HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2001 Planning Commission Packet• ITEM 2
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
•
pplication No./Location:
Applicant/Owner:
Staff Planner:
I Date:
I APN:
V-O1-010; 20200 Mendelsohn Lane
JOHN LIEN/KEVIN L. TIMMONS
John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner
August 22, 2001
517-020-034 Department Head
20200 Mendelsohn Lane
000001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 05/03/01
Application complete: 06/19/01
Notice published: 08/08/01
Mailing completed: 08/08/01
Posting completed: 08/03/01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow afence/soundwall ranging from six to
eight feet in height in the front setback. The applicant's property has a 30-foot front
setback. Within the front setback area, the maximum allowed height for a fence is three
feet. The site is 41,817 square feet and is located within an R-1-20, 000 zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Deny the proposed variance application by adopting Resolution V-O1-010.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution V-O1-010
2. Applicant's letter
3. City Arborist Report
4. Excerpt from the Planning Commissioner's Handbook
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
•
•
- 000002
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-1-20,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - RLD Low Density Residential
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 41,817 sq. ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 2°io
GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed fence would require no grading.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed fence is Categorically Exempt
from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section- li303, "New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (e) of the Public Resources
Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for fence structures.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Texture and color to match existing house.
•
(This Area Intentionally Left Blank)
•
- 000003
PROJECT DISCUSSION
`;
Iariance ''
In order to approve a variance application the Planning Commission must make all of the
required variance findings in.;the affirmative. If any one of the findings cannot be made
the request must be denied. The following is reviev~~ of each of the required findings for a
variance:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulations would depri~~e the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that the existing lot meets. the
minimum lot dimension and size requirements, and is standard in shape and design
to the other lots fronting on Mendelsohn Lane, and in the same zoning district. Due
to the size of the lot and~~the existing location of the house, a fence could be placed
outside of the required fro"nt yard area.
2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified
in the same zoning district.
;.
This finding cannot bed made in the affirmative in that there are no special
circumstances that separate this -lot from other lots facing Mendelsohn Lane. The
existing lot is larger than most of the lots on the same side of the street and the house
is setback farther than the neighboring homes on Mendelsohn Lane.
3. That the granting of ,the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
This finding can be made. in the affirmative in that the proposed fence would not be
. detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The proposed fence would still
~ allow vehicles to safely enter and exist the site.
1; ~°
.Dlscusslon
~'In this circumstance the applicant could locate the fence on the property without
requiring avariance. -Due to ;the size of the lot a fence could be placed outside the of the
3'front 30 foot setback area without seriously limiting the use of the front yard.
r ~
000004
The adjacent lot, which fronts on Montalvo Road, has an exterior side yard that abuts
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. In this case, an eight-foot soundwall is allowed. In this
particular instance, the house is located much closer to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
compared to the applicant's parcel.
Currently there are no walls along the front of the properties on this portion of
Mendelsohn Lane. All offences in the front yards are approximately three feet in height
and are an open decorative design. If the applicant's proposed variance is approved it
~~vould be difficult to not allow neighboring properties the same privilege as granted to
this applicant, particularly because the lots are smaller and the houses are closer to
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road than the applicant's existing house. If the adjacent lots build
similar walls, the current character of the neighborhood would be changed.
Aesthetics
The applicant's lot has a sudden rise at the front property line. At the lowest point near
the driveway entrance the lot has an approximate four foot rise and an approximate ten
foot rise at the opposite end of the frontage on Mendelsohn Lane. Because of this the
proposed wall would appear to be 12 to 16 feet in height if it was built as proposed on the
top of the ridge. Building the wall outside of the required front setback would reduce
this affect and allov~~ vehicles entering Mendelsohn Lane a less abrupt anew of the wall.
Trees
The proposed fence would be built very close to two large trees located in the front yard
area. Both trees could be saved according to the City Arborist if the applicant follows the
specific guidelines stated the attached Ciry Arborist Report.
Correspondence
Staff has received no .letters or comments from neighbors as of the writing of this staff
report.
Conclusion
No special circumstances have been found that are applicable to this property, which
meet the exceptions required to make two of the findings for a variance. The granting of
the variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege and set a precedence for
the adjacent parcels.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Deny the proposed variance application by adopting Resolution V-O1-010.
•
000005
•
T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN
IIv'TENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
. n000Ofi
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL NO. V-O1-010
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMMONS; 20200 MENDELSOHN LANE
WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a Variance
application to allow afence/soundwall ranging from six to eight feet in height in the front
setback area where the maximum allowed height for a fence is three feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time
all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present e~~idence; and
WHEREAS, The proposed fence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "Ne~v Construction or Conversion of Small Structures",
Class 3 (e) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for fence structures;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application for a Variance approval, and the following findings have been determined:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the ~~icinity and classified in the same zoning district.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that the existing lot meets the minimum lot
dimension and size requirements, and is standard in shape and design to the other lots
fronting on Mendelsohn Lane, and in the same zoning district. Due to the size of the lot and
the existing location of the house, a -fence could be placed outside of the required front yard
area.
2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the
same zoning district.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that there are no special circumstances that
separate this lot from other lots facing Mendelsohn Lane. The existing lot is larger than
most of the lots on the same side of the street and the house is setback farther than the
neighboring homes from Mendelsohn Lane.
Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve
as follows:
0000~~
After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other ,
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Kevin L. Timmons for
Variance approval has been denied.
Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code,
this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California,
this 22nd day of August 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
•
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION?
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no
force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or
Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions
and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the
recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission.
•
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
nnnnn~
•
•
30 April 2001
-lark Connolly, Associate Planner
Cite of Saratoga
13777- Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
~--}
Attac meet 2
RE: Front Yard Fence Variance/20200 Mendelsohn Lane.
Dear Mark:
This letter has been prepared in support of the referenced variance application. The
subject property is located at the western most intersection of Mendelsohn Lane and
Highway 9. Mendelsohn Lane turns 90° left immediately after- leaving Highi~•ay 9 and
20200 Mendelsohn faces the open 9/Mendelsohn intersection and is exposed to the same
noise impacts as if it ti~ere technically on the highway. Note especially the adjacent
sound~~all at 14720 Montalvo Road ~ hose property line is contiguous ~~ith 20200
Mendelsohn. The noise impact is exactly the same on both properties because both are
directly exposed to the highway. -This application requests approval to continue the wall
line across the Mendelsohn frontage so that the property can be enjoyed to the .same
extent as the adjacent property.
Therefore, the following findings are submitted in support of the variance application:
a. The special circumstances present at this propert~~ are the geometry of Mendelsohn
Lane specifically as it relates to High~~ay 9 which results in this property facing the
open Highv~~ay 9/Mendelsohn intersection and being subject to the same noise
impacts as those properties for whom the Highway 9 sound~~all ordinance. was
developed.
b. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special priviledge
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in -the vicinity and classified in
the same zoning district because other property similarly located could reasonably be
granted the same consideration.
c. The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health,. safety, or
welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity
because other properties similarly exposed to Highway 9 have been granted the same,
consideration.
Thank you for your consideration and support.
~~~~~~ ~
MAY 0 3 2001
~,. i~~.-,-~,,,; ~. cLr;rtiiFNT
F .. _ ~ _ _ -- f .. ~ __ 1 l l ~ ~'
/Z !1 /l /l ~!1
T~-IIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
~nnnn~ ~
r
•
BARRIE D. CuNTE AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
Fax (408) 353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033
Attachment 3
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PREDICABLE EFFECT OF MOVING THE EXISTING
ENTRYWAY GATE
AND INSTALLATION OF A .FRONT PROPERTY WALL
AT 20200 MENDELSOHN LANE
Prepared at the Request of:
.City of Saratoga
Planning Department
13777 Frtutvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
May 24, 2001
Job # 11-00-291-01
Plan Received: 5-22-01
Plan Due: 6-20-01
•
I' ~~~~V~~ ~f,
u~ ~~N o 4 goo, u
CITY OF SARATOGA
C(?"?'NUNITY DrVEI O!'".~! ?~T
nnnn-~ ..
' AN ANALYSIS OF THE PREDIC- .LE EFFECT OF MOVIlVG THE EXISTING ENTRYWE, rATE 1
AND INSTALLATION OF A FRONT PROPERTY WALL AT 20200 MENDELSOHN LANE
Assignment 1
~ I was provided a plan prepared by John Lien Architect, which shows installation of a
'plaster-covered fence near the front property line and realignment of the entryway gate at
f the Timmons Property, 20200 Mendelsohn Lane. I was asked to comment on the effects
,these installations might have on one large deodara cedar and one incense cedar.
;,
Summary'
Neither of these tasks i.e., installation of a sound wall nor relocation of the existing
entryway gate should cause damage to the two significant trees on the property if the
procedures outlined here are carefully followed.
The only two trees on the frontage of the property are very large, very mature conifers,
the one closest to the gate being a Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) and the one
closest to the south east corner of the property a Deodara cedar (Cedrus deodaru).
~,
:I suggest a.10% bond to assure protection of these trees during construction.
'Recommendation
;1. I suggest that no land clearing be done with equipment beneath the canopy of these
two trees as part of this pi-ocess.
'2. The wall be constructed of pier and beam design with the beam laid on top of grade
not in an excavation.
.3. That the closest post to tree #2 be no closer than 6 feet from the trunk.
4. I suggest that the closest post to tree #1 be no closer than 6 feet from the trunk.
;S. That trenching for the electrification of the gate be on the north side of the existing
driveway, not on the south to avoid trenching close to tree # 1.
.~ ,:
These two trees are valued at $26,406 A l 0% bond is equal to $2,641.
Respec ly submitt , C
B e D. Coate
~~BDC/sl
~~
~Encl: Tree Data Charts
~ Map.
1'
•
i ~ '
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATS, CONSULTWG ARBORIST MAY 24, 2001
i
~~~~~
L ~UUUU
V A N V~ A
CS7
~ S ~ m 'O
0 0 0 .. r
u x x ~ n
O~
pQ~
O ~ ... •~
v~w.+~
n~acn~
to
0 o w ~
x x <
u u ° y
EH EH ~ ~'
:~"'NC
G ~
:n
u
O
N
r x
~
~
O
m 3
n
~ ~ n ~
c
2
~ o
: ~
n y ~
~
'$
~ a
a
~ _ C. 70
~
~
o
m
~ °1 .r'n ~ (
/! T
m
a a~ ~ ~ o
m ~ z }=~0.
~ d ~ n
~_"'~ O
S
S c~s~ '"I
m
m N ~ DBH
O N O
MULTI-SYSTEM
~
V N
V DBH ~
O
m
.
~
oBH C
s
~~ ~ ~~ ~ DIAMETER ~2 FEET a
`'' $ "' $ HEIGHT
~
~ ~
~i`
g
SPREAD
,
-- HEALTH (1S)
m N ~ STRUCTURE (1-S) e
n n
a
~ ~ N CONDITION RATING (2-10) p
7
~ ~ HAZARD RATING (39)
u a CROWN CLEANING
~ a
$
CROWN THINNING
~
N CROWN RESTORATION
n
CROWN RAISING Q
x x o
~ ~
REMOVE END-WEIGHT
~
a a
CABLES NEEDED # a
°'
~ ~ PRUNING PRIORITY (15)
n n INSECTS (1S)
~
~ TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) ~
~a+
A O
N DEAD WOOD (1-5)
m
TRUNK DECAY(1-5) A
~o
°
x
~ x
~
ROOT COLLAR COVERED (7 S)
a
a
$ $ ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5)
~ ~
n n NEEDS WATER (1-5)
m a m u NEEDS FERTILIZER
N
A
~ ~ ~ RECOMMEND REMOVAL ~
a
REMOVAL PRIORITY (13)
V~
O
Gr
fD
O
cn
O
lT 1
a
C1.
a
ry
(D
y
N
O
N
O
O
tD
O
r
w
`~
O
y
N
a ~
A~ ~
`< O
N ~
~A
N
O
O
r-~ N
~.~ ,.,
Barrie D. Coate
~r Associates
(408) 353-1052
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
~, ~ ~ HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT Date: Ma 24, 2001
I CONSULTING ARBORIST Scale: ma reduced ob #11-00-291-01
~ /
szs~ --~ ~®~®® IvIIIE~~SS®IE•III~T ILAIYIB ~~
-~
"' ~ ' D~odar Cedar ~ /
I ~ 2 ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ __ --
~ s2o'- ----- --- ~
~ ~
~ --,~
... ............. ..
--
-- ..
~~_~~ 148' \ - - - ---
_ PROPOSED NEW FENCE LOCATION. ~-
'~ EXISTING 8'
- _
..--M -e-: .:n . d. e 1 S o.: h- n. _. _. _. . --- - ._ .__ _ .._ _-_:_.. _._ ... __ _._ .:.. .
L~a n e
SITE PLAN .~.~-:~_ T.~ ^-- -
Timmons Property
20200 Mendelsohn Lane, Saratoga
__-0
Prepared For; Q
City of Saratoga, Planning Dept.
Attachment 4
•
~ Planning.
Commissioner's
Handbook
Zooo
m2000 League of California Cities
All rights reserved.
000015 l
r'
40 {• Legal Authorit~~
ZORIA ~~
Making Exceptions to Zoning
,.
~.
~~
Variances
f '
Wh
i
V
'
at
s a
ariance? A variance
is a permit to vary from the terms of a comprehensive zoning
ordinance. It is a form of relief that operates as a safety valve. It is provided for because there are
-
individual lots
that; due to some unusual chazacteristic, cannot be put to productive use if all
detailed regulations (for example, lot size setbacks) aze strictly applied.
.
1
A variance may not be granted to authorize a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized
by the zoning regulation governing the property. Use variances are prohibited.
Many city ordinances also require variances to comply with the purpose and intent of the
comprehensive zoning ordinance and the general plan. Cow Hollow Improvement Club i~. Board
of Permit Appeals, 245 Cal. Apps 2d 160 (1966).
;.
Authority. State zoning law. authorizes the granting of variances b
eneral law
iti
'
S
G
y g
c
es.
ov
ee
t.
Code § 65906. It also contains specific provisions for variances for off-street pazking
requirements, open space zoning;requirements and for second dwelling units. The statute may be
supplemented by city ordinance to the extent the ordinance is consistent with, and as strict as, the
statute; and then both sets of staiilazds must be satisfied. The variance provisions enacted by
charter cities are generally simila to those in the state zoning law.
~I
Procedural Requirements. Variance procedures involve the grant of a discretionary permit by
the city and hence are subject to CEQA. It ordinarily requires a quasi judicial hearing in which
due ;process is provided, evidence is taken and findings of fact are made. The applicant bears the
burden of proof. Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.
3d 506 (1974).
Special Circumstances. A variance may be granted only when there exist special circumstances
,,
applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Only a
small fraction of the land in any zone of a city may qualify for a variance; otherwise a zoning
amendment may be appropriate. Most recent cases considering a challenge to the grant or denial
of a varianc
h
f
d i
ff
ie
e
ave
oun
nsu
ic
nt evidence to establish special circumstances.
,• r
The `special circumstances must create a situation in which a strict application of the zoning
ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
the identical zoning classification, Unnecessary hardship must be suffered by the applicant's
property which would not generally result under the zoning ordinance.
~ ~';
•
Hardship solely of an economic character, such as higher cost of development, will not usually
suffice but may be considered along with other factors; in any event, it must flow from the
circumstances of the property and'•not of the owner. Zakessian v. City of Sausalito, 28 Cal. App.
3d 794 (1972). Hardship that is self-induced, such as the voluntary sale of an adjoining pazcel,
will not support a variance. Town of Atherton v. Templeton, 198 Cal. App. 2d 146 (1961).
•
~
~
Lea
ue of Calif
i
Citi
g
orn
a
es
f Planning Commissioner's Handbook 2000
Legal Authority "
Zonin _41
Any variance granted must be subject to conditions ensuring that it does not constitute a grant of
special privileges. A variance is intended only to bring property up to parity with other property
in the vicinity and zone. Broadway, Laguna, Etc. Association v. Board of Permit Appeals. 66
Cal. 2d 767 (1967).
Precedential Effect. Because a variance is based upon the unique circumstances of a piece of
property, the grant or denial of variances for other properties does not mandate similar action.
Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal. 3d 279 (1971).
Conditional Use Permits (CUPs)
What is a CUP? A CUP, or special use permit, is a discretionary permit for a particular use that
is not allowed as a matter of right on property within the zoning district. Procedural
considerations are similaz to those for variances. .
Purpose of CUPs. The purpose of the CUP is to single out for special treatment those types of
developments that may be essentially desirable but, because of their nature or concomitants (for
example, noise, traffic), aze not desirable for every location within. a zone, in unlimited numbers,
or for any location without restrictions tailored to them.
A typical zoning ordinance follows the list of permitted uses for each district with a list of uses
• for which a CUP may be obtained: places of religious worship, cemeteries, sand and gravel
quarries, used car businesses, automobile service stations and others. CUP requirements for
home care facilities, second dwelling units, mobile homes and manufactured homes are
specifically regulated by statute. See Welfaze & Institutions Code § 5116; Gov't. Code §§
65852.1-65852.5, 65852.7.
The typical zoning ordinance provides that a CUP may be granted for specified uses if the
proposed use will be in the best interests of the public_convenience and necessity and will not be
contrary to the public health, morals or welfaze. City of Upton v. Gray, 269 Cal. App. 2d 352
(1969). Some ordinances provide that the proposed use must be compatible. with the policies and
objectives of the comprehensive zoning ordinance and with the general plan.
Authority. The general power and authority of cities to require and grant CUPs is found in the
state constitution and state zoning law. Standards for CUPs must be established by ordinance.
O'Hagen v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 19 Cal. App. 3d 151 (1971); Gov't. Code § 65901.
Types of Conditions. Cities regulazly attach conditions to zoning entitlements to protect
neighboring properties and to deal with effects on the community as a whole. Street dedication
and improvement, installation of landscaping and protective walls, azchitectural requirements
and restrictions on hours of operation for CUPs aze some examples. A condition must beaz a
reasonable relationship to the public needs created by the development, and this should be
supported by evidence in the record of the proceeding. Bank of America v. State Water
• Resources Control Bd., 42 Cal. App. 3d 198 (1974). State zoning law (Gov't. Code section
65909) says a city may not condition a variance, use or building permit on the dedication of land
for a purpose not reasonably related to the use of the property for which the permit is requested,
League of California C7fies
Planning Commissioner's Handbook 2000
nnnn~ ~
i~
-~,,,
•
T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
,.,
, ,~ 1.. ~ • ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ r: i;
4P
i ~ +,. ~ OHN LIEN ;« r
~ , I o ~; r .,,;~ ,
i' ~ e '~ ~, ~ ~~ ~EB~ dAF!® ~ / ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ • ~-~~ ARCHITECT "~ ^ i~~m~~~!.
