1, CH-2, or MU-HD
•All areas between interior property
line and ground floor must be
usable space or landscaped
92
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 35
Publicly-accessible open spaces
•ADA accessible; visible from a public street, parking district,
or other on-site public areas; accessible during business
hours
•Max. 5% slope
•Visually distinguishable from areas for vehicular traffic
(landscaping, flagstone, wood planning, textured pavement,
pavers, concrete, or other dust-free surfacing)
•Public art feature
•For buildings up to 60 ft wide, the portion of the building
located behind the front setback line may exceed 20% only if
that portion complies with the above.
15-62 Village Design Standards
93
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 36
Courtyards open to and facing a right-of-way
•Min. 15 ft wide, 12 ft deep
•Enclosed on at least 2 sides by
building walls (one wall may be an
abutting adjacent building)
•Level with sidewalk and may not
slope down away from right-of-way
•Include seating (built-in or
moveable)
15-62 Village Design Standards
94
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 37
Screening
•All outdoor refuse areas must be enclosed by solid wall or
fence and solid gates that screen from view from right-of-
way, parking district, and rear lot line of properties that face
Oak Street
o Materials same as used for primary structure, or wood
o Floor of enclosures must drain
•All building-mounted, ground-mounted, or roof-mounted
equipment screened by planting or screen walls
o Materials consistent with the rest of the project
o Maintained by owner or occupant
15-62 Village Design Standards
95
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 38
Overview of
Supporting Amendments
96
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 39
Supporting Amendments
15-06 – Definitions
•Awning Valance: a decorative part of an awning that hangs down from the bottom edge of the
awning frame or structure.
•Belt Course: a continuous, horizontal band set in a building wall for visual emphasis or structural
support. Belt courses typically project from a building face and visually separates different floors or
building materials. Also known as a ”string course.
•Storefront Bay: A section of commercial building’s ground-floor façade that is visually defined by
the building’s structural elements and improved with shopfront windows, signage, or other
pedestrian-oriented elements.
15-12 – Single-Family Residential Districts
•15-12.108(b): All buildings located in the R-1 zone within the Saratoga Village boundary must
comply with the standards of Article 15-62, Village Design Standards
97
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 40
•Added standard to protect visibility/integrity of Village storefront
design – Sign may not cover architectural elements that define
storefront bay.
•Update standards for Projecting Sign – Reduced allowed area for
Projecting signs under awning; Added standards for materials and
colors
•Added section for Awning Sign and related standards – Copy,
area, and number
•Freestanding Sign – Added standards for materials and colors
•Added section for Roof Sign – Not permitted above eave lines
Supporting Amendments
15-30.070 – Village Sign District
98
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 41
Supporting Amendments
15-46 – Design Review: Multi-Family Dwellings and Commercial Structures
•15-46.040(c): For any development located within the boundaries of the Saratoga Village, the Planning Commission
shall grant design review approval if it finds that the building meets the objective design standards of this Code
including, without limitation, those identified in Article 15-62.
15-65 – Non-Conforming Uses and Structures
•15-65.020(d)(3): A structure that received design review approval prior to (Adoption Date) is not considered non-
confirming structure based on non-compliance with Article 15-62, Village Design Standards.
15-58 – Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Design and Development Standards
•Removed building placement and upper-story step-back standards for the CH-1 and CH-2 districts.
•Applicable standards are now in new Article 15-62
99
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 42
Discussion
•Signs
o Should Village Sign District be limited to “lots with permitted nonresidential uses on Big Basin Way”
o Projecting Signs and Freestanding Signs - Materials, colors?
o Freestanding signs - New multi-tenant pole signs?
o Monument signs - Allow for properties with four or fewer uses? Set an upper limit? Location?
•Upper-story step-backs. Additional step-back for 3rd story? Or, just for projects with four
+ stories, per state law? Location specific? Based on amount of increased height?
•Building articulation and detail palette figures. Anything to add or remove? How
prescriptive should the Ordinance be? Should contemporary/modern style be prohibited?
•Paseos. Develop more specific standards for paseos?
•Prohibited colors. Proposed standards, relationship to HEX codes.
100
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 43
Thank you!
101
City of Saratoga, Village Design Standards11/17/2025 | 44
Local Heritage
Resource Inventory
Local Heritage
Resource Inventory
and Designated
Historic Landmark
2 properties on National
Register of Historic Places
(Village Library and Foothill
Club)
0 properties on California
Register of Historic Places
0 Mills Act Properties
Historic Resources
Nat’l Reg.