~~ `" ~ ~ •• 196 COLLHOE AVBNLJB tn;
~'. ,• -. ~.._. / ~ Sr.al. Fenc Jly ~ - ~ " ~ .. ~ . ~ ~ nl"~
~ o ~ LOS GATOS ,
~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ I ~~'iy ~ CALIFORNIA ,., ' ' `,~~
~~ ~ ~' "
~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I e ~~~ 95030 _~~.+, "~,
I i e ,~.
N. , .I~ I.: k"
„~~~ " ,~ 36'Dlodv Cedu , 48 ve Atlu Cedv ,
i,~.~,
~..- ~ I F 108.395.3525 ~t
' ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ '~ O ~ ~ i ~1, 7) f
1 a
i
~ I
__ ~_
~ _ -- - --------- ----------- a ~ v
E%LSTING 8' SOUNDWALL AT 14710 MONTALVO ROAD
SITE,PLAN
~.-- ~
' ~ ~.. ~ i
f~
0 t0 30 ~ -„r. ..,.....,1
I ~ / /
. ../~ .......... ,r
/~~~
~.
...,- ;
~. ,
~-- ; ..
~ ~~
• 4 .~ ,
1
E%ISTMG LANDSCAPE (PARTIAL SHOWN)10 REMAIN
~~ ' ~j;~ ~ AND BE MAPITAINBO BY OWNER
I
i
~, ~~-PROPERTY WNE PLASTER COVERED FENCE:
~~~' ~ ~ ~ I W~CERAMIC TOILE NSE'ISASH OWN ~
I
HEIGHT VARIES PROM B' AT RIGHT SR)E TO 6'
~ AT LEFT SR)E,
®, ~®
'.~
\-WALL HEIGHT DROP6 TO 6' AT THIS SE)E
;
ELEVATION at MENDELSOHN LANE FRONTAGE
ff~'1~'~
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
UNDW AT 1477D
ROAD
FENCE VARIANCE
APPLICATION
ELEVATION d MENDEL60HN
PHOTOS
PROJECT INFORMATION
STfE PLAN
VICINTFY MAP
V; FROM ACROSS HIGHWAY 9
~ '~ {0
I ~~ 1 4v'~.~: ~ ~ ..~" • ~
~ ewi~rrr ~ •• ~' •' t
! "~"~ ~ !
Ii ~SE'(wi ~ v r~ i
r,,fkv''ri~F~, d
NNOf1a0N9W M
~1 "s4Mro °~~
, ~ Ltt * S0, . V~
` ~ eryL OINtiVS
fOlV7
l
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
PHOTO KEY
LorATnNwlmolos
6HONTI ATBOTIOY
EX6TINC GATES RELOCATED eACK
10' FROM FRONT PROPERTYLINE TO
ALLOW CAR STACKING SPACE
NEW WALL HEIGHTAT TH[SSIDE=
EXLSTING ADJACENT WALL '
HEIGHTi=B't ----~
'J N~~_
PROPERTY LMR -~
VILLA TIMMONS
2011tl MENDESOHN PANE
SARA7'OGA, CA
PROJECT INFORMATION •r•;.:iiii~°':ii~'0i~0~i~'~i~"i~!
=:i.i,ii;lii;~ApnI20b1i
APN 511~11.4A •~ ::i:;:9:};:;:;:p:g:;:;iiii;;
ADD~g dp011ffi4DHISIMQI IAt4R ii!?(i°.. sxeer
SARATOGA CALR!DIU71A ?; ii~~ .,
Eg4Ip4GIJB8-Sa4GLHPAMLLYR6ID@4'ML i:~;~j~i~
~~ k4ZII114 :i.; 1
:, ::,
iii~i~i!
fis
_ ff,,..o,:
..... r:..r..:r...:: ~:::.,:..
lit'
~f7~
`~,,I
r~:
7.%
' i~
i ~~ ~-~
City of Saratoga ITEM 3
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSIO
FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP
Community Development Der for
DATE: August 22, 2001
RE: GPA-Ol-001 Housing Element and Environmental Determination
Please find attached a Hearing Draft version of the proposed City of Saratoga Housing Element
including the Needs Assessment. Also attached is the proposed Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact.
The Planning Commission has several tasks to complete this evening.
1. Conduct the Public Hearing on the General Plan Housing Element and
Environmental Determination.
2. Identify issues within the proposed Housing Element .and Environmental
Determination and give direction to Staff and the Consultant.
3. Identify other issues and/or Housing Programs that should be included in the
Housing Element.
4. If no new programs are identified, the Commission should then adopt the
attached Resolution which recommends that the City Council adopt the Housing
Element and grant the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
5. If other issues are identified, the Commission should continue the Public Hearing
to a date certain and direct Staff and the Consultant to bring back a report
addressing those issues.
Since the joint workshop, Staff has been able to refine the "numbers' related to how the City can
accommodate the. Regional Share assigned to it from the Association of Bay Area Governments.
Table A, represents a refinement to what was presented at the joint workshop.
TABLE A
Housing Opportunities
Income
Grou s RHND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
Ve Low 75 49 10 16 75
Low 36 1 20 20 10 Sl
Moderate 108 61 72 64 197
Above
Moderate 320 177 72 100 349
Total 539 177 110 144 11 20 20 90 100 672
OOU001
.•._ ^r
•
Key to Table A
1. Dwellings having received building permits between OUOU99 and 08/OU01
2. Odd Fellows Phase 1 - 110 units (The project is under construction, - 49 units
already committed to individuals with incomes under $1.5,000 per year)
3. Odd Fellows Phase 2 - 144 units (Project already approved b}- the Planning
Commission)
4. Artist Studios at Montalvo - 10 units plus 1 Caretaker's unit (Under
construction)
5. Second Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program - 20 units (Building Department has
Identified approximately 50 potential units)
6. New Second Units - 20
7. Mixed Use throughout all Commercial, Quasi Public Facilities and Public
Facilities Land Use designations.
8. Infill and Small Land Divisions for next five years
Staff has made every- attempt to spread out the housing development activity over a wide area as
to not grossly impact a single area. Table A indicates that the City will be able to meet it
Regional Share. However, please remember that with respect to preparation of the Housing
Element, one of the City's most important responsibilities is to document that the City is not the
limiting factor in the provision of housing. The City accomplished this through a variety of
housing programs. These programs are included in the Housing Element before the Planning
Commission.
The Housing Element also provides various implementation activities. Most of these activities
involve amending the Zoning Ordinance to streamline processes. As the Housing Element is
presented to the Commission, these implementation measures will be discussed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Following the Public Hearing, if there is not a need to address additional issues or to add
additional Housing Programs, Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution. If there additional items to be studied, Staff recommends the Planning Commission
continue the Public Hearing to a date certain. The Ciry Council is scheduled to hear the item on
October 3, 2001, if we are to keep to the schedule developed by the Consultant.
•
000002
a. ~_
~^-
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMI~~NDING THE
CITY COUNCIL GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ADOPT THE REVISED AND UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga initiated consideration of a General Plan
Amendment to adopt the Housing Element Update (referred to hereinafter as the
"Project") in 2001.
II. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") was
prepared for the Project by the City of Saratoga, pursuant to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections
21000-21177), CEQA Guidelines, and City CEQA requirements.
III. WHEREAS, the IS/ND was circulated for public review.
IV. WHEREAS, the IS/ND indicates that no significant adverse environmental
impacts will result from the Project.
V. WHEREAS, on August 22, 2001 the Planning Commission at a duly noticed
Public meeting considered the adequacy of the IS/ND including all oral and
written comments and the staff recommendation for approval of the IS/ND. The
Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the IS/ND,
administrative record; and Staff Reports for completeness and compliance with
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and City CEQA requirements.
VI. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby makes
the following recommendation:
That the City Council grants Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopts the
revised Housing Element
•
000003
r- ~~,
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga, State of California, this 22"d day of August, by the following vote:
AYES: ~ ~ .
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: _
Chair Barry
ATTEST:
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Attachments
Attachment A: Negative Declaration
Attachment B: Revised Housing Element
•
•
000004
~,. _~~
- Attachment A
r^
~~~ ~~` C L ~s~~,~ ~ u C
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment No. 00-
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Saratoga Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
Thomas Sullivan, AICP
Community Development Director
(408) 868-1222
City of Saratoga
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Saratoga Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Road
Saratoga, CA .95070
~. General Plan Designation: City-wide; all residential and commercial.
7. Zoning: Residential and Commercial Zones
8. Description of the Project: The 2000.Housing Element update is a comprehensive
statement by the City of Saratoga of its current and future
housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the
provision of housing to meet those needs at all income
levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify
current and projected housing needs and set forth goals,
. policies, and programs that address those needs. The
. Housing Element has been prepared to meet the
requirements of State law and local housing objectives.
The City of Saratoga is essentially built out with the
majority of vacant parcels located in the western and
southern hillside areas. These areas are typical) y zoned for
single-family residential development at low densities.
Some redevelopment in the City is projected, however, the
commercial areas are generally. well established.
The Housing Element contains programs for special needs
groups, fair housing, improving the existing housing stock,
and providing housing subsidies for owners and renters.
These activities are exempt from the CEQA or not
considered a project requiring CEQA review. Exemptions
include:
~ Financial assistance for the development and
nnnnnc
,~, r/
construction of residential housing for persons and
families of low or moderate income, as defined in
Section 50093- of the Health and Safety Code.
~ Development project which consists of the
construction, conversion, or use of residential
housing consisting of not more than -100-units in an
urbanized area, provided that it is either:
~ Affordable to lower-income households, as defined
in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code,
and the developer provides sufficient legal
commitments to the appropriate local agency to
ensure that the housing units will continue to be
available to lower income households for a period
of at least 15 years; or
~ Affordable to low and moderate-income households,
as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of
Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, at
monthly housing costs determined pursuant to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5
of the Government Code.
~ The adoption of an ordinance regarding second
units in asingle-family or multifamily residential
zone by a city or county to implement the
provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the
Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17
of the Public Resources Code.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: This is an amendment to the General Plan that is City-
. wide in application.
10. Other- public agencies whose None
approval is required (e.g. .permits,
financing approval, or participation
agreement).
•
2 000006
~~• s
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below (0) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous
Materials Public Services
Agricultural Resources - Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation ~ '
Air Quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic ~
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Si nificance
Geology/Soils Population/Housing
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a X
EGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
to b the ro~ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 're ared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed. '
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DEDCLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION; including revisions or mitigation measures that are
im osed u on the ro osed ro~ect, nothin further is re uired. -
Signature
Printed Name
Date
3
nnnnn~
r~ ~.>
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers-
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if,there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR ~s required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering; program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (d). In this case, a
brief discussion. should identify the following:
a Earlier Anal sis Used. Identi n w ~ ~~
O y fy a d state here they are available for review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist-were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures.lncorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6)
7)
8)
9)
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance~criteria or threshold used to evaluate each
question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
•
4
nnn~~~
~~;_
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentialk - Less than
Significant Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
-Less Than T:o impact
Significant
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the ro~ect:
a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to X
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic ~ ~
hi hwa ? I
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site X
and its surroundin s?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely X
affect da or ni httime views in the area? '
Discussion: A substantial adverse effect to visual resources would result in the introduction of physical features that are not
characteristic of the surrounding development, substantially change the natural landscape, or obstruct an identified public scenic
vista.
New dwelling units would not result in substantial light or glare as they would be scattered
throughout the City, would not be designed with excessive lighting, and would be subject to City
standards~and design regulations and Uniform Building Code Standards. Although hillside
development would occur on previously undeveloped land, the parcels would be developed to hide
units within the natural terrain formation, so that light accumulation and visibility would not occur.
The development of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
will be incorporated in compliance with the following goals and policies:
Goal 5.0 and Policies 5.1-5.2 of the General Plan's Conservation Element (2-19) state the natural
beauty of the ridgelines shall be protected and only minimum cut and fill should be permitted.
Goal- 6.0 of the General Plan's Conservation Element (page 2-19) requires the protection of the
existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully'considering the visual impact of new developments.
_ 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the_California Department of.Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
a riculture and farmland. Would the ro'ect?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide X
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Moni#oring Program of the California Resources
A enc to non-a ricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the.existing environment which, due to their X
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-
a ricultural use?
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4"' 1983.
- The City Council acknowledges that adoption of-the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, ~as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
Loss of agricultural lands and open space, the Goals and Policies of the General Plan to be acted upon
with appropriate ordinances and actions, will encourage the use of school sites for recreation, and
require exactions from development to maintain and preserve open space.
3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
ollution control district ma be relied u on to make the followin determinations. Would the ro'ect:
nnnnno
- .r ~;;
Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact ~
Significant Significant Significant
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality X
Ian? j
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing X
or ro~ected air ualit violation. _
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable X
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions ~ ~
which exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors ? -
d Ex ose sensitive rece tors to substantial ollutant concentrations? X
e Create ob~ectionable odors affectin a substantial number of eo le? X
Discussion:
The development of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
will be incorporated in compliance with the following goals and policies:
Conservation Goal 8.0 and Policies 8.1-8.4 (page 2-20) will preserve of the quality of Saratoga's air
resources and protect the citizens from the potentially harmful effects of air pollution. impacts on air i
quality shall be evaluated in connection with development proposals and highway construction.
Appropriate mitigation measures for air quality impacts shall be identified and implemented through
the City's environmental review and permit issuing procedures.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat .
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the X
California De artment of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantially adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other -
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, ~ X
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. _ ~ _
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as. `
defined by -Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological X
interru tion, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species_or with established native resident migratory wildlife X
corridors, or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X
resources, such as a tree reservation olic or ordinance?
f)~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, .regional, or X
state habitat conservation Ian?
The development of 539 residential units to -meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
will be incorporated in compliance with the following goals and policies listed in the City of Saratoga's
General Plan:
Conservation Goal 3.0 and Policies 3.1-3.2 (page 2-17) will preserve the quality of the natural
environment and protect wildlife and wildlife habitats when considering proposals, for development.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the ro~ect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical X
resource as defined in Section 15064.5? -
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archaeolo ical resources ursuant to Section 15064.5?
c Direct) or indirect) destro a uni ue aleontolo ical resource or site or X
1
e
•j.l `)
Issues and Supporting Information
Potential)}~ Less than
Significant Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Less Than I No Impact
Significant
Impact
uni ue eolo is feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal X !,
cemeteries? '
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4"' 1983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
Energy and natural resource use-the goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly the ~
conservation element, will encourage:-the use of alternate forms of renewable energy sources,
building designs that conserve energy, use of natural passive heating and cooling systems, tree
preservation, minimize water use and degradation, and minimize disruption to soil and topography.
These impacts will be further reduced by implementation of existing codes and ordinances.
The development of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
will be incorporated in compliance with the following goals and policies listed in the City of Saratoga's
General Plan:
Conservation Goal 3.0 of the General Plan (page 2-17) states the City will preserve the quality of the
natural environment and the character of the.City through appropriate regulation of site development.
. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the ro~ect:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, X
includin the risk of loss, in'u or death involvin
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State X
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42.
ii Stron seismic round shakin ? ~ X
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv Landslides? X
b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would X
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, laterals readin ,subsidence, li uefaction or colla se?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-a-B of the Uniform - X
Buildin Code 1994 , creatin substantial risks to life or ro ert ?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available X
_
for the dis osal of waste water?
7
nnnn.~ .~
'C
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially Less than
Significant Significant
Impact With
Mitieation
Less Than ~ Nn Impart
Significant
Impact
Discussion: i
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4"' 1983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
Energy and natural resource use-the goals and policies of the General Plan; particularly the
conservation element, will encourage: the use. of alternate forms of renewable energy sources,
building designs that conserve energy, use of natural passive heating and cooling systems, tree
preservation, minimize water use and degradation, and minimize disruption to soil and topography.
These impacts will be further reduced by implementation of existing codes and ordinances.
The development of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
will be incorporated in compliance with the following goals and policies listed in the City of Saratoga's
General Plan:
The Seismic Safety Element's Goals 1.0 -3.0 and Policies 1.1- 3.3 (page 61 and 62) state that the City
will protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage from earthquakes, flooding, and
other natural hazards in populated areas. The City will continue to enforce its existing flood control
regulations, and will cooperate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District when proposed projects will
affect floodways in their jurisdiction, to prevent development activities from aggravating or causing
potential flood problems. The City's Emergency Plan will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro~ect?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X
routine trans ort, use or dis osal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving th_e likely X
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an exiting or X
ro osed school?
d) Be located on a site which is.included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a X
result would it create a si nificant hazard to the ublic or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or _
workin in the ro'ect area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project X
result in a safet hazard for eo le residin or workin in -the ro~ect area? .
g) Impair implementation of, or physically intertere with an adopted X
emer enc res onse Ian or emer enc evacuation Ian?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death .
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized X
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
•
a nnnnl ~Z
Issues and Supporting Information
Potential)} Less than ~ Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact With Impact !
i
Mitigation !
Discussion:
The City of Saratoga does not have any significant problems with hazardous materials storage and j
handling. No major chemical handlers are located in the City since such operations are severely
limited by existing regulations. The storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials is limited to the ~
gas stations in the City, and typically consists of anti-freeze, brake fluid, motor oil and gasoline
(General Plan page 31).
Therefore, the development of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs
Determination will be incorporated in compliance with the City's General Plan.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a Violate an water ualit standards or waste dischar a re uirements? X
b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or intertere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the X
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which. permits
have been ranted ?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the-site or area,
including through-the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a X
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
~ncluding through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or . X
substantially increase the rate or surface runoff in a manner which would
result in floodin on- or off site?
e) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional X
sources of olluted runoff?
Otherwise substantial) de rade water ualit ? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard X
delineation ma ?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would X
im ede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or X
dam?
Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ~ X
Discussion:
Resoluation 430.2 of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4, 1983. The City Council
acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon the environment
impact report. However, Goals and Policies have been incorporated in the General Plan to mitigate to
an acceptable level or avoid the significant environmental effects including the following:
Conservation Element Goal 3.3 and Policies 3.4-3.6 (page 2-17 and 2-18) of the General Plan states
the City shall minimize the impact that development may have on the quality of water within the City
and its Sphere of Influence, including the application of strict standards to sanitation services to avoid
ground water contamination. The City will also adhere to the provisions of CEQA and coordinate with
.the various public agencies concerned with water quantity. The City shall minimize the impact that
development may have on the quality of water consumed by the development.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the ro'ect:
000013
Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact ~
Significant Significant Significant I
Impact ll%ith Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
a Ph sicall divide an established communit ? X
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the X
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) I
ado ted for the ur ose of avoidin or miti atin an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
communities conservation Ian? .
Discussion
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4~' 1983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
The General Plan contains goals and policies and land.use designations for land designations for land
within the sphere of influence of the City of Saratoga designed to mitigate adverse environmental
effects of development in that area. However, such lands are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of the County of Santa Clara which, at the present time, has adopted regulations consistent with the
General Plan.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro~ect:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would X
be of value to the re ion and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land. X
use Ian?
Discussion:
There are no major oil or gas fields in the City therefore; no mineral resources would be impacted by
the project. However, Goals and Policies have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate any
potential significant environmental effects including the following relating to the City's resources:
Energy and natural resource use-the goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly the _
conservation element, will encourage: the use of alternate forms of renewable energy sources,
building designs that conserve energy, use of natural passive heating and cooling systems, tree
preservation, minimize water use and degradation, and minimize disruption to soil and topography.
These impacts will be further reduced by implementation of existing codes and ordinances.
11. NOISE. Would the ro'ect result in: -
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or X
a licable standards of other a encies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne: X
vibration or roundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project X
vicinit above levels existin without the ro'ect?
d) A substantially temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in X
the ro'ect vicini above levels existin without the ro'ect? - '
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a
Ian has not been ado ted, within two miles of a ublic air ort or ublic use ~ X
1~
10
nnnn~ a
~,
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially Less than
Significant Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
f.ess Than ~ No Impact
Significant
Impact
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise X
levels?
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4"' 1983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
Noise Element Goal 1.0 and Policies 1.1-1.2 (page 2-21) of the General Plan will protect Saratoga
residents from excessive noise. The City shall maintain and enforce the noise standards specified in
the City's noise ordinance. The City shall work with the appropriate agencies to develop and
implement a plan to protect residential areas that are located adjacent to the West Valley Corridor
right-of-way from excessive noise.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the ro~ect:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
xample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X
xam le, throw h extension of roads or other infrastructure ?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere? ~ X
Discussion:
The project is based; in part, on the projection of the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) in its
Regional Housing Needs Allocation 1999, that 538 new residential units will be needed in the City
during the period 1999 to 2006. These new units are part of the residential units projected and
analyzed in the General Plan and EIR. The Housing Element update proposes various housing
programs to assist in providing housing for low- and moderate-income households. Therefore, the
project would not result in displacement of existing residents, but would facilitate adequate housing
for the City residents. As stated in the General Plan EIR, development will be scattered throughout the
City on infill and other residential sites, making impacts minimal.
13.. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would.the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
"
res onse times or other ertormance ob~ectives for an of the ublic services:
a Fire rotection? X
b Police rotection? X
c Schools? X
Parks? X
Other ublic facilities? X
11 000015
t.
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially Less than
Significant Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Less Thari do Impact .`
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
i
I
All potential impacts to public services, including fire protection, medical aid, police protection,
schools, parks, solid waste disposal, maintenance of public facilities, and other governmental services
were thoroughly analyzed in the General Plan and no additional impacts are anticipated. The project
would result in the creation of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs
Determination and would not significantly impact the ability of the City's public services to meet the
demands of the public.
14. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facilit would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction .
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical X
effect on the.environment?
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plam on May 4"' 1983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects. upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
The Land Use Element evenly distributes the general location and extent of the uses of the land for
housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation and .
enjoyment of scenic beauty.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the ro~ect:
a) Cause an increase in the traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a X
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
ca acit ratio on roads, or con estion at intersections ?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated X
roads or hi hwa s?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in X
traffic levels or a Chan a in location that results in substantial safet risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X
dan Brous intersections or incom atible uses e. . farm a ui ment ?
e Result in inade uate emer enc access? X
Result in inade uate arkin ca acit ? X
g) Conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative X
trans ortation e. ., bus turnouts, bic cle racks ?
12 ()nOn1 ~
Issues and Supporting Information Potentiate. Less than . Less rnan Io Impact
Significant Sisnificant Sienificant
Impact With Impact
` Mitigation
~_
Discussion: ~ ~
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May.4"' 1983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
Traffic increases-goals and policies of the General Plan encourage the use of energy efficient forms of
transportation and use of pedestrian and birycle trails as alternative transportation modes. There are
policies to plan means of reducing traffic impacts and addressing cumulative impacts of certain heavily
traveled roads. -
All potential impacts to transportation and circulation were thoroughly analyzed in the Circulation and
Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan (pages 2-6 through 2-12). The City shall encourage and
participate in the Countywide implementation of a variety of modes of transport to serve Saratoga.
The City will also work toward improved public transit, including more frequent service and access to
the village.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro~ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional X
Water Qualit Control Board?
b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment X
acilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause si nificant environmental effects?
c) -Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which X
services or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate X
the ro~ect's solid waste dis osal needs?
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to X
solid waste?
•
13
~~~0~~
ISSllCS and SllpPOi't1lIIg I>mfOrmatllOn Potentially Less than Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant i~
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated ~
Discussion:
The creation of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination and
would not significantly impact the ability of the City's public services to meet the. demands of the
public. However, Goals and Policies have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an ~
acceptable level or avoid the significant environmental effects including the following:
The goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly the conservation element, will encourage: the
use of alternate forms of renewable energy sources, building designs that conserve energy, use of
natural passive heating and cooling systems, tree preservation, minimize'water use and degradation, ~
and minimize disruption to soil and topography. These impacts will be further reduced by
implementation of existing codes and ordinances.
Conservation Element Goal 3.3 and Policies 3.4-3.6 (page 2-17 and 2-18) of the General Plan states
the City shall minimize the impact that development may have on the quality of water within the City
and its Sphere of Influence, including the application of strict standards to sanitation services to avoid
ground water contamination. The City will also adhere to the provisions of CEQA and coordinate with
the various public agencies concerned with water quantity. The City shall minimize the impact that
development may have on the quality of water consumed by the development.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the - - _
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, X
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
im ortant exam les of the ma~or eriods of California histo or rehisto ?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in X
connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
ro~ects, and the effects of robable future ro~ects ?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ~ X
adverse effects on human bein s, either direct) or indirect) ?
•
14 00018
•
LIST OF MITIGATIONS:
NONE
MITIGATION MONITORING:
NONE
•
•
15
000019
•
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
•
nnnn~n
•
~ ~-
~,,, the c of J
+' ca/f~r~nf~ ' ,~ ~'
Inr.~xporated C7ctober 22. 1 ~6
draft
•
Housing Element
2001
Prepared by
PARSONS
•
Attachment B
000021
•
~I~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
t
000022
•
CITY COUNCIL
John Mehaffey, Mayor
Nick Streit, Vice Mayor
Evan Baker
Stan Bogosian
Ann Waltonsmith
PLANNING COMMISSION
Cynthia Barry, Planning Chair
Jill Hunter
Mike Garakani
Erna Jackman
Lisa Kurasch
George Roupe
Ruchi Zutshi
CITY STAFF
Dave Anderson, City Manager
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Richard S. Taylor, City Attorney
Thomas Sullivan, AICP, Community Development Director
•
000023
TABLE OF CONTENTS ~
INTRODUCTION .......................................................:....................... 1
EVALUATION OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT .............................. 2
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES ........................................... 4
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF GENERAL PLAN .......................... 10
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................:.............. 14
INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT ......... 15
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT :................................................ 17
•
•
000024
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The Housing Element of the General Plan is a comprehensive statement by the Cih~ of Saratoga
of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing
to meet those needs at all income levels. The policies contained in this Element are an expression
of the statewide housing goal of "attaining decent housing and a suitable living environment for
every California family," as well as a reflection of the unique concerns of the communit~•. The
purpose of the Housing Element is to establish specific goals, policies and objectives relative to
the provision of housing, and to adopt an action plan toward this end. In addition, the Element
identifies and analyzes housing needs, and resources and constraints to meeting these needs.
The Saratoga Housing Element is based on five strategic goals: 1) accommodating the Cit}''s fair
share of the region's- housing needs, 2) promoting the construction of housing affordable to low-
and moderate-income households, 3) assisting low-income property owners in improving
substandard dwelling units, 4) preserving the current stock of affordable housing in the City, and
3) assuring non-discrimination in housing.
In accordance with State law, the Housing Element is to be consistent and compatible with other
General Plan Elements. Additionally, Housing Elements are to provide clear policy and direction
for making decisions pertaining to zoning, subdivision approval, housing allocations, and capital
improvements. State law (Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589) mandates the
contents of the housing element. By law, the Housing Element must contain:
• An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to
meeting those needs;
• A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relevant to the
maintenance, improvement and development of housing; and
• A program that sets forth afive-year schedule of actions that the local government is
undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and
objectives of the Housing Element.
• The housing program must also identify adequate residential sites available for a variety of
housing types for all income levels; assist in developing adequate housing to meet the needs
of low- and moderate-income households; address governmental constraints to housing
maintenance, improvement, and development; conserve and improve the condition of the
existing affordable housing stock; and promote housing opportunities for all persons.
000025
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
EVALUATION OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT
EVALUATION OF PRIOR HOUSING-ELEMENT
The City's previous Housing Element contained two quantified objectives and five programs.
The first quantified objectives was to approved 1~0 dwelling units-over five (through 1989), or 30
dwelling units per year, of which 50 would be low- to moderate-income units produced through
second unit-and other policies. The second quantified objective was to rehabilitate 60 d~~~elling
units over five years, or 12 dwelling units per year, and preserve.263 existing rental dwelling
units through the Cit<~'s condominium conversion ordinance.
The five programs adopted by the City to achieve these objectives were:
Designation of sufficient sites to accommodate the City's regional share under the
Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Housing Needs Determination.
2. Encourage rental property owners in Saratoga to participate in the Section 8 program by
not interfering with free market rental practices.
Mitigate govenament constraints by monitoring building code requirements and allowing
focused EIRs and Mitigated Negative Declarations to reduce environmental assessment
costs.
4. Continue the Saratoga Housing Assistance Rehabilitation Program (SHARP).
5: Encouraging fair housing practices by cooperating with nonprofit organizations and
citizen organizations that promote fair housing, encouraging citizen participation by all
segments of the community is discussions of housing issues, and, if necessar<~ and
appropriate, use HCDA funds to preserve existing assisted rental housing developments.
Because Saratoga is not a general services City, does not have a redevelopment agency, and has
limited general .funding to maintain staff, the City has never been able to actively pursue
programs that require significant staffing or local resources. Record keeping has also been a
chronic ,problem due to staffmg levels -and turnover during the .past decade. The following
summarizes what is know about City achievements with respect to the quantified objectives and
five programs. - .
Accommodation of Regional Share
Although the City has provide sufficient land to accommodate its regional housing .allocation
since the 1980s, only 15 multifamily housing units have been constructed in Saratoga since 1989.
The City has not maintained records to determine the number of these dwelling units that were
affordable to low- or moderate-income households.
Affordable Housing
However, the Odd Fellows organization has opened two facilities to address senior needs: the
Odd Fellow's Health Center with a capacity of 68 skilled nursing beds and Odd Fellows Home
(Saratoga Retirement. Community), with 93 assisted- living units.. In addition, The Fellowship
Plaza (also an Odd Fellow's property) remains under contract with HUD and offers Section 8
low-income senior housing. This facility had 150, mostly one-bedroom apartment.
000026
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Plaza (also an Odd Fellow's property) remains under contract with HUD and offers Section 8
low-income senior housing. This facility had 150, mostly one-bedroom apartment.
Maintaining Rental Housing Stock
Through the. City's condominium conversion restrictions, the City has managed to maintain, and
slightly expand, its rental housing stock, since the 1980s, when the prior Housing Element was
prepared.
Mitigating Governmental Constraints
Because of the low level of development in the City and the small size of most development
projects, most developments have been approved through Mitigated Negative Declarations. The
City has also worked closely with the Odd Fellows, the primary. non-profit provider of senior and
affordable housing in the City, to ensure that building and zoning requirements due not create
unreasonable barriers to meeting senior and affordable housing needs in the City. As described in
the Housing Element, the City is working with Odd Fellows to substantially increase the number
of affordable dwelling units and senior housing and care facilities available in Saratoga.
Housing Rehabilitation
Saratoga has used part of its annual CDBG allocation from Santa Clara County to assist in
housing rehabilitation, primarily foi• low-income senior homeowners. The City .has not
maintained records, however, on the number of dwelling units assisted and the income levels of
the homeowners assisted. The- number of dwelling units is likely to be low due to the small
number of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation in the City.
Fair Housing
Saratoga maintains information on equal housing opportunities and refers individuals with
discrimination complaints to the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair or the County of Santa Clara
Office of Consumer Affairs. In past years, the City has provided CDBG funding in support of
fair Housing activities. Given limited funding and staffing at the City, however, Saratoga's role in
sponsoring fair housing events and handling discrimination complaints will be very limited.
•
3 V0002
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OB] ECTIVES
GOAL l : TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY~S FAIR SHARE OF THE BAY AREA REGIONAL
HOUSING NEED FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS
Objective: To designate sufficient vacant land and/or sites with reuse potential to
accommodate the City's allocation .under the Regional Housing Needs
Determination (RHND) adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The
RHND allocation for Saratoga between January 1, 1999 and June 30, 2006 is as
follows:
Income Level Dwelling Units % of Total
Very Low Income 75 14%
Low Income 36 7%
Moderate Income 108. 20%
Above Moderate Income 320 59%
Total 539 100%
Source: ABAG 1999-2006 Reeional Housine Needs Determination.
Program 1.1: Zoning Code Changes
The City -can accommodate the total number of dwelling units allocated by ABAG under the
RHND th"rough a combination of vacant residential- land, residential or mixed-use projects on
vacant commercial land, addition of dwelling units over or behind existing commercial uses
throughout commercial districts in Saratoga, approval of second units, and dwelling units
constructed or approved by permit since January 1, 1999. To meet the_ needs of very low-, low-,
and moderate-income households, however, several zoning changes will be needed to encourage
the production of affordable housing. These include eliminating age-related occupancy
restrictions for residential properties with second dwelling units, the 1.6 minimum site area
requirement for detached second units, and the annual limit of 20 permits on the approval of
second units.
Timeframe: Adopt Zoning Code amendments by July 1, 2002.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division (draft Zoning
Code amendments); Planning Commission (review and recommend
amendments to City Council); City Council (adopt Zoning Code
amendments).
Funding: ~ General Fund.
Program 1.2: Amend Zoning Code to Implement aMixed-Ilse Overlay Zone
The City will adopt a Zoning Code amendment to implement a residential mixed-use overlay
zone that can be applied to any commercial zone within the City of Saratoga. The new mixed-use
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
overlay zone- will contain appropriate development standards, including residential density and
parking standards, suitable for the development of low- and moderate-income housing. Projects
that include residential-commercial mixed-uses will be subjected to the City's density bonus-
affordability requirement (see program 2.1).
Timeframe: Adopt Zoning Code amendment by July 1, 2002.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Deparhnent, Planning Division (conduct site
analysis and draft Zoning Code amendments): Planning Commission
(review and recommend amendments to City Council): City Council
(accept recommendations and adopt Zoning Code amendments).
Funding: General Fund.
GOAL 2: ENCOURAGE THE CONSTRl1CTION OF HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO LOWER-
AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND INCREASE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPTIONS
•
Objective: To increase the supply of affordable housing and housing options in
Saratoga to house additional households and families earning less than 120% of
the Santa Clara County median income.
Program 2.1: Density Bonuses and Affordable Housing Requirement
The City will amend the Zoning Code to implement state law (Section 65915 of the California
Government Code) requiring at least a 25 percent density bonus for any residential project in
which at least 10 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income households or 20 percent
of the un_ its are affordable to low-income households or 50 percent of the units are designed for
seniors. In addition to the density bonus, the City will offer one or more of the following
incentives to increase the financial feasibility of constructing the affordable housing:
~ Fee waivers, reductions, and/or deferrals.
i; Modified standards for mixed-use projects (such as a higher floor area ratio) that decrease
development costs.
i; Modified design review process to avoid unnecessary or excessive costs or delays for
achieving City development standards.
Other incentives identified by the project sponsor or the City that will reduce
development costs while achieving the overall intent of the City's zoning standards.
The City will require that properties rezoned for higher density residential densities or rezoned for
multifamily use under Programs 1.1 and 1.2 (mixed-use) include-the minimum percentages of
affordable of senior housing listed above as a condition of permit approval. In addition, the City
will require that any other residential projects of five or more units include the minimum
percentages of affordable housing listed above as a condition of permit approval.
Timeframe: Adopt Zoning Code amendment by July 1, 2002. `Recommend site(s) to
City Council and re-zone property(ies) by December 31, 2002.
000029
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES. AND OBJECTIVES
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division (draft Zoning
Code amendments); Planning Commission . (review and .recommend
amendments to City Council); City Council (adopt Zoning Code
amendments).
Funding: General Fund, permit fees.
Program 2.2: Saratoga Retirement Community
The City will work with the Saratoga Retirement Community to set aside as many dwellings of
the Phase I expansion (110-units) as possible. The first phase of this project developed by SRC
for low-income households (currently under construction) has reserved 49-units for individuals
whose annual income is less than $15,000.
Timeframe: The project is under construction
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division (review
development plans and recommend permit conditions to -Planning
Commission); Planning Commission (review staff report and
recommendations and recommend action to the City Council); City
Council (approve permit conditions).
Funding: General Fund, permit fees.
Program 2.3: Assist in Obtaining Subsidies for.Affordable Housing Development
The City of Saratoga will assist housing providers in accessing state and federal funding sources,
as appropriate, to subsidize the construction of housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income
households. Assistance may take one of several forms:
1. Applying for state or federal funding on behalf of a project sponsor.
2. Assisting a project sponsor in assembling documentation and endorsements to support an
application for state or federal funds. .