102
CITY OF SARATOGA
Post Meeting Supplemental Report
MEETING DATE: November 17, 2025
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
PREPARED BY: Britt Avrit, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Village Objective Design Standards Study Session
Following publication of the agenda packet for the November 17, 2025, Joint Study Session,
written communications for the Agenda Item were submitted; the communications are attached.
Attachments Provided with the Staff Report:
Attachment A – Draft text for Village Design Standards
Attachment B – Draft zoning text amendments for consistency with new Article
Attachment C – Ad Hoc Committee feedback
Attachment D – Public Correspondence
Attachment Provided with this Desk Item:
Attachment E – Written Communications received through noon November 17, 2025
Attachment Provided with this Post Meeting Supplemental Report:
Attachment F – Written Communications received through comment period
103
From:Jojo Choi
To:Britt Avrit; Bryan Swanson; Cindy McCormick
Cc:Belal Aftab; Chuck Page; Kookie Fitzsimmons; Tina Walia; Yan Zhao; Anjali Kausar; Ping Li; Clinton Brownley; Paul Germaraad; Herman Zheng
Subject:[Saratoga Joint Meeting - 2025-11-17] Village Objective Design Standards Study Session
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 2:24:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from
unknown senders.
Dear City Council, Planning Commission, and Heritage Preservation Commission,
I am writing to express my concerns about the Village Objective Design Standards Study Session. While the study session addresses the aesthetics
of the village, it fails to consider the larger conversation regarding:
Review Process Clarity: Which applications/projects will go through which review process, and what are the associated public notice
requirements (i.e., ministerial review appealable to the Community Development Director, ministerial review appealable to the Planning
Commission, or Subjective Design Review by the Planning Commission)?
Implementation Integrity: Whether the intent of the 2019 Village Design Guidelines has been properly translated into the proposed
objective design review standards in the city ordinance.
These two larger contextual questions should be considered in this iteration of the ordinance updates.
Review Process Concerns
As proposed, it is unclear which types of applications/projects are required to undergo ministerial review versus those that are not required by state
statute to go through ministerial review. We need more information on:
What is state-mandated
What we have proposed in our housing element beyond the state statutory requirements
What local control we have voluntarily relinquished without gaining any real benefit
Only after this information is made transparent can the community have a meaningful conversation about our priorities and the public processes
we want to preserve.
Translation of 2019 Village Guidelines
A more formal review is needed to assess how the 2019 Village Guidelines have been translated into city ordinances. In the chart below, I examine
the example provided by Saratoga resident and Saratoga Vitality leader Jacqueline Holmes, showing how Village Guideline 4.1 has not been
properly translated or implemented into the proposed city ordinance update.
Guideline 4.1 states: "The City strongly encourages the predominant use of ground floor commercial space fronting Big Basin Way in the CH-1
zone for retail and restaurant uses."
However, the proposed Article 15-61 - Village Design Standards is silent on ground-floor use requirements for projects undergoing ministerial
review. It's not clear how the objective standards prevent residential or non-retail uses on the ground floor for those projects.
This creates a structural vulnerability: Under ministerial review, a project would not be required to include ground-floor retail along Big Basin
Way. This risks precisely the outcome our community has repeatedly voiced opposition to. We don't want the loss of retail activation and erosion
of our historic village character.
We have already seen this trend (e.g., the closure of Blue Rock Shoot). Allowing ministerial projects to eliminate retail frontage will accelerate a
permanent loss of village vitality.
Please reference the chart below for more detailed language and information.
Recommendation
I respectfully request that the City Council expand the scope of review for the Planning Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission, and staff
when examining the draft ordinance. This expanded scope should include these broader contextual questions that will significantly affect the shape
and character of our historic village.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jojo Choi
Former Planning Commissioner, Chair
2019 Village Design Guideline Current City Ordinance
Proposed Action RationaleNumberGuidelineOrdinance No.Title Ordinance
104
4.1
The City strongly
encourages the
predominant use of
ground floor
commercial space
fronting Big Basing
Way in the CH-1
zone for retail and
restraurant uses
15-19.050 (a)C-H district regulations.
- Permitted Uses
(a) Permitted uses. In addition to the
permitted uses listed in Section 15-
19.020(a) of this Article, the following
permitted uses shall also be allowed in
the CH-1 and CH-2 districts:
(1) Professional, administrative and
medical offices and financial
institutions, when located either above
the street level or at the street level if
separated from the street frontage by a
retail establishment; and
(2) Personal service businesses that
are above street level, and personal
service businesses that are at street
level but do not have primary access
from Big Basin Way or across the front
lot line; and
(3) Tasting rooms, not exceeding four
thousand square feet in area, which
provide direct customer service on site
between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and
11:00 P M.