3. Providing a local cash match, to be determined on a request basis (if City funds are
available).
4. Designating a portion of the City's annual CDBG allocation.
Timeframe: Dependent on submittal of project proposals and application funding
timeframes.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division to provide
staff assistance, City Council to authorize allocation of funds or
submittal of a City application.
Funding: Potential funding sources include: CDBG; California HOME Program,
California Multifamily Housing Program, California Downtown
•
•
•
6 000030
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES. AND OBJECTIVES
C
Federal Home Loan Bank Board Affordable Housing Program, federal
Section 8 and 202 Programs, Santa Clara County Housing Trust. General
Fund.
Program 2.4: First-Time Homebuyer Assistance
The City will make an annual contribution to a regional housing fund dedicated to providing first-
time homebuver assistance and that serves residents of Saratoga. The amount of the contribution
will be determined each year based on the availability of funding. The public and/or non-profit
organizations that will receive the funds each year will be based on funding requests from those
organizations, the nature of purpose of their programs, and how well their programs address the
housing needs of Saratoga.
Timeframe: Annual contribution.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division to recommend
annual contribution .amount, City Council to approve annual
contribution:
Funding: CDBG, General Fund.
GOAL 3: ASSIST LOWER-INCOME HOMEOWNERS IN MAINTAINING THEIR HOMES
Objective: To eliminate substandard housing conditions in Saratoga through
financial assistance to low-income homeowners who are unable to properly
maintain or repair their homes.
Program 3.1: Saratoga Housing Rehabilitation and Assistance Program
-The City will continue to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to homeowners earning 80
-percent or less of the Santa Clara County median income through the Saratoga Housing
Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP). The Program provides grants of up to $10,000
per applicant.
Timeframe: Ongoing program.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division
Funding:
CDBG.
Goal 4: Preserve Existing Affordable Housing in Saratoga
Program- 4.1: Preserve Existing Affordable Rental Housing
The City will seek to preserve existing .affordable rental housing (177 units in three
developments) through the following actions:
n~nnn-ate
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
Monitor compliance with state and federal tenant and public notice requirements prior to any
change in funding or ownership status.
Provide financial assistance for property maintenance and improvements, or provide assistance in
obtaining state and/or federal funding for property maintenance and improvements.
Identifi~ one or more non-profit entities interested= in the right of first refusal should one or more
of the properties become available for sale. Provide financial assistance, or assist the non-profit
in obtaining state or federal funds for acquisition and preservation as affordable rental housing.
Require that any financial assistance is tied to a minimum 30-vear affordability covenant binding
on all current and future property owners during the effective time period. y
Timeframe: Monitor annually. Further action will depend.on the intention of
property owners.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division.
Funding: CDBG, California HOME Program, federal Section 8 Program,
other state/federal sources for acquisition and preservation
GOAL 5: PROMOTE EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL SARATOGA RESIDENTS
Program 5.1: Fair Housing Program
The City will encourage fair housing practices by continuing to cooperate with non-profit housing
and citizen organizations. The City will also encourage citizen participation from all segments of
the community in identifying and discussing housing issues. The City has designated a -Fair
Housing Coordinator to monitor and coordinate fair housing activities in the City, including an
annual fair housing event to be conducted with representatives of non-profit, real estate, and
lending institutions. The Fair Housing Coordinator will also refer discrimination complaints to
the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair or the County of Santa Clara Office of Consumer Affairs.
Timeframe: Designate Fair Housing Coordinator by April 2002.
Responsible Agency: City Council to designate responsible agency/position.
Funding: CDBG, General Fund.
Program 5.2: Sites for Homeless and Transitional Housing Facilities and Services
1
The City will amend the Zoning Code to designate appropriate zones for the location of homeless
and transitional housing facilities and supportive services should the need- for such services arise
in Saratoga. The proposed mixed-use overlay zone (see Program 1.2) will be the designated zone
for such land uses.
-.
Timeframe: Adopt Zoning Code amendment by July 1, 2002.
•
•
8
nnnn~~
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES. AND OBJECTIVES
Monitor compliance with state and federal tenant and public notice requirements prior to an_v
change in funding or ownership status.
Provide financial assistance for property maintenance and improvements, or provide assistance in
obtaining state and/or federal funding for property maintenance and improvements.
Identify .one or more non-profit entities interested in the right of first refusal should one or more
of the properties become available for sale. Provide financial assistance, or assist the non-profit
in obtaining state or federal funds for acquisition and preservation as affordable rental housing.
Require that any financial assistance is tied to a minimum 30-year affordability covenant binding
on all current and future property owners during the effective time period.
Timeframe: Monitor annually. Further action will depend on the intention of
property owners.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division.
Funding: CDBG, California HOME Program, federal Section S Program,
other state/federal sources for acquisition and preservation
GOAL 5: PROMOTE EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL SARATOGA RESIDENTS
Program 5.1: Fair Housing Program
The City will encourage fair housing practices by cooperating with non-profit housing and citizen
organizations. -The City will also encourage citizen participation from all segments of the
community in identifying and discussing housing issues. The City will designate a Fair Housing
Coordinator to monitor and coordinate fair housing activities in the City, including an annual fair
housing event to be conducted with representatives of non-profit, real estate, and lending.
institutions. -The Fair Housing Coordinator will also refer discrimination complaints to the Mid-
Peninsula Citizens for Fair or the County of Santa Clara Office of Consumer Affairs.
Timeframe: Designate Fair Housing Coordinator by Apri12002.
Responsible Agency: City Council to designate responsible agency/position.
Funding: CDBG, General Fund.
Program 5.2: Sites for Homeless and Transitional Housing Facilities and Services
The City will amend the Zoning Code to designate appropriate zones for the location. of homeless
and transitional housing facilities and supportive services should the need for such services arise
in Saratoga. The proposed mixed-use overlay zone (see Program 1.2) will be the designated zone
for such land uses. .
Timeframe: Adopt Zoning Code amendment by July 1, 2002.
nnnn:~:~
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
Responsible Agency: Communit<~ Development Department, Planning Division (draft Zoning
Code amendments); Planning Commission: (review and recommend
amendments to City Council); City Council (adopt Zoning Code
amendments).
Funding: General Fund.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES (January 1, 1999 -June 30 1996)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate i
Accommodate RHND
75 36 108 330
Allocation ~
New Construction* 75 36 108 320
Housing Rehabilitation 10 20 N/A N/A
Preservation of At-Risk
177 N/A N/A N/A
Rental Housing
*Estimated number of dwelling units anticipated to be constructed in consideration of market
trends and available resource for funding and subsidy of affordable housing-includes 177 above
moderate-income dwelling units constructed, under construction, oi• approved by permit between
January 1, 1999 and August 1, 2001.
•
s
nnnn~~
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
•
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF
GENERAL
PLAN
State law requires the Housing Element contain a statement of "the means by which consistency
will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals'' (California Government
Code, Section 65583[c][6][B]). There are two aspects of this analysis: 1) an identification of
other General Plan goals, policies, and programs that could affect implementation of the Housing
Element or that could be affected by the implementation of the Housing Element, and 2) an
identification of actions to ensure consistency between the Housing Element and affected parts of
other General Plan elements.
The 1983 General Plan contains several elements with policies related to housing. Polices and
the means for achieving consistency are summarized below in Table 1. The City will ensure
consistency between the Housing Element and General Plan policies through the following
actions in the Housing Element:
Summary of General Plan Goals and Policies Affecting Housing
•
•
General Plan
Element
Policy
Means for Achieving Consistency
Lands shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless they are contiguous to the
existing City limits and it is determined by the City that public service can
be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City and dilution of service
to existing residents.
Land Use Element Policy 1.1
The City's ability to accommodate its RHND allocation and meet future
housing construction needs is not based on an assumption that land will
need to be annexed. If annexation is necessary to accommodate the Ciry's
regional allocation, such annexation will conform to Policy 1.1
Relate new development and its land uses to presently planned street
capacities to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and public safety ha_-ards. If it
is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a
project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to
issuance of building permits. .
Goa15.0 The City does not anticipate that accommodation of the City's ItHND
allocation will require street expansion or improvements beyond the needs
of the development site. New residential developments will be designed to
comply with existing street capacities, therefore. If local improvements
are needed to address the traffic impacts of a specific project, appropriate
conditions will be imposed to ensure that traffic management
improvements are constructed as part of the project.
,o
000035
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
Prior to initial approval, the decision making body shall consider the
cumulative trajjic impacts of single family residential projects of 4 or more
lots, multi family residential projects of eight.or more units, and . ~
commercial projects designed for an occupancy load of more than 30
Policy 6.1 persons.
,
Developers of single family and multi-family residential projects meeting
the minimum threshold requirements.wil_1 provide analysis of cumulative
traffic impacts prior to project approval. The Housing Element does not
contain any policies that conflict with this impact review requirement.
Fxistingvon-developed sites zoned single family detached residential
should remain so designated.
Policy 8.1
Residentially zoned site will remain so designated. The Housing Element
does not propose redesignation of any currently zoned single family sites.
Prior to further development of major residential (4 or more single-
- family units; 8 or more multi family units) or major commercial (more
than 30 person occupancy) projects along the City's major arterials,
Circulation and the impacts of increased traffic shall be studied and a plan for
Scenic Highway
Policy 2.7 minimizing these impacts shall be developed to the extent feasible.
Element The majority of new housing to be constructed over the next five years
will be on existing streets and will continue to meet City standards.
The Housing Element does not any policies that conflict with this
traffic impact policy.
In the process of all new development, particular care shall be taken to
preserve native oaks, measuring at least ten inches in diameter at
- twenty four inches above the ground, and other significant trees by
Conservation pOIICy 2.5 careful sitting of all improvements.
Element
All new housing units proposed by-the updated Housing Element will
comply with the City of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance and special care
will be taken dwing construction to preserve native oaks.
The City shall minimize the impact that development may have on the
quantity of water consumed by the development.
Policy 3.4
The City will encowage the use of water conserving fixtwes in new
residential units as well as drought tolerant landscaping.
Watershed shall be protected by stringent erosion control during
Policy 3.5 development and by minimizing grading to the fullest extent possible.
New developments will include erosion control management practices..
Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully
considering the visual impact of new developments.
Policy 6.0
All new housing units constructed. in the City will reflect the
- architectwal style of the neighborhoods they are placed and any visual
impacts to the surrounding environment will be carefully considered.
•
•
•i
000036
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
•
•
•
Impacts on air quality ofSaratoga's air resources and protect the
citizens from the potentially harmful effects of air pollution.
Policy 8.0
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
comply with the City of Sazatoga's construction air qualin~ standards.
The City shall maintain and enforce the noise standards specified in
the City's noise ordinance.
Policy 1.1
All new housing units proposed in the updated Housing Element wilt
comply with the City of Sazatoga's Noise Ordinance.
New development deemed noise sensitive shall~be appropriately sited
and protected from adverse noise impacts.
Policy 2.3
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
Noise comply with the City of Sazatoga's Zoning Ordinance, which includes
standards for noise attenuation.
The City shall require all noise-generating development to mitigate
noise impacts to the adopted noise standards; acoustical analysis mm'
be required.
Policy 2.4
The updated Housing Element Polices aze in accordance with the
Noise Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element does not
address noise mitigation directly. The City's Zoning Code contains
standazds to protect residences from noise generators.
No development shall be permitted in the designated urban service
area without individual site-specifrc geotechnical investigation to
determine depth of bedrock, soil stability, location of rift zones and
Safety Element Policy 1.1 other localized geotechnical problems.
A geotechnical report will be prepared prior to project approval and
constructions.
Development in areas subject to natural hazards shall be limited and
shall be designed to protect the environment, inhabitants and general
public. In areas that have been proven to be unsafe, development of
structures for human habitation shall be prohibited to the maximum
Policy 1.2 extent permitted by law.
The updated Housing Element does not propose the development of
housing in any environmentally sensitive areas..
In order to mitigate the danger of earthquake damage, the City shall
enforce strict earthquake construction and soil engineering standards,
selecting the most stable areas for development and requiring
developers to compensate for soil instabilities through approved
Policy 2.1 engineering and construction techniques.
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
comply with the City of Sazatoga's Uniform Building Code (UBC) and
will be inspected by the City's Building Inspector for compliance with
all earthquake prevention standazds.
00003'7
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The Ciry shall continue to enforce its existingflood control ~
regulations, and will cooperate with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District when proposed projects will affect floodwavs in the City in
order to prevent development activities from aggravating or causing ~
Policy 3.1 potential flood problems.
i
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
comply with the City of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance.
The City shall require the installation of an early warning fire alarm
system in all new single family and multi family dwellings and anv
existing single family dwellings which are expanded by fifty percent or
more in floor area, where such new or expanded dwellings are located
Policy 4.1 within designated hazardous fire areas.
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
include an early warning fire alarm system and will be inspected by the
City's Building Inspector.
~~:
t
•
•
13 n0o038
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City encouraged public participation by all segments of the community by conducting a
series of public workshops and study sessions with the Planning Commission and City council
between October 2000 and July 2001 in the preparation of the Housing Element. Communit<•
organizations known to the City to have an interest in affordable housing issues, such as the
Senior Center, church groups, and teacher groups, were notified of the meetings and invited to
attend. The general public was notified through the City's monthly newsletter, a mailing to Cin~
residents, posted notices in prominent public locations, and local cable access television.
Attendees at the City's meetings included, in addition to the general public, representatives of
senior organizations, the local teacher's union, church and other ecumenical organizations, and
nonprofit organizations with an interest in housing issues.
•
•
14 000039
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSING NEEDS
ASSESMENT
The Housing Element is one of seven state-mandated elements of the General Plan. The Housing
Element contains a comprehensive list of information regarding housing needs and the existing
housing stock as.presented in the Housing Needs Assessment. Section 65583(a) of the Housing.
Element Law' states .that the housing element must contain an "analysis and documentation of
household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing
characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock- condition." The Housing Needs
Assessment fulfills this requirement.
The Housing Needs Assessment provides background information on -the housing needs and
conditions in the City in order to prepare goals and policies that will adequately meet the needs of
the community: The 2000 Census results have just begun to be released and will continue to be
disseminated through 2002. As information becomes available, it will be incorporated into the
City's Housing Element. It is likely that the basic thrust of this report will not change a result of
new data, but the order of magnitude of the problems and relative needs will probably shift. As
such, this report should be considered a work in progress. The data presented in the Housing
Needs Assessment will not only guide the development of housing goals and policies, but will
also be integrated into the body of the Housing Element to present the current status of housing
and housing related issues in Saratoga.
This assessment is organized into four data sections. The first section focuses on demographic
information such as population size, ethnicity, age, household type, income, employment,
housing characteristics, and general housing needs by income, and special housing needs for
specialized segments of the population. This first section basically outlines the characteristics of
the community, and identifies those characteristics that may have sigtiificant impacts on housing
need in the community.
The second section identifies the City's resources, the historic development pattern and areas of
housing opportunity in the community. It also identifies special housing and other resources that
are characteristic of the City and provide opportunity and potential constraints to housing growth
and maintenance in Saratoga.
The next section discusses the governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing
development in the Ciry. The City has building standards that can limit the amount or location of
housing in certain areas or can result in fees that make certain types of housing infeasible. In
addition, there are environmental constraints that cause housing limitations. Non-governmental
constraints such as the housing market, financing, and construction costs also limit housing
growth in Saratoga.
The final section of the Needs Assessment discusses opportunities for energy conservation, which
can reduce homeowner costs and infrastructure costs to the City. With a reduction in basic living
costs through energy savings, more households will be better able to afford adequate housing.
Combined, these sections provide an analysis and documentation of the community's
characteristics and needs, and identifies potential constraints to meeting the community's needs
adequately.
MA]OR FINDINGS
1. The affordability of housing in Saratoga has been an issue of concern for at least the past
20 years, but the magnitude of the problem has become especially critical over the past
15 000040
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
decade. Those at the lowest-end of the income spectrum are experiencing the greatest
financial distress.as a result. -
2. The problem of housing affordability does not affect Saratoga alone, but is a regional
problem, especially evident throughout Santa Clara County.
3. Low-income renters and homeowners, and low- and moderate-income homebuyers. have
been especially hard-hit by rising housing costs.
4. Twenty years ago or more, the lack of housing affordability affected primarily seniors on
fixed incomes and families living on entry-level wages or public assistance. Since that
that time, the problem of housing affordability has spread to virtually all but the highest
income levels in Santa Clara County. It affects the ability of most governmental agencies
to amact qualified, essential workers such as teachers and emergency service personnel.
It also affects the ability of most entry and mid-level professionals in both public and
private employment to locate suitable housing.
5. Most seniors on limited incomes, even those with substantial equities in their homes, are
experiencing difficulty locating suitable housing that meets their physical needs without
leaving the community. Aside from cost and income considerations, there are
. insufficient choices, locally, for various types of senior housing.
6. Saratoga will experience some employment growth over the next decade, primarily in
retail and services. Most workers in these industries will have low- or moderate-incomes
and will be unable to find affordable housing in the area. Few of the current workers in
these industries are able to live in the City or nearby.
7. Most of the remaining land available for development is located in hillside areas with
limited development capacity to accommodate higher density housing that might be
affordable to low- or moderate-income households. A few sites remain that may be
suitable for higher density housing, infill, or mixed-use developments. The potential to
accommodate affordable housing will remain limited, however, unless existing land uses
are re-designated for more intense use. By itself, however, redesignation is unlikely to
have a significant impact on the supply of affordable housing because of such limiting
factors as slope and geology, cost of land, lack of utilities and infrastructure, cost of
preparation of land for development, and impact on established surrounding
neighborhoods.
8. As a result of the rapid increase in higher paying jobs having outpaced the availability of
living accommodations in the.region, the cost of shelter in this demand-driven free
. market has risen to accommodate the highest income segments'of the population. Not
only has this created a larger number of households for whom housing has become less
affordable, but it has also widened the gap between the price of shelter and what it would
cost to close the affordability gap. Coupled with the lack of an abundance of easily
developable land in the region, the practical opportunities to meet all the affordable
housing needs are severely constrained. Therefore, a meaningful housing strategy will
require that there be a realistic assessment of the availability of programs and fiscal
resources and a careful prioritization of the needs that are to be met. '
,s 000041
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
• HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Population
Saratoga has not experienced substantial- population growth for several decades, that is, by 1979
the City had allowed development of most of the vacant in the City. Most population changes
that have occurred since 1980 are due largely to changes in households inhabiting existing
dwellings. Because Saratoga is nearly built out, except for hillside-areas, there has been little
newly constructed housing over the past 20 years. Changes in household composition related to
agc and the percentage of households with children have had a greater influence on Saratoga's
population than growth from new development. The City's population gradually increased
between 1970 and 1980 and peaked about 1980, when the U.S. Census recorded 29,261 residents.
Between 1980 and 1990, the number of residents began to gradually decline, to 28,061. This
decline resulted from a combination of little new residential development and a decrease in the
number of families with children:
Since 1990, the City's population has increased about eleven percent, slightly less than the
growth rate (15 percent) for Santa Clara County overall. According to the California Department
of Finance (DOF), the City's population was 31,300 as of January 1,-2000. City projections show
a continual increase in the City's population to 2020 with an estimated increase of ten percent
(Association of Bay Area Government 2000 Projections). Most of this increase appears to be
related to changes in household composition-the number of households with children has •
increased in the community since 1990.
Ethnicity
In 2000, the relative proportions of the various ethnic groups in Saratoga varied significantly
from those of other cities in Santa Clara County. or as the state as a whole. While persons of
Hispanic origin comprise about one-fifth of the countywide population and over one-fourth of the
statewide population, such individuals comprise three percent of the City's population. Similarly,
Blacks and other minority groups representing large segments of the countywide and statewide
populations consist of less than one percent of the city's population. Asian and Pacific Islanders
comprise twenty-nine percent of the Saratoga's population, close to the population within Santa
Clara County and about eighteen percent higher than the statewide population. Figure 1
compares ethnicity on a citywide, countywide, and statewide basis. - .
•
" n00042
•
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Comparison of Race/Ethnicity by City, County, and State Population
70°k O WhAe
!
60°k ~. ;.
~ Black ~
50%
40% ~
,;
~ ~ ~ Native Amer
~
30%
.
.: j mAsiaNPac Is
j
20%
®Two or More ~
Races ~
10%
I ®Hispanic or Latino '
0°k j (of any race)'
Saratoga Santa Clara County California
•
Source: 2000 Census
*Population of Hispanic origin includes all racial categories. Racial categories include only non-Htspanlc ortgln.
The age distribution in Saratoga is similar to the population of Santa Clara County as a whole,
with a slightly higher number of seniors living in the City and a slightly lower number of
children. The percentage of City residents 65 years of age or.more increased in Saratoga from
eight percent in 1980 to 13 percent in 1990 and again to 16 percent in 2000. As a result, the
City's median age is higher than in many neighboring communities, the county, and the state.
However since 1990, Saratoga has experienced an eleven percent increase in population primarily
related to changes in household size and composition. Enrollment statistics from the seven
schools that serve Saratoga suggest that the number of households with school age children has
slightly increased since 1990, with a more substantial increase in recent years.. The recent
increase in school-aged children is due to the re-sales of homes formerly occupied by older adults
to families with young children (Saratoga News April 2000). The school districts serving
Saratoga reported that about 4,440 Saratoga residents were enrolled in individual districts for the
1999-2000 school year. Families with children under age five has also increased since 1990;
however the percentage of the population less than 17 years of age is five percent less than the
county and state population. The number of Saratoga residents in the 18-64 year old age bracket
is quite similar to the county and state population.
Age
18
~;t~U(~4E3
. SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Age Distribution (percent)
Source: 2000 Census
^ 0-18
®18-64
^ 65+
Saratoga Santa Clara County California
Households
Because of the larger percentage of seniors, non-families, acid family households without children
in Saratoga, the average household size is substantially below the countywide and statewide
levels for the same period. At time of the 2000 Census, over half of all- households in Saratoga
consisted of one or two individuals. The large number of non-family households and childless
couples further illustrate the reasons for the smaller average household size in Saratoga.
Although Saratoga has seen a gradual increase in household size between 1990 and 2000, from
2.7 to 2.8, .the average household size is still below the countywide and statewide average
household sizes. Figure 3 compares average household sizes in Saratoga, Santa Clara County,
and California for 2000.
•
19
nnnn~~
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Figure 3
Saratoga Santa Clara County California
__
S ,.. ,
<...
2.9
2.8 -
DAve HH Size
2.7
2.6
2.5 z
Average Household Sizes (2000)
Source: 2000 Census
Of the approximately 8.,600 families reported in Saratoga in 2000, over ninety percent were
married-couple families. Over one-third (38 percent) of households in the City are families with
children under 18. About three percent of all households were single-parent households in 2000,
two-thirds of which were single mothers. The proportion of single-parent households in Saratoga
was below the levels both countywide (seven percent) and statewide(ten percent).
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS
According to the 1990 census, the median household income in Saratoga was $86,674. This was
above the county median of $48,115. There was no income data available from the 2000 Census
at the time the Housing Element was updated. Federal income guidelines for participation in
various housing subsidy programs (Department of Housing and Urban Development), is based on
the size of a household's income relative to the median income for the area. For a family of four,
the median income was estimated to be $87,300 in Santa Clara County in 2001. The federal
government does not provide income guidelines or estimates for individual cities.
In evaluating income levels, four standard measures are often used: "very low-income," "low-
income," "moderate-income," and "above moderate-income." These income levels are expressed
as a percentage of the median income (the mid-point at which half of all households earn more
and half earn less) and are usually adjusted for household size. Thus, a "low-income" household
of four has a higher income than a "low-income" household of two. Low-income limits for
households in 2000 are shown in Table 3. An income below $48,350 for a single person was
considered low-income according to HUD. An income of $91,150 for an eight-person household
was also considered low-income.
•
Zo 000045
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
1990 Saratoga Household Income
Income Percent of Households Number of Households
Less than $10,000 3% 318
$10,000 - $19,999 3.3% 337
$20,000 - $29,999 4.1% 416
$30,000 - 39,999 5.9% 929
$40,000 - $49,999 6.6% 671
$0,000 - $59,999 6.5% 661
$60,000 - $74,999- 10.8% 1099
$75,000 - $99,999 17.6% 1786
$100,000 - $124,999 15.9% 1616
$125,000 - $149,000 8.4% 851
$150,000 or more 17.7% 1797
Source: 1990 Census
INCOME DEFINITIONS (1990):
Very low-income = 50% or less of the Santa Clara Counry median income ($24,057).
Low-income = 51 % to 80% of the Santa Clara County median income ($24,439 - $38.492).
Moderate-income = 81% to 120% of the Santa Clara median income ($38,973 - $57,738).
Above Moderate-Income = 121 % or more of the Santa Clara County median income ($58,219).
Income Distribution Scale
20%
40% 40%
M£DLatN
LOl+lt MODI;~T£
INCOM£
Source: Parsons
21
•
~_~
/1!1/1!1 A n
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
In a normally distributed population (that is, one not skewed to either end of the income scale),
approximately 40 percent of the population will have incomes within the very .low- and low-
income ranges, about 20 percent within the, moderate-income range, and. about 40 percent in the
above moderate-income range (Figure 4) a substantial dispersion: of income within the Cih~
around the median,. as shown in Table 1. Still, over three-fourths of Saratoga residents earned
above moderate incomes in 1990 as defined below. Saratoga has a larger relative percentage of
above moderate-income households and a smaller percentage of low-income households in
relation to the countywide income distribution.
Table 2 shows the number of households in each income group in 1990. Figure 4 shows that
slightly over three quarters (77 percent) of Saratoga residents had above moderate incomes in
1990, while only one-sixth (16 percent) had very -low or low incomes. Although there has been
no citywide census update since 1990, economic trends, such as rising home prices, suggest that
households who have moved to Saratoga since 1990 have higher average incomes than long-term
residents. If the 2000 Census confirms this hypothesis, then the gap •between count~~vide
incomes and incomes among Saratoga residents has widened further, as the gap beriveen cit}' and
county. housing prices has increased (Housing prices are discussed on page 21).
Table 2
1989 Saratoga Household Income Range by Income Category
Income Category Income Range Percentage of # of Households
Very Low Income $0-$24,058 8% 848
Low Income $24,059-$38,492 8% 819
Moderate Income $38,493-$57,738 7% 671
Above Moderate $57,739+ 77% 7810
Median Income: $86,674
Source: 1990 Census
1989 Saratoga Income Distribution
®Very Low
®Low
O Moderate
DAbv Mod
Source: 1990 Census
22
(1(1n04`7
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
HLTD income limit areas are the same as Fair Market Rent areas. HLJD normally uses current
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Metropolitan Statistical Area- (MSA) and Primary
Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) definitions to define income limits areas because they
closely correspond to housing market area definitions. The median income level for afour-person
household was approximately $87,300.
Santa Clara -County Income Limits (2001)
Household
Size Extremely Low Income
(30% of Median) Very Low Income (50% of
Median) Low Income (80% of
Median)
1 Person $18,350 $30,550 $48.350
2 Persons $20,950 $34,900 $55.250
3 Persons $23,600 $39,300 $62,150
4 Persons $26,200 $43,650 $69,050
5 Persons $28,300 $47,150 $74,550
6 Persons $30,400 $50,650 $80,100
7. Persons $32,500 $54,150 $85,600
8 Persons $34,560 $57,600 $9-1,150
__ _ Source: HUD.2001 Income Guidelines.
Poverty
The poverty rate is a federally defined level of income for minimum subsistence. The dollar
threshold for poverty is adjusted for household size and composition.. In 1989, less than two
percent of the population was living below the poverty level, which is a small percent compared
to neighboring cities in the region. Of the individuals in households with- incomes -below the
poverty level, 30 percent were senior citizens, 59 percent were adults between the ages of 18 and
64, and 11 percent were children under the age of 17.Table 4 provides 1995 poverty thresholds
for several types of households: .
Table 4
Poverty Thresholds (1999)
Single Person 65+ $7,990 Two Adults, One Child $13,410
Single Person Under 65 $8,667 One Adult, Three Children $16,954
Two Persons 65+ $10,070 ~ Two Adults,- Two Children $16,895
Two Persons Under 65 $11,156 One Adult, Four Children $19,578
One Adult, Two Children $13,423 Two Adults, Three Children $19,882
Source: U. S. Census Bureau
According to 1990 Census data, less than two percent of the City's population had incomes below
the federally defined poverty level. Groups most likely to have poverty level incomes were
married couples without children and the elderly. Of those below the poverty level, 77 percent
•
23
~~-.~~ ~~
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
were White, 18 percent were Black and Asian/Pacific Islander, and 11 percent were of Hispanic
origin. The racial composition of people below the poverty level is similar to -the racial
composition of the City as a whole, as higher proportions of Whites are impoverished. The
highest number of impoverished Whites, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Others were adults age 18
to 64. The highest numbers of impoverished Blacks Americans were age 75 and older.
By comparison, slightly less than eight percent of the County's population was below the povem~
level. About 50 percent of the impoverished were White, compared to a total White population of
58 percent. Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanic origins comprised about the same
percentages of impoverished individuals as their representation in the total population (less than
one percent, six percent, 18 percent respectively). Although Asian/Pacific Islanders comprised
17 percent of the total population, they represented 23 percent of the impoverished.
Census data for the State revealed that approximately 18 percent of the total population was
below the poverty level in 1990, although statewide poverty levels have declined substantially
over .the past two years. Even so, the City's poverty rate is still less than one-fifth of the
statewide rate. Census data on poverty was not available from the 2000 Census at the time the
Housing Element was updated.
Table 5
Saratoga 1990 Poverty Rates
•
Group Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level Poverty Rate
Elderly 3250 105 3%
Non-Elderly 25,570 292 1
Children 5,650 48 1
Adults 18,345 244 1
Single Mother Families 461 8 2%
Single Father Families 213 0 0
Married Couple
Families 7,648 35 0.5%
Black 78 14 18%
Asian/Pacific Islander 4,144 62 1.5%
Hispanic - 216 44 20%
Native American 22 0 0
Other 41 0 0
White 22,904 308 1.3%
Total Population 27,642 397 1.5%
Total Households 10,148 159 1.6%
Source: 1990 Census Bureau Data.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the City of Saratoga
had a 1.2 percent unemployment rate in September 2000, which is about 200 persons of a total
labor force of 17,520 people. The unemployment rate for the City is lower than the countywide
24 00049
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
rate but reflects the general statewide trend of dramatically lower unemployment since the early •
1990s.
In 1990, the City -had an unemployment rate of 2.4 percent, compared to the County's
unemployment rate of three percent. The unemployment rate in Saratoga has been love
historically in comparison to other areas of the County and the rest of the United States. Even
during the early 1990s at the depth of California's recession; unemployment in Saratoga was
relatively lovv (2.4 percent). Now, the labor force is rising (14,800 in -1990 compared to 17,20 in
2000).
The 1990 Census data shows that most residents were employed in managerial and professional
specialty occupations (58 percent of employed residents). This is a very high percent compared
to most communities in California and explains the substantially higher incomes in the City.
Other common occupations included sales occupations (13 percent) and administrative support
(12 percent). The census data shows that over 90 percent of the employed residents work within
Santa Clara County; however, only about 15 percent of these employees worked in Saratoga. A
majority of residents travel over twenty minutes to work, with over 65 percent having to travel at
least 20 minutes to work.
One measure of local retail employment is the amount of retail sales activity. Figures from the
Board of Equalization show that taxable sales in Saratoga are low compared to most other cities
in Santa Clara County. In 1997, taxable retail sales in Saratoga totaled $13,750 per capita, while
all taxable sales totaled $18,578 per capita. In 1998, per capita taxable retail sales rose to
$15,495 while total taxable sales increased to $19,297. In 1999, per capita taxable retail sales
decreased to $1.4,993 and total taxable sales decreased to $18,652.
The Association of Bay Area Governments projections for Saratoga's show a steady increase in
the number of jobs in Saratoga from 1995 to 2020, with the number of jobs increasing from 7,270
to 10,480. According to the 1997 Economic Census, there were 2,830 annual payroll employees
in Saratoga, 40 percent were employed in retail trade and accommodation and foodservice.
Health care and social assistance employed 14 percent of the population. Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) projected that the labor market in 2000 is made up of 55 percent
service workers, 24 percent "other" employees, 15 percent retail employees, four percent
manufacturing/wholesale and two percent agricultural/mining.
Jobs available in the City of Saratoga, the jobs held by city residents, whether located in the City
or elsewhere, are affected by regional trends. The State Employment Development Department
1999 annual average statistics show the civilian labor force for Santa Clara County to be 962,800,
with an unemployment rate of three percent. This is signifcantly lower than the state's
unemployment rate of just over five percent. Santa Clara County enjoys one of the lowest
unemployment rates in California, but at the expense of upward pressure on housing costs.
According to the State Employment Development Department 1995-2002 projections data for
Santa Clara County, the largest industries in the County are services (46 percent growth), retail
(24 percent growth), and manufacturing (9 percent growth). The -business services sector is
expected to account for the largest growth, with more than 80,000 new jobs. The fastest growing
occupations in -the County between 1995 and 2002 are expected to be computer system
analysts/electronic data processor (95 percent), home health care workers (86 percent), computer
engineers (68 percent growth), amusement/recreation attendants (68 percent), computer support
specialists (58 percent), and database administrators (56 percent). Occupations that have large
employment and have high turnover rates generally provide the most job openings. Santa Clara -
County is projected to have employment opportunities -not only in these .high turnover •
occupations but also in the more technologically advanced categories.
ss 000050
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Despite projections for strong job prospects and regionally available high-paying jobs for Cih~
residents, many, if not most, of the jobs expected to be created in Saratoga will continue to be in
services and retail industries that typically employ low- and moderate-income wage earners. In
addition, the demand for services of all kinds will remain strong. For these reasons, Saratoga will
continue to experience a local demand for housing affordable to these income groups. The large
number of high paying jobs in the region in recent years has created an upward pressure on .
housing costs that has left behind other wage earners who have not shared in the newfound
wealth. The result is that households previously considered middle class, such as teachers and
public safety personnel have joined the ranks of other disadvantaged groups in need of affordable
housing. According to the 1998 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey produced by the CA
Employment Development Department, the mean hourly wage for Santa Clara County is $19.42.
Some of the major Employers listed for Santa Clara County include 3Com Corp, Apple
Computers, Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Intel Corp.
The CA Employment Development Department (EDD) produced an Occupational Employment
and Wage Data spreadsheet by County for 1998. This spreadsheet lists over 600 jobs in Santa
Clara County alone. A sample of jobs and salaries was taken relating to necessan~ serves in
Saratoga. The mean annual wage, and the 25`'' percentile and 75~' percentile of the working force
for each job category are listed below (Table 6).
•
r~
u
zs 000051
~r
Table 6
Occupational Employment and Wage Data for Santa Clara County 1998
Occupational Title Employment
Estimates Mean
Annual 25th Percentile
Annual Wage 75tH
Percentile
Urban and Regional Planners 4 $52,420 $38,230 - $70,283
Social Workers, Medical and
Ps chiatric 1,160 $37,870 $24,315 $47,736
Human Service Workers 1,330 $27,140 $18,450 $32,385
Teachers (Preschool) 2,320 $22,070 $18,782 $24,21 1
Teachers (Kindergarten) 1,170 $39,900 * *
Teachers (Elementary School) 8,200 $46,860..
Teachers (Secondary School) 7,560 $50,150
Teachers (Special Education) 1,690 $49,940
Teachers and Instructors,
Vocational Education and 1,280 $34,790 $22,589 $41,392
Librarians, Professional 670 $49,140. $37,440 $65,208
Technical Assistants, Library 370 $27,710 $22,776 $30,451
Vocational and Educational
Counselors 740 $48,020 $31,844 $70,283
Teachers Aides, 4,070 $20,040 $13,832 $24,689
Emergency Medical 420 $25,500 $20,404 $29,681
Pharmacists 1,040 $64,370 $61,027 $82,180
Municipal Clerks Not Available $57,330 $48,526 $75,899
Receptionists and Information
Clerks 10,740 $23,620 $18,366 $27,934
Fire Fighting and Prevention
Su ervisors 790 $61,400.. $46,924 $82,492
Police and Detective
Su ervisors 800 $62,230 $53,913 $84,115
Fire Fighters - 2,590. $44,390 $34,985 $55,515
Police Patrol Officers 2,130 $52,490 $43,409 $69,971
Parking Enforcement Officers Not Available $31,450 26,353 $29,556
Bus Drivers, School 1,010 $26,300 $22,568 $31,075
Source: Employment Development Department
*.For some occupations, workers may not work full-time ail year-round. For these occupations it is not feasible to
calculate an hourly wage.