(4) 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.
(5) Group homes, Class 1 and Class 2:
Remove Section 15-
19 050 (b) of the city
ordinance and move
the acceptable
conditional uses to
Section 15-19 050 (a).
For example, if theater
are a desired use, the
include theaters as a
permitted use under the
ordinance.
Also, consider refining
the language used to
better protect first story
retail.
In the Proposed Article
15-62 Village Design
Standards, the article is
silent on whether CH-1
and CH-2 require first
floor strorefronts. Put in
the appropriate
sections to protect
ground floor
commercial space
fronting Big Basin Way.
In order for the city
to protect store
fronts in the village,
then the city must
remove the
conditional use
permit process from
the city ordinance.
15-19.050 (b)C-H district regulations.
- Conditional Uses
(b) Conditional uses. In addition to the
conditional uses listed in Section 15-
19.020(b) of this Article, the following
conditional uses may also be allowed
in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon
the granting of a use permit pursuant to
Article 15-55 of this Chapter:
(1) Professional, administrative and
medical offices and financial
institutions, when located at street level
and having street frontage.
(2) Theaters.
(3) Religious and charitable institutions.
(4) Mixed-use development with a
maximum residential density of twenty
(20) units/acre that conforms to the
standards found in Article 15-58. This
density shall also apply to any project
allowed in this district pursuant to State
law.
(5) Personal service businesses at the
street level that have primary access
from Big Basin Way or across the front
lot line.
(6) Group homes, Class 3.
Proposed 15-62 Village Design
Standards
No Language About Permitted / non-
premitted / Required Use
--
Jonathan "Jojo" Choi
University of California Berkeley
Santa Clara Law
Amor Vincit Omnia
105
106
From:Jacqueline Holmes
To:Britt Avrit; Matt Morley; Bryan Swanson; Leslie Arroyo; Cindy McCormick; Monica Szydlik; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab;
Chuck Page; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; Saratoga Vitality; Lisa Wise
Subject:Urgent: Drafts Do Not Fulfill Direction
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 5:17:59 PM
Attachments:preview.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
The purpose of this process is to translate the Village Guidelines into objective
standards. The Village Guidelines prioritize land use, as the first section - but today’s
staff report and drafts do not even mention land use, and only address design
aesthetics.
See below from the Village Guidelines:
The drafts presented do not fulfill their direction to translate these .
This is a danger to the Village, as state housing law ties our hands. We cannot risk a
housing application that irreparably harms our Village, because we failed to write
enforceable objective standards for land use. (This is not about blocking housing, this
is about best practices for essential zoning for a downtown core.)
We are on a tight deadline to submit to HCD. The city does not have unlimited funds
for attorneys and consultants to stay on retainer and bill hours , writing multiple
versions…..
When and how will land use be addressed, so Council gives direction to staff,
attorneys and consultants , BEFORE they draft the Guidelines for Planning
Commission ??
(Residents have provided a framework , developed with an attorney, an urban
planner and an architect , to support this.)
—-
From Village Guidelines, first section :
This vision is to foster a quaint, but vibrant
shopping and restaurant district, intended to
reflect the community’s small-town identity and
its distinctive qualities. Equally important, the
Village serves as the center of community and
civic activity intended to provide opportunities
for public gathering and engagement.
The key to commercial success in a pedestrian
107
oriented environment is to create an engaging
experience for customers. This is done by
having an uninterrupted stream of
interesting storefronts and uses that
capture the pedestrians’ attention and
entices them to walk to the next tenant
space. The formula includes a combination
of interesting land uses with attractive
storefront design and well-maintained public
infrastructure. The land uses that best
attract patrons are generally smart,
attractive retail shops presented in an
appealing and inviting manner, along with
diverse restaurant choices.
Office uses, while an asset to a commercial
district, interrupt the “flow of interest” along
ground floor street frontage due to the nature
of its business. They are better located on side
streets or second floors. While the market plays
a significant role in deciding what businesses
locate in the Village, through its policies and
strategies Saratoga can help create an attractive
environment to encourage and cultivate new
retail business.
Design
Guidelines
4.1 The City strongly encourages
the predominant use of
ground floor commercial
space fronting Big Basin Way
in the CH-1 zone for retail and
restaurant uses.
4.2 Retail and pedestrian
continuity shall be maintained
along Big Basin Way.
4.3 Storefronts and single purpose
non-retail buildings along
the ground floor of Big Basin
Way that are not conductive
to sound retail principles are
discouraged.
4.4 The City encourages an
active streetscape that may
include outdoor dining, public
108
109
110
111
112
113