I ~II
~J
~i
Residents in Saratoga are in a strong position to fill suggested job vacancies in the county given
the education attainment levels, workforce numbers, and the number of persons receiving public
assistance. Table 7 shows that over four-fifths of adults (85 percent) in the City attained
additional education after high school, well above the County's 64 percent. Less than five percent
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
27 OOQOS~r
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
of adults in Saratoga had less than a high school education, compared to approximatelti~ 17
percent of adults countywide.
Table 7
1990 Saratoga Educational Attainment
Educational Level City
Population Percent of
Population County
Population Percent of
Population
Less than 9~' Grade 326 1% 87,21 7°io
9`~ to 12~' Grade - No Diploma 994 4% 128,257 ] 0°io
High School Graduate (or GED) 2,672 10% 223,671 18%
Some College - No Degree 4,710 17% 273,815 22%
Associate Degree 1,504 5% 91,076 7%
Bachelor's Degree 12,126 44% 335,368 26°ro
Graduate or Professional Degree 5,247 19% 119,081 9%
Source: 1990 Census Bureau Data; Educational Attainment
for persons 25 years and over.
Few adult, non-senior Saratoga- residents receive public assistance or are not part of the labor
force. In the City of Saratoga, 187 households (less than two percent) received public assistance
in 1989 according to the 1990 Census. About 35,215 households (about seven percent) in the
County received public assistance in 1989.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA)
ABAG's methodology is based on the regional numbers supplied by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD), these are "goal numbers" and are not meant to
match, and often exceed, anticipated growth in housing units. A goal vacancy rate is set by
(HCD), and then a housing unit need to meet that vacancy rate is derived by assessing potential
growth rates (population, jobs, households) and loss of housing due to demolition: The numbers
produced by HCD will be provided to ABAG in the form of a regional goal number, which is
then broken into income categories. ABAG is then mandated to distribute the numbers to Bay
Area jurisdictions by income categories. ABAG is responsible for allocating the 'Regional
Housing Needs Determination (RHND) goal number to cities and counties in the Bay- Area.
The "Regional Housing Needs Determination," was adopted by ABAG in March 2001. This plan
covers the period from January 1, 1999 through June 30 2006. Existing need is evaluated based
on overpayment (30 percent or more of income) and overcrowding by lower income households
and the need to raise vacancy rates in the jurisdiction to a level at which the State Department of
Housing and Community Development market would operate freely.
The methodology used to determine the future need considered the growth in number of
households expected, the need to achieve ideal vacancy rates, the need for more housing
opportunities, and compensation for anticipated demolition. An "avoidance of impaction"
adjustment was applied to the preliminary allocation figure to avoid further concentration of low=
income units in jurisdictions that have more than the regional average.
The RHND allocation is a minimum needs number--ctties and counttes are free to plan for, and
accommodate, a larger number of dwelling units than the allocation. The City must however use
28 000053
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
the numbers allocated under the RHND to identify measures (policies and ordinances) that. are
consistent with these new construction goals. While the City must also show ho~v it will
accommodate for these units to be built, it is not obligated to build any of the units itself or
finance their construction.-
According to the RHND, the City of Saratoga has a total housing construction need of X38 units
and an annual need of 72 units. Table 8 shows Saratoga's 1999-2006 planning period allocation.
Table 8
Regional Housing Needs Determination (2000).
Dwelling Units % of Total Income Level
75 14% Very Low Income
36 7% Low Income
108 20% Moderate Income
320 59% ~ Above Moderate Income
Source: ABAG 1999-2006 Regional Housing Needs Determination
$ARATOGA FIOIISING PROFILE
According to the California Department of Finance, approximately 278 housing units were vacant
in 2000, a .vacancy rate of 2.6 percent. By comparison, the countywide vacancy rate was 3.8
percent. The proportion of different types. of housing countywide remained constant between
1990 and 1999-fifty-six percent single detached houses, twenty-five percent multiples of five or
more units, nine percent single attached houses, eight percent multiples of two to four units, and
four percent mobile homes. Over four-fifths of the City's housing units were. single family
detached homes (90 percent), followed by multiple units of five or more (4 percent), multiple
units of two to four (two percent), single-family attached units (one percent), and far less than one
percent mobile homes. Countywide, there is a substantially higher percentage of housing units in
multifamily buildings of five or more units and a substantially lower percentage of single-family
homes than in Saratoga.
Annual changes in the housing stock were small between 1990 and 2000 due to the low level of
new construction activity. In 1991, 12 multiple housing units were added to the housing stock
and in 1992, three more multiple units were constructed. Most new residential construction
comprised single-family homes, with 460 houses added since 1990.. Tables 9 and 10 show the
annual changes in the housing stock between January 1990 and January 2000 as determined by
the California Department of Finance.
•
29 000054
..
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Table 9
Housing Estimates for the City of Saratoga (1990 through 2000)
Housing Units Persons
Year
Total Single
Detached Attached Multi
2 to 4 ple
5 Plus Mobile
Homes
Occupied %
Vacant .Per
Household
1990 10,315 9,214 483 148 465 5 10,050 2.6 2.7
1991 10,369 9,256 483 152 473 5 10,103 2.6 2:7
1992 10,398 9,282 483 155 473 5 . 10,131 2.6 2.7
1993 10,429 9,313 483 155 473 5 1.0,161 2.6 2.7
1994 10,441 9,325 483 155 473 5 10,173 2.6 2.8
1995 10,458 9,342 483 155 473 5 10,189 5.6 2.8
1996 10,489. 9,373 483 155 473 5 10,219 2.6 2.9
1997 10,636 9,520 483 155 473 5 10,362 2.6 2.9
1998 10,718 9,602 483 155 473 5 10,442 2.6 2.9
1999 10,764 9,648 483 155 473 5 10,487 2.6 2.9
2000 10,790 9,674 483 155 473 5 10,512 2.6 2.9
(~ OOOs) 10,649 --- --- --- --- --- 10.450 _ 1.9% 2.83
Source: California Department of Finance, 1990-2000 City/County
Population and Housing Estimates; 2000 Census (partial information
available only)
Table 10 j
Housing Estimates for Santa Clara County (1990 through 2000)
r~
Housing Units Persons
Year
Total Sin
Detached gle
Attached Multi le
2 to 4 5 Plus Mobile
Homes
Occupied %
Vacant Per
Household
1990 540,240 303,212 47,668 42,096 126,338 20,926 520,180 3.7 2.8
1991 543,532 304,332 47,956 42,167 128,155 20,922 523,532 3.7 2.8
1992 547,884 305,447 48,210 42,407 130,972 20,848 527,541 3.7 2.8
1993 551,584 306,578 48,872 42,507 132,779 20,848 531,107 3.7 2.9
1994 555,429 308,364 49,060 42,699 134,628 20,678 534,729 3.7 2.9
1995 559,010 310,242 49,423 42,742 135,984 20,619 538,094 3.7 2.9
1996 562,352 312,166 49,423 43,018 137,126 20,619 541,406 3.7 2.9
1997 566,164 314,649 49,531 43,225 138,141 20,618 544,358 3.8 3.0
1998 573,593 318,463 49,725 43,594 141,193 20,618 551,516 3.8 3.0
1999 581,532 322,454 49,839 43,760 .144,861 20,618 559,166 3.8 3.0
2000 589,010 325,874 50,045 44,062 148,411 20,618 566,188 3.8 3.0
2000
(Census) 579,329 565,863 --- --- --- --- --- 2.3 2.92
Source: California Department of Finance, 1990-1999 Ciry/County
Population and Housing Estimates; 2000 Census (partial
information available only)
30 000055
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Housing Occupancy and Tenure
Of the 10,790 year-round .dwelling units reported by the Department of Finance (10,649
according to the 2000 Census). Less than two percent of the housing stock was vacant in 2000.
Most of the vacant units were for sale, as shown on Table 11. In 1990, more housing units w~ere_
owner-occupied (89 percent) than renter-occupied (11 percent). By comparison, the tenure.of
occupied housing units in the County was 60 percent owner-occupied units and 4 ] percent for
renter-occupied units. Table 11 shows that both the City and County had a substantial shortage
of ownership housing that was vacant and available for sale compared to rental housing that was
vacant and available to rent in relation to the proportion of ownership and rental housing in 2000.
Because of the substantially lower percentage of lower-income residents in the City, most City
residents face fewer financial barriers to homeownership compared to County residents.
However, as prices have risen over the past 20 years, it has become impossible for low-income
and most moderate-income households to purchase a home, with the exception of a small
percentage of older homeowners who have substantial equity in an existing home. To afford even
the least cost-home in Saratoga, aloes-income household would have to possess accumulated
equity in an existing home, or equivalently valued assets that could. be converted to cash, of at
least $400,000. Amoderate-income household would have to have accumulated assets of at least
$300,000.
Type of Vacant Units in Saratoga (2000)
Unit Number of Number of Percent of City Percent of
Units in City Units in County Vacant Units County Vacant
Units
For Rent 13 .2,382 8% ~ ~ 22%
For Sale Only 151 8,577 91% 78%
Source: 2000 Census.
According to the 2000 Census, 90 percent of households were homeowners in Saratoga,
compared to 60 percent countywide. Analysis of tenure by ethnicity (Table 12), which was
available from the 1990 Census but not the 2000 Census at the time of Housing Element update,
reveals that homeownership in Saratoga and Santa Clara County among White households far
exceeds that of minority households. This disparity is largely a function of income, as minority
households include a higher percentage of lower-income individuals.
•
•
•
31
~nnncc
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Tenure by Race and Hispanic Origin (1990)
•
Race Saratoga ,Percent Santa Clara ~ Percent
County
Owner Occupied Units
White 7,759 88% 225,224 78%
Black 14 0.2% 5,926 2%
Native American 6 0.1% 1,057 <1%
Asian/PacificIslander 1,038 11% 41,184 14%
Others 31 0.3% 19,834 4°io ~
Hispanic Origin 171 2% 13,148 5°rb
Renter Occupied Units
White 928 89% 131,173 69°%
Black ~ 15 1% 11,657 6%
Native American 0 0% 1,254 <1%
Asian/Pacific Islander 98 9% 26,812 14%
Others 0 0% 222 <1
Hispanic Origin 21 2% 19,612 10%
Source: 1990 Census.
Ownership rates shown in Table 13 reveal that there were more owners in each ethnic group than
renters. However, slightly higher or equal percentages of Blacks rented than owned, suggesting
that they may have difficulty becoming homeowners due to their relatively lower incomes.
Native Americans had the highest rate of homeownership (but there were very few of these
households in the City in 1990), followed by Asian/Pacific Islanders and Whites.
Table 13
Homeownership Rates
Race Owners Renters Ownership Rate Rental Rate
White 7,759 928 89% 11
Black 14 15 48% 52%
Native American 6 0 100% 0%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,038 98 91% 9%
Other 0 6 0% 100%
Hispanic Origin 171 21 89% ~ 11
Source: 1990 Census.
Analysis of 1990 Census data on tenure by age of householder in Saratoga reveals adults aged 45
and over tended to owri their housing units rather than rent, while younger adults mostly rented
rather than owned their homes. With the exception of householders under age 35, between 80%
32
00005'7
1
' SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
and 90% of residents of Saratoga own their own homes. Even-among younger households, over
two-thirds own their own homes. Of all occupied housing in 1990, 94 percent were owned by
persons 35 years and older: persons ages 45-54 owned 2,695 units or 30 percent. 2,054 units (23
percent) were owned by persons ages 55 to 64, followed by 1,906 units (21 percent) owned by
persons age 35-44,`and 1,221- (13 percent) owned by persons ages 65-74 (Table 14). Adults aged
7~ and older and younger adults ages 2~-34 owned seven and six percent of the units
respectively. Not surprisingly, less than one percent of the adults under age- 24 own homes in
Saratoga.
•
•i
33 ^00058
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
•
Tenure by Age of Householder (1990)
Age City Percent County Percent j
Owner Occupied Units
15 to 24 16 <1% 2,362 1°io
25 to 34 502 6% 49,309 16%
35 to 44 1,906 21% 76,171. 25°/0
45 to 54 2,695 30% 68,348 22%
55 to 64 2,054 23% 52,383 17%
65 to 74 1,221 13% 37,007 12%
75 and over 594 7% 21,744 7%
Total 8988 100% 307,324 100%
Renter Occupied Units
15 to 24 27 3% 21,291 ]0%
25 to 34 205 19% 82,729 39%
35 to 44 359 34% 51,615 24%
45 to 54 . 163 16% 23,776 11%
55 to 64 57 5% 13,288 6%
65 to 74 69 6% 10,336 5%
75 and over 182 17% 9,821 5%
Total 1,062 100% 212,856 100%
Source: 1990 Census
Housing Costs
Rental Rates
The 1990 census data shows rents were higher in the City of Saratoga than in Santa Clara County.
The median rental costs in Saratoga was over $1,000 in 1990 compared to $773 in Santa Clara
County. -This might be caused by the fact that Santa Clara County has a diverse housing stock
with more multi-family units that the City of Saratoga has. Saratoga's rental stock consists of 50
percent condominium rentals, 39 percent single-family rental, 9 percent multi-family, non-
condominium rentals and 3 percent other rentals. Larger houses and higher housing costs were
consistent with a population of substantially more upper-income residents in the City.
Housing costs from 1998 to present indicate a dramatic change in the cost of housing and the
availability of housing units. Currently, rental costs in Saratoga are similar to those through out
.Santa Clara County and the entire San Francisco Bay area. A recent California Budget Project
Report (May 2000) confirms that rental rates far exceed the Fair Market Rent for atwo-bedroom
~° 000059
- SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
apartment in 1999. The Fair Market Rent is a rent level established by the federal government for
participation in various rental subsidy programs, but does not necessarily indicate the average
market rents being charged in an area. Rents in Santa Clara County exceed the Fair Market Rent
for both one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments (Department of Finance 2000). Rental costs
have increased far more than incomes throughout the county (San Jose Mercury News September
2000).
Rental stock available in Saratoga is extremely limited at any monthly rental rate. .Table 1~
shows the rental units listed locally for rent.. Listing varies from month to month however the
vacancy rate in March 2001 was less than one percent. Out of 25 listings 12 were single-family
homes, 8 were condominiums, and 5 were apartments.
Very few units are available at rates affordable to very low-income individuals or families. Rents
currently average over $1,500 to $2,850 for aone-bedroom apartment in the SaratogalSanta Clara
Valley and over $2,000 for atwo-bedroom apartment. A sample of housing within Saratoga
revealed that the average two-bedroom home was above $2,000 per- month. Rent for athree-
bedroom home was $4,995 per month, while rents for four-bedroom homes were between $3,000
and $5,500 per month. .
Rental Rates in Saratoga (2000)
Type Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4-Bed
.Apartment $850 $1,500-$2,850 $2,000-$2,700 $2,745 -
Home $1,850 $2,000-$3,900 $4,995 $3,000-$5,500
Condominium $1,850-$2,700. $2,600
Source: Bay Area.Com and Apartments.Com, March 2001
Home Prices
Recent trends in home prices in Saratoga and in Santa Clara County show a dramatic increase in
median home prices in the area. Sales of existing homes in California in August posted a 4.7
percent increase and the median home price rose 14 percent (California Association of Realtors
September 25, 2000). A notable highlight in the sales figures for California is that Saratoga was
listed as one of the top ten cities and communities with the highest median home prices in
California during July 2000. Saratoga's median home price for the month was $1,328,000.
Saratoga also made the list of top ten cities and communities with the greatest increase in median
home price for July 2000 compared to the same period last year. The California Association of
Realtors lists the median housing prices for the County as of August 2000 as $445,000. The
median price increased in the County over the past year by almost 29 percent. Compared with
California and the rest of the country, fewer households in Santa Clara County - 29 percent in
1998 -can afford to purchase the median-priced home. Housing- affordability was actually lower
in 1990 (as measured by the percentage of households that can afford the median-priced home),
increased during the economic downturn of the early 1990s, but declined again in recent years.
•
A review of approximately 380 homes sold in Saratoga during 1998 and 1999 (Dataquick 2000)
clearly showed the rapid increase in home prices during the past few years. The most expensive
home sold in Saratoga during 1999 was $4.7 million, and even the least costly home was over .
$500,000. Table 16 lists prices of homes for sale as of March 14, 2001. The listing comes from
Coldwell Banker and Alain Pinel Realtors and Bay Area.Com. The highest percentage of homes
had five or more bedrooms followed by four-bedroom homes. There were only 7 listings for
multi-family homes/condominiums in Saratoga during-the month of March. The median price of
35 OoOVO
' SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
* . homes sold increased in the City by approximately 59 percent within the last year. The price
increase may not accurately reflect the full range of housing costs in the City due to the number
of homes sold.
Home Prices in Saratoga (2000)
•
Bedrooms Units for-
Sale Median Average City Range % of Total
Single Family Homes
1 -- -- -- -- --
2 6 $1,045,000 $1,129,666 $425,000-$2,198,000 7%
3 17 $1,497,500 $1,706,529 $759,000-$3,900,000 20%
4 26 $1,995,000 $3,045,842 $799,915-$12,888,000 30%
5+ 31 $3,124,500 $3,678,290 $1,398,00-$7,950,000 35%
Total -- 81 -- -- -- 92%
Condominiums
1 -- -- -- -- --
2 4 $562,444 $560,987 $420,000-$699,950 5%
3 3 $945,000 $998,000 $899,000-$1,150,000 3%
Total -- 7 -- -- -- 8%
Source: Coldwell Banker, Alain Pinel Realtors and Ba~~ Area.Com.
Table 17 compares median home prices in the County to other counties in the region between
August 1999 and August 2000. Median home prices in Santa Clara County are nearly the highest
in the region. Therefore, the housing market in Saratoga as with the remainder of Santa Clara
County is likely to only attract above moderate-income households.
Table 17
Comparative- Median Home Prices (1999 - 2000)
County August 1999 August 2000 Percent Change
between 1999 and
2000
Santa Clara $345,250 $445,000 22%
San Mateo $394,000 $481,000 18%
Alameda $276,500 $340,000 19%
Source: California Association of Realtors, Au$ust 2000
Lower Income Households Overpaying
An important indicator of housing need is the relationship of household income to housing costs.
Households should pay no more than 30 percent of their gross incomes for housing costs. This
figure is higher for other households because the cost~of other necessary goods becomes a smaller
36 OVOOVI
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
percentage of the total income. The California Statewide Housing Plan (CSHP) is a publication
undertaken to facilitate efforts addressing this State housing goal. This update and the prior one
provide perspective on the State's housing needs for subsequent- policy- development. It takes_a
county-by-county look at California's projected housing needs through the year 2020, the
constraints to meeting those needs, and the possible consequences of not meeting them. The
document is comprised of-two volumes. Volume One is the main- report, divided into seven
chapters. Volume Two is the Appendix containing several appendices.
According to the 1990 Census, 345 (60 percent) of all renter households in Saratoga with incomes
less than $35,000 per year paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing.
Comparatively, 487 (61 percent) of owner-occupied households with incomes less than $35,000
per year paid in excess of 30% of their incomes. .
Table 18
Number of Households Paying Over 30 Percent of Income on Housing
Income Owners Renters Total
Very Low-Income 281 238 519
Lower-Income 206 107 313
Total 487 345 832
Source: 1990 Census Bureau Data.
Note: 1990 Census data uses income ranges that do not correspond exactly to the income categories. Therefore, there
are people in the lower-income category that actually fall into the moderate-income category and likewise between
the very low- and lower-income categories. The numbers in the table include more persons than are actually in
those categories.
Further analysis of housirig expenditures as a percent of income show that most home owners pay
less than 25 percent of their income on housing (Table 19). Renters with income below $34,999
tend to pay a higher percentage of their income on housing. The majority of people earning
$50,000 or more paid less than 25 percent of their income on housing regardless of whether they
rented or owned.
•
37
~OOOV
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Saratoga Housing Expenditure Rate per Income Group
Income <$10,000 $10,000-
$19,999 $20,000-
$34,999 $35,000-
$49,999 $50,000+ Total
Households
Renters
Under 30% 39% 33% 32% 35% 80% 601
30%+ 15% 19% 15% 13% 10% 127
35%+ 46% 48% 52% 52% 0% 264
Total
Households 158 79 131 164 460 993
Owners
Under 30% 8% 51% 77% 70% 72%. 5.840
30%+ 42% 0% 2% 6% ~ 7% 594
35%+ 50% 49% 21% 24% 21% 1,821
Total
Households 92 175 495 676 6,817 8,255
Source: 1990 Census Bureau Data
Affordability Trends
Rental Housing
According to 1990 Census data, the median gross rent was over $1,000 in the City and $773 in
Santa Clara County. In 1990, people with very low- incomes had some affordable housing
options with about 22 percent of the rental units in the City having rents below 30 percent of their
income. People with low incomes had more options than those with very low incomes, as
approximately 44 percent of all rental units were affordable to households in this category. There
were about 12 percent more rental units available to moderate and above moderate=income
households in 1990. Although 22 percent of the rental units were affordable to. very low-income
households, availability still suggests a need for housing assistance among the poorest of the
community.
Table 20 provides an estimate of the number of affordable rental units at each income level. The
percentage of apartments affordable within the low- and moderate-income groups is cumulative
and includes the percentage from -the previous income group. Also, households of many income
levels will often compete for housing in the same price range, so the existence of lower-cost units
does not mean that such units are actually available to lower-income households.
•
38
nnnn~ -2
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
r~
Affordability of Rental Housing in Relation to Income 1990
Income Group Affordable Rent Limit % of Saratoga Rentals % of County Rentals
Ve Low $601 A roximately 21% 22%
Low $962 A roximatel 42% 47%%
Moderate $1,443 A roximatel 100°/a A roximately ] 00°i°
Source: 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census
Current rental rates in 2000 indicate a dramatic shift in the rental units affordable to ver•~ low,
low, and moderate-income households. Households within these .income categories have a
difficult time locating appropriate rental units because the less than one percent vacancti~ rate and
the strong market pressure have inflated rents beyond affordability. For example, a person with
an income of $37,200 (a low-income level for a single individual) could spend up to $808 (fair
market rate for aone-bedroom apartment) a month on an apartment, which is approximately 26
percent of the individual's income. Rents currently average over $1,500 for aone-bedroom
apartment in the Santa Clara Valley (not only Saratoga) and over $2,000 for atwo-bedroom
apartment. A sample of apartment complexes in the County revealed that the average one-
_ bedroom unit was above $1,200 per month. Existing rental availability and rental costs suggest a
strong need for housing assistance for very low, low, and moderate income households within the
community.
For Sale Housing
A household can typically qualify to purchase a home that is 2.5 to 3.0 times its annual income,
depending on the down payment, the level. of other long-term obligations (such as a car loan), and
interest rates. In practice, the interaction of these factors allows some households to qualify for
homes priced at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be
limited to purchasing homes no more than two times their.annual incomes. Based on the homes
sold .in the last year and affordability rates at 3.0 times the annual income of afour-person
household, Table 21 shows that there were no homes affordable to four-person households in_ the
very low-- low- or moderate-income categories. It is important to note that subsidized housing is
not included in this housing affordability analysis.
39 ~ OOU064
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
•
Sold Units Affordable to Lower-Income Households (1999)
Income Group Affordability
Level Homes Sold in
1998-99 Percent of All Houses
Sold
Verv Low-Income $130.500 0 0°ro
Low-Income $208.800 0 0%
Moderate-Income $313.200 0 0%
Source: Coldwell Banker and Alain Pinel Realtors Home Prices 2000
Housing Rehabilitation and Replacement Needs
A majority of homes in the City of Saratoga were constructed between 1950 and 1979 as shown
in Table 22 below. However, there are few homes in Saratoga in substandard condition. The
recent surge in housing costs in the City has resulted in an increase in home improvement.
Because home prices are so high, even for homes that require considerable repair and
rehabilitation, only above moderate income households can afford to purchase them. These
homes are rehabilitated quickly after purchase thereby resulting in a reduction in the number of
homes in substandard condition. Amore recent trend is the compete "mansionization" of smaller,
older homes in the City.. Above moderate-income household can purchase these smaller homes
and still afford to completely rebuild homes to further increase their values. The housing market
supports such activities.
Based on the small, and declining number of dwelling unit in need of rehabilitation, the City
estimates that less than one percent of the housing stock in Saratoga is need of repair, and that
there are nor dwelling units deteriorated to the point of needing replacement.
The City has used federal funds to implement the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation
Program (SHARP). The program consists primarily of a home improvement loan subsidy
program for low and moderate-income homeowners to repair and bring their homes up to code ,
standards. The purpose is to rehabilitate deteriorating housing units and maintain a housing stock
for low to moderate-income households (See City Housing Programs).
In 1996, the Safety Grant Program -was established to aid the rehabilitation of aging homes.
Made possible by the Federal Community Development Block Grant, this program grants up to
$10,000 to qualified residents who need to make repairs to their homes but do not want to take
out a loan through the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program. Funds are
granted to correct health and safety problems within homes, such as, by covering exposed wires,
installing stair and porch railings and improving disabled access to homes.
•
40 ~ 000065
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT .
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Age of Saratoga's Housing Stock ,
Year Structure
Built Total Total Occupied Renter .
Occupied
1991-1999 676 ~ N/A N/A
1980-1990 977 702 206
1970-1979 2,311 1,969 295
1960-1969 3,256 -3,004 .185
1950-1959 2,939 2,632 252
1940-1949 489 378 ~ 95 -_
1939 or earlier 343 303 29
Total .10,315 8,988 1,069
Source: 1990 Census, and California Department of Finance, 1990-1999 City/County Population and
Housin Estimates.-
According to the 1990 Census, all of the housing units in Saratoga.-are equipped with water and
sewage disposal and heating systems. However seven housing units lacked complete plumbing
facilities, and nine housing units lacked complete kitchen facilities.. Tenants between 1 ~ and 65
years of age occupied the units lacking complete plumbing. ~ - ~ - .
SPECIAL NEEDS
Special housing -needs arise due to physical, economic, social, or cultural characteristics or
conditions that are present in a substantial percentage of the local population: These
characteristics or conditions distinguish individuals from -the general population and lead to
housing or supportive services need that are not (or.cannot) be met by the private. market acting
:alone. Examples of special housing needs include accessibility for the mobility impaired,
transitional housing for those leaving a homeless environment, and housing specifically designed
for the physical and social. needs of older adults.
Characteristics such as age or physical limitations may be. present in a large portion of the
population. It is important for the community to accommodate a variety of housing types to serve -
such special needs groups. For example, handicapped accessible housing or units that. are
designed to aid- the physical limitations of the elderly may be needed.in a community with a large
populations of this age group. Conversely, a community may have a large population of large,
low-income families that need adequately sized housing at a low cost or a large number of
students attending a nearby college or university. Affordability issues are also important to
groups such as female-headed households, farm workers,.or military personnel. Therefore, the
City needs to evaluate the types of special needs groups in order to address .the special housing
needs. In Saratoga, the number of residents with special needs related to income status is lower
than in most communities because the community's housing stock is uniformly expensive and
consists primarily of single-family homes. There are several important special needs evaluated
below, however.
~ 0066
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Elderly
As is the case in many well-established suburbs, the numbers and percentages of the elderly
population remain a significant part of the local population. Table 23 lists the population figures
by age of those residents over the age of 55 and over the age of 6~ during aten-year period. It
also shows that the percentage of elderly in the overall population increased. According to the
2000 Census, 16 percent of the total population was above the age of 65, an increase of over 30
percent. The percent of the population in the 55-64 age group actually declined since 1990-
most in this age group moved into the 65 year and over category.
Table 23
Pattern of Aging of the Saratoga Population
1990 2000 Percent Change
Total Population 28,061 29,843 6°~0
Population 55 -64 3,846 (14%) 3,695 (12%) -4%
Population 65+ 3,721 (13%) 4,859 (16%) 31%
Source: 1980-1990 U.S. Censuses.
In 1990, the incidence of poverty was higher among the population over 65 years of age (three
percent) than it was for the population between the ages of 18 and 64 (one percent). The poverty
rate among seniors was still well below the countywide and statewide rates, however. One
hundred and ninety-six persons over the age of 65 received public assistance that year. In 1990,
168 homeowners age 65 and older paid 30 percent of their incomes or more on housing. This
represented 10 percent of all elderly homeowners. Approximately 50 percent (122 renters) of
elderly renters paid 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Thus, while elderly renters as
a group had a higher incidence of overpayment, more senior homeowners than renters overpaid
for housing in 1990 due to the much higher number ofowner-occupied homes.
Tenure is important when analyzing the needs of seniors. The percentage of seniors living in
owner-occupied housing was 20 percent according to the 1990 Census, compared to 89 percent of
the population at large. Because of the small senior population and the many senior citizens
living on fixed-incomes some are likely to face difficulty with the costs of major home repairs. In
combination with mobility limitations or the need for supportive services (such as medical or
meal assistance), it can become very challenging for the elderly to adequately meet their housing
needs. Amore senior population living in an aged housing stock leads to a need for rehabilitation
programs for existing units, as well as the creation of affordable senior housing units.
One common special need for a portion of the elderly is for assisted living facilities that combine
meal, medical, and daily living assistance in a residential environment. There are three State
Department of Social Services licensed elderly care facilities and two that are in the process of
being licensed that provide such supportive services. Saratoga Place (capacity 25) and Saratoga
Villa Retirement Home (capacity 6) are two new facilities that have just submitted applications
for licenses. A Saratoga Home for the Elderly is licensed for six residents. Olives and Roses is
licensed for five persons and Saratoga Retirement Community offers skilled and assisted living
services with a capacity of 174 persons. Our Lady of Fatima Villa offers 85 skilled nursing beds.
i There are currently 74 beds occupied. These would be made up of studio, one and two bedroom
units. There is also a two to three month waiting list for bed in this facility. One reason behind
the vacancy and the waiting list is that there is a shortage of staff.
a2
.00006
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT .
The Saratoga Retirement Community has three facilities owned and operated by the Independent
Order of Odd Fellows and Rebekahs of California, anon- profit fraternal organization. In 1994
the Odd Fellows Home in Saratoga was opened. The Odd. Fellows .Health Center has a capacity-
of 68 and it is a skilled nursing facility only. The Odd Fellows Home, now called the Saratoga
Retirement Community (SRC), currently has 93 assisted living units. .SRC will construct
additional assisted living and .independent living duplexes and apartments. The addition will also
include a small Alzheimer's care facility. The addition will be finished by 2004. The total
number is of units added is yet to be decided, (approximately 500 assisted living units and
additional beds have been proposed). There is already is a waiting list for the facility. The
Fellowship Plaza is under contract with HUD and offers Section 8 low-income senior housing.
This facility had 150, mostly one -bedroom apartment. These apartments are always at maximum
capacity.
First Community Housing is a private developer that builds affordable housing in San Jose and
surrounding areas. They do not have any active development projects in Saratoga but if given the
opportunity the would. They have built 436 low-income residential units, worth more than $45.8
million. Their projects include multi-unit apartments; single-family homes, rental town homes,
Single room Occupancy (SRO) units, and Senior Independent Living units. There are currently
four new projects under construction, for an additional 390 units under contract and in
predevelopment. Of the future facilities there will be 90 one-bedroom .Senior Apartments,- 100
town homes, 80 two and three bedroom apartments, and 100 studio apartments all located in San
Jose and Morgan Hill.
Saratoga will remain an amactive place to live for families seeking to purchase homes in Santa
Clara County. These new residents are primarily affluent young families with school-aged
children. These new residents want to purchase homes in the community but the available
housing stock is limited because many of the current homeowners are seniors who have no
alternative housing in the community once they sell their. homes. ~ As a result, many seniors delay
the decision to sell their homes, reducing turnover in the .local housing market and opportunities
for new families to move to Saratoga.
The facilities listed above are primarily institutional care facilities. Many of the seniors who
might consider selling their home are younger, active seniors who do not yet require institutional,
nursing care. There is a need in the community to provide high-quality, independent living senior
housing that provides on-site nursing care and individual living units. Because many seniors
desire to "downsize" when they move, these senior housing developments will necessarily be
higher density- projects. with on-site supportive services. An increase in this type of available
housing for seniors makes it possible for them to sell their homes and remain in the community.
Large Families
Large families can have difficulty securing adequate housing because they cannot afford houses
with enough bedrooms to meet their space needs. It becomes even more difficult when large
families try to find adequate rentals within their budget, because rentals are typically have fewer
bedrooms than ownership housing. According to the 1990 Census there were 901 households of
five or more persons. Of the large household, 881 are large families and the remaining 10 are
non-family households. Large households occupied approximately nine percent of owner-
occupied units and 11 percent of renter-occupied units.
The median household size is currently 2.94 people per household as of January 1, 2000
(Department of Finance 2000). At the time of the 1990 Census, the- median household size was
2.76 people, with the largest number of households having only two persons (3,843 out of
10,148). The next largest group was three person households (2,070 out of 10,148) and following
closely behind was four person households (1,943 out of 10,148). i
43
nnnn~~
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
The City contains more housing units with four or more bedrooms (53 percent) than the number
of large households with the need for multi-bedroom dwelling units. There •is an adequate supply
of dwelling units to meet the space needs of large families. None of these larger homes are
affordable to low- or moderate-income large families, however.
Overcrowded Households
Another. indicator of housing need is the percentage of households living in overcrowded
conditions. Most housing analysts define overcrowding as more than one person per room,
excluding bathrooms, hallways, and service areas.
Saratoga has a relatively low incidence of overcrowding in 1990-only 146 households (one
percent) were overcrowded. Overcrowding occurred both in rental and owner-occupied housing
at about the same rate. There were 24 overcrowded rental units (2 percent of all rental units) and
122 overcrowded owner-occupied units (1 percent of all owner-occupied units).
The low percentage of large families combined with the low-incidence of overcrowding indicates
that there is not a large proportion of the population living in overcrowded conditions.
Disabled Citizens
Approximately three percent of the City's non-institutionalized residents have physical conditions
that affect -their abilities to live independently in .conventional residential settings. These
individuals have mobility impairments, self-care limitations, or other conditions that may require.
special housing accommodations or financial assistance. Individuals with such disabilities can
have a number of special needs that distinguish them from the population at large.
~ Individuals with mobility difficulties (such as those confined to wheelchairs) may require
special accommodations or modifications to their homes to allow for continued independent
living. Such modifications are often called "handicapped access.''
~ Individuals with self-care limitations (which can include persons with mobility difficulties)
may require residential environments that .include in-home or on-site support services,
ranging from congregate to convalescent care. Support services can include medical therapy,
daily living assistance, congregate dining, and related services.
~ Individuals with developmental disabilities and other physical and mental conditions that
prevent them from- functioning independently -may require assisted care or group home
- environments.
i; Individuals with disabilities may require financial assistance to meet their housing needs
because a higher percentage are low-income than the population at large and their special
housing needs are often more costly than conventional housing.
Some people with mobility and/or self-care limitations are able to live with their families to assist
in meeting housing and daily living needs. A segment of the disabled population, particularly
low-income and retired individuals, may not have the financial capacity to pay for needed
accommodations or modifications to their homes. In addition, even those able to pay for special
housing accommodations may find them unavailable in the City.
Disabled persons often require special housing features to accommodate physical limitations.
Some disabled persons may have financial difficulty due to the cost of having their special needs
met or due to difficulty in finding appropriate employment. Although the California
Administrative Code Title 24 requires all public buildings be accessible to the public through
architectural standards such as ramps, large doors, and restroom modifications to enable handicap
access, not all available housing units have these features. According to 1990 Census data, there
were approximately 721 non-institutionalized disabled persons over age 16 in Saratoga.
as
. nnnn~q
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
According to the 1990 Census, 388 or one percent of persons between the ages of 16 and 64 had ,
rriobility and/or self.-care limitations. .
Many persons with disabilities can benefit from a residential environmental that provides
supportive services in a group setting. San Andreas Regional Center, located in San Jose is a
community-based California state-funded program designed to -serve persons with a
developmental disability, as required by the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act.
The Center is a private, nonprofit corporation under contract for provision of services through the
State Department of Developmental Services. San Andreas Regional Center serves the four-
county area of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara and Santa-Cruz.
Families with Female Heads of Households
Most female-headed households are either single elderly women or single mothers. Traditionally,
these two groups have been considered special needs groups because their incomes tend to be
lower, making it difficult to obtain affordable housing, or because they have specific physical
needs related to housing (such as child care or assisted living support). Single mothers, in
particular, tend to have the difficulty in obtaining suitable, affordable housing. Such households
also have a greater need for housing with convenient access to child-care facilities, public
transportation, and other public facilities and services.
Of the 10,050 households in the City, 469 are female-headed households or slightly less than five
percent of the total households in Saratoga. According to the 1990 Census, eight of the City's
female-headed .households are classified as living below the. poverty level. These eight
households account for five percent of the total 159 households below poverty in the city and less
than two percent .of the total female householders. It may be assumed that most of these
households are overpaying for housing (i.e. more than 30 percent of their income), or are
experiencing other unmet housing needs. As a result of poverty, .female heads of households
often spend more on immediate needs such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care,
than on home maintenance, which results in living units falling into disrepair.
Farm Workers
According to the 1990 Census, 104 persons (one percent) were employed in farming, forestry,
and fishing occupations of a total labor force- of 14,437. The California Employment
Development Department includes farm workers, nursery workers, delivery truck drivers for
produce and flower, horticulturists, landscapers; tree trimmers, and" lawn gardeners in this
category. Given Saratoga's location in an urban region, it is likely that few, if any, of these
"fanmworkers" are employed in crop production or harvesting. .
Homeless
Homelessness is caused by a number of social and economic factors, including a breakdown of
traditional social relationships, unemployment, shortage of low-income housing, and the
deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. A homeless person lacks consistent and adequate
shelter. Homeless persons can be considered resident (those remaining in an area year-round), or
transient. Emergency and transitional shelters can help to address the needs of the homeless.
Emergency shelters provide a short-term solution to homelessness and involve . limited
supplemental services. In contrast, transitional shelters aze designed to remove the basis for
homelessness. Shelter is provided for an extended period of time, and is combined with other
social services and counseling, to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency.
The nature of the homeless population makes exact counting difficult: The 1990 Census found no i
visible persons _ living on the streets and no people in homeless shelters. However, Census
counts are not generally accepted as an accurate reflection of homelessness. Because the
homeless move around and are not always visible on the street, it is difficult to get an accurate
~45 nnnn~n
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
count of homeless persons in a community: Discussions with social service organizations and
others dealing with emergency housing and the homeless on a daily basis reveal that there are
homeless in the area. The Police Department does not track the number of homeless in Saratoga.
however, nor do other social service organizations.
Agencies Offering Homeless Assistance
The City offers one homeless shelter program at the Church of Ascension and Congregation. The
Church participates in a rotating shelter program that provides housing for 12 to 15 men for 1
month a year. There are also organizations in surrounding cities that serve the needs Saratoga
residents. Although these services are not intended specifically for homeless individuals and
families, homeless persons often avail themselves of food and clothing closets that help the poor.
There are a number public service organization and agencies in the County of Santa Clara that
offer shelter, counseling, or other services for the homeless, abused, or elderly.
Emergency Housing Consortium of Santa Clara County
Their most successful program is the Transitional Housing Program (THP). This program enables
a person to obtain a job and work and eventually achieve independence in a conventional housing
environment. Under THP, a person with a job is entitled to a cubical with a bed for $200 per
month for up to 3 months. Another program, The Working Man's Program, grants individuals
who are employed a bed for up to 30 days while they seek permanent housing.
Other Consortium programs include the New Start Program, which helps homeless individuals
obtain employment, and the Waste- Management Program, which gives people a job with the
Waste Management Department for the City of San Jose. Under these programs, participating
individuals are guaranteed beds at a cost of one-third of their paychecks, with the potential to
move into transitional housing. Currently the single person capacity is 125 for the spring and
summer season. During the winter, the capacity can increase to 250 to 300 beds, including floor
mats. There are also rooms available for families that have sufficient income to qualify.
Lastly the Consortium offers a Volunteer program through its facility, which in return guarantees
a room for 30 days. The Emergency Housing Consortium has shelters and programs located in
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, San Martin and Gilroy. .
San Jose Family Shelter
This facility provides overnight rooms and meals for families with children for stays of up to
three months. The Program can accommodate 35 families (143 people). There are currently have
33 families occupying 35 rooms. Two of the families are especially large and require two rooms
each. A case manager helps each family with its individual circumstances.
County Housing Programs
The Santa Clara County Community Development Commission/Housing Authority administers
the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program (HAPP). This program links landlords with
tenants eligible for rental assistance. HAPP guarantees landlords fair market rent while providing
subsidies for tenants in rental properties. HAPP tenants are those elderly, handicapped, or low-
income families needing help to secure decent housing. Saratoga is participating in this program
that encourages landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers and certificates, and will be on the list of
cities in the rent subsidy program. There are three families who use the Section 8 program, two
of which have disabled heads of households. Due to limited budgets, there are currently 47
46 0000'71
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
people on the Section 8 waiting list, of whom 20 are disabled (Housing Authority of Santa Clara •
County April 13, 2000).
Fair market rents for the Santa Clara County area in fiscal year 2000 are provided in Table 24
below. For_ the 40~' percentile fair market rents for manufactured home spaces in the Section 8
Choice Housing Program, space rents in Santa Clara County are listed at $808 for fiscal year
2000 (Federal Register, February 2000).
Table 24
Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing in Santa. Clara County
Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom Four Bedroom
$808 $922 $1,139 $1,561 $1,753
Source: Federal Register, HUD, February 2001
The County has four Federal Grant Programs to assist eligible persons seeking permanent,
transitional, or emergency housing-related services.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
Provides funding to nonprofit agencies to enable them to offer housing and housing-related
services to eligible lower-income persons including seniors, persons with disabilities, and the
homeless and battered spouses. Provides funding for acquisitions, construction, or rehabilitation
of affordable housing to lower-income persons. Each of the Urban County cities develops their
own CDBG program. Each city has a housing rehabilitation program offering low-interest loans
or grants for home repair to qualified Urban County residents. Individual initiative and the use of
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) have helped. In previous years the CDBG
program has been used to assist with home improvement for applicants that meet the income
guidelines.
Home Program (Home Investment Partnership Act)
Provides loans and grants to nonprofit organizations to assist with financing to develop
permanently affordable housing through acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation.
Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG)
Provides grants to nonprofit organizations operating existing homeless shelters for rehabilitation
of the facility, maintenance and operations, essential supportive services and prevention of
homelessness.
Shelter Plus Care (S+C)
Provides a 5-year rent subsidy to homeless/disabled individuals and their families to assist them
in securing permanent affordable rental housing. Applicants must be currently homeless and must
be diagnosed with one of the following disabilities: mental illness, HN/AIDS, and a drug and /or
alcohol dependency. In addition to rent subsidy, the program also arranges for various treatment
services and case management. S+C clients are required to pay 30% of their monthly income
toward rent and S+C pays the balance. .
a~ ~~Oa~2
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
City Housing Programs
Table 25 is a list of projects and programs that were recommended by the Saratoga City Council
for allocation of funds for the 2000/O1 funding cycle. The City Council of Saratoga approved the
budget on Apri14, 2001.
•
48
00003
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Table 25
City of Saratoga Human Services and CDBG Proposals
Agency Type Project Amount Amount
Requested Recommended
SASCC Human Services Senior Day Car $36,667.00 $36,667.00
Program
Project Match CDBG Rent Subsidy $19,500:00 $19,00.00
Blauer Ave. Senior
Home. ~
Bridge Housing CDBG Cupertino $37,707.00 $37,707.00
Community
Services
Apartments`
City of Saratoga CDBG ADA Project for $50,000.00 $50,000.00
• Hakone Gardens
City of Saratoga CDBG County $20,000.00 $20,000.00
Rehabilitation
Services3
City of Saratoga Administration Project $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Administration
Total $178,874.00 $178,874.00
Source: City of Saratoea 2001.
' Will provide shard residential housing to approximately six low-income seniors at a time.
Will provide 24 affordable apartment units for individuals and families who currently live in Saratoga, Cupertino and
other Santa Clara County cities whose household incomes are at or below 60 percent. and 50 percent of the
median, as defined by HUD.
s Each participating Ciry utilizing the services of the County's Housing Rehabilitation Specialist is required- to pay
$15,000 for its annual CDBG grant to cover. these costs. These services include site inspection, estimates, work
write-ups, the job bidding and award processes, and project supervision and compliance oversight.
The purpose of the City's Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) is
to further the goal of providing adecent-home and a suitable living environment to all citizens in
Saratoga. The SHARP provides Zero Interest Partially. Deferred Payment and Below Market
Rate Interest Loans to eligible homeowners citywide, with special emphasis in designated
Community Development areas targeted for housing rehabilitation and related capital
improvement projects. It brings existing dwelling-units to local housing standards for decent,
safe and sanitary living conditions. There are currently 22 outstanding SHARP loans with an
ending balance of $439,243. ,
ASSISTED HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
•
Assisted housing projects and programs in the City can alleviate the financial hardships low-
income households may face. Assisted housing projects are those..-that offer financial aid or
provide extra services for people in need of financial or basic living assistance. There are a
variety of programs, each focusing on a specific need or with a specific goal to eliminate unmet
housing needs in the community. Three multi-family complexes in the City participate in HUD's
Section 8 program (in which Federal funds are used to close the gap between the fair market rent
49
nnnn~a
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
and what lower income households can afford to pay) with 177 units in the program. The
Fellowship Plaza has 150 Section 8 units, it is owned and operated by the nonprofit agency Odd
. Fellow who is dedicated to being anon-profit organization; therefore the 150 units at the
Fellowship Plaza ai•e in low risk of being converted. Saratoga Court (both the project and owner
name) has 20 Section 8 units and their Section 8 contract was renewed in September of 2000 with
plans to continue renewing on a yearly basis. Laura Ville Apartment has seven units in Section 8
contracts for seniors only.
Based on the costs of land, permits, development, and construction (see Non-Governmental
Constraints Section), the minimum- estimated cost per unit to replace 177 affordable rental units
in Saratoga would be $250,000 per dwelling unit, or $44.25 million. There are no comparable
multifamily properties in the City, but based on an Internet search (LoopNet®) of seven
multifamily properties for sale in surrounding communities, the cost of acquiring 177 rental units
is estimated to be $200,000 per dwelling unit, or $35.4 million.
The City also has two other affordable housing programs. Tri-Aegis offers a residential care
home for developmentally disabled adults. There are six rooms funded by Title.
22/Private/Grants. Project Match offers affordable housing for seniors using CDBG guidelines.
There are currently 5 rooms shared in residential homes. No developers in the City have taken
advantage of density bonus programs.
Units Eligible for Conversion
In 1989, the California Government Code was amended to include a requirement that localities
identify and develop a program in their housing elements for the preservation of assisted,
affordable multi-family units. Subsequent amendments have clarified the scope of the analysis to
also include units developed pursuant to inclusionary housing and density bonus programs. In the
preservation analysis, localities are required to pi•ov~de an inventory of assisted, affordable units
that are eligible to convert within ten years. As part of the analysis, an estimation of the cost of
preserving versus replacing the units is to be included, as well as programs designed to preserve
the affordable units.
The California Housing Partnership Corporation provides an inventory of federally subsidized
rental units at risk of conversion. The 1999 update, which identifies units at risk though the year
2020, identifies two HUD-assisted multi-family housing developments with Section 8 contracts
in the Saratoga. The Section 8 contract expired for these two developments in 1999 and one was
identified as high risk for conversion according to the 1999 update.
RESOURCES AND POTENTIAL GROWTH AREAS
Development Patterns and Philosophy
In 1956, the City of Saratoga incorporated as a minimum service community comprised primarily
of low intensity residential uses with a minimum of commercial-industrial development. This
growth philosophy has continued to be important in guiding the City's future, and there is a desire
to maintain and preserve the community created by this philosophy. However, as land has
becomes scarce, the pressure to increase housing density rises. The majority of development
opportunities are on infill sites and hillside areas, the latter of which can are quite expensive to
develop.
VACANT LAND
There are approximately 956.41 acres of vacant undeveloped land available, primarily located on
hillsides. The remaining infill sites could be redeveloped with single-family or high-density
so OODO~a~j
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
residential uses. These lands are broken down in the following tables by current land use and
zoning.
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
There are six land use designations in the General Plan. The first four designations allow single-
family dwellings. The fifth designation allows single-family and multi-family dwellings. The
sixth allows single-family and multi-family dwellings if the site is designated P-D residential and
allows flexibility in terms of density and development. The six land-use designations and the
implementing zoning districts are described below:- .
Hillside Conservation Single-Family
Hillside Conservation Single-Family corresponds to the R-1, HR, P.-C, R-M, R-OS and MU-PD
zones. The maximum density in this designation is 0.5 dwelling units (DU) per net acre, or 1.~5
people per acre. The maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage is 15,000
square feet or 25% of the site area, whichever is less.
Very Low Density Single Family
Very Low Density Single Family corresponds to R-1, HR, P-C, R-M, R-OS and MU-PD zoning.
The maximum density allowed in these areas is 1.09 DU/net acre or 3.38 people per acre. The
maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage is 35% of the site area.
Low Density Single Family
Low Density Single Family corresponds to the R-l; HR, P-C, R-M, R-OS and MU-PD zones.
Development densities of 2.18 DU/net acre are permitted these areas. The maximum intensity of
building-and impervious surface coverage is 45% of the site area.
Medium Density Single Family
In the IvI-1 zone,-the Medium Density Single Family designation densities range from 2.90
DU/net acre to 4.35 DU/net acre or from 9.0 people/acre to 13.5 people/acre. The maximum
intensity of building and impervious surface coverage within. the M-1 zone ranges from 50
percent - 60 percent of the site area.
Multi-Family Residential
Multi-Family designation falls into the P-C, R-M and MU-PD zones. The density of this
designation is 14.5 DU/net acre or 27-45 people/acre. The intensity _of building coverage is 40%
of the site area.
P-D (Planned Development) Residential
This designation corresponds to the P-C and MU-PD zones. Densities within these sites are 4:35
to 12.45DU/acre or 13.5 to 38.6 people/acre. The maximum intensity of building coverage is 25
percent to 35 percent of the site area. All projects proposed on sites with this designation require
use permit approval.
P-D (Planned Development) Mixed
The General Plan also has allowable residential development within the broad commercial
category. The P-D (Planned Development). Mixed commercial subcategory .allows a mix of
51 0000 / V
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
residential and commercial uses under certain design criteria. This designation corresponds to the
P-A, C-ITT, C-V, and C-H zones.
•
sz 0~0~~~
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
•
Vacant Lands In Saratoga by Zoning District 2001
Zone Acres Maximum Potential Dwelling
Units Under Current Zonin "
Residential
Hillside Residential 565.21 270
R-1-40,000 106.60 85
R-1-20,000 7.11 14
R-1-15,000 1.00 3
R-1-12,500 2.37 7
R-1-10,000 6.18 21
R-M-5,000 Planned Community 0.00 0 .
R-M-4,000 Planned Community 5.11 30
R-M-3,000 Planned Community 0.68 g
Commercial
ProfessionaUAdministrative 2.43 42
C-N .36 5
C-V 0.00 0
C-C 1.21 17
C-H** 0.19 S
Open Space
Residential Open Space 18.64 2
Land Under Williamson Act Contract 220.93*** . N/A
Agriculture 17.39 5
Total 956.41 514
Vacant Land by Parcel Size
Parcel Size Total # of
Parcels
<'/e acre '/< -'/z ac. '/z -1 acre 1 acre +
Hillside Residential 4 4 6 52 66
Single-Family 59 20 23 34 136
Mutlifamily 8 1 1 2 12
Commercial 6 2 1 0 9
Source: City of Sazatoea 2001
**Before density bonuses for very low- or low-income units; assumes that one dwelling unit will be permitted on non-
conforming lots that aze less than the minimum required lot size.
**Residences aze allowed in the rear and second story of commercial uses-there is one, small vacant parcel in this
commercial category. The estimated number of dwelling units assumes atwo-story commercial structure meeting
all applicable zoning requirements.
*** 114.99 of these acres is under an expired contract and will be available for non agricultural use between 2008-
2015.
•.
•
•i
53
nnnn-7o
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING-NEEDS ASSESMENT
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City allows multifamily residential use in its commercial districts through a conditional use
permit process. Approximately 5.19 acres of these the commercial lands are vacant. These lands
can be further developed to medium high densities to accommodate affordable housing.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The City has used federal funds to implement the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation
Program (SHARP). -The program consists primarily of a home improvement loan subsidy
program for low and moderate-income homeowners to repair and bring their homes up to code
standards. The purpose is to rehabilitate deteriorating housing units and maintain a housing stock
for low to moderate-income households. By 1990, 50 units had been rehabilitated by the
program.
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT HOUSING STOCK
In 1987, the city identified 105 historic buildings and properties within Saratoga, however four
had been demolished by 1996. In order to be listed on the inventory, a building must meet one of
seven criteria established by the City's Heritage Preservation Commission. The criteria are based
on the architecture, prominence in the city and historic significance of the site. The Commission
has been established and is defined as follows:
The Heritage Preservation Commission functions as a liaison working in conjunction with the
Council, the Planning Commission, and the agencies and departments of the City to implement
the City's Heritage Preservation Ordinance. This includes conducting surveys of properties within
the boundaries of the City of Saratoga for the purpose of establishing an official inventory of
heritage resources and recommending to the City council specific proposals for designation as a
historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district. Currently, there are 108 buildings on the
City's Heritage Resources Inventory list. The Saratoga Histor>cal Foundation nominates one
member and at least one must be trained and experienced in the field of construction and
structural rehabilitation, such as a licensed architect, engineer, contractor or urban planner. The
City is also a Certified Local Government as defined by the State Office of Historic Preservation
for the purpose of implementing historic preservation requirements.
While there are many historic buildings in Saratoga, the city lacks authority to protect the
buildings without buying.them. Many owners of historic houses have renovated them, however
many cannot afford to do so. If an owner cannot afford or does not wish to renovate, the current
Heritage Preservation Ordinance allows demolition of a historic building after a 30-day notice
period. The costs related with restoring housing can be exorbitant primarily because once a
property owner adds to an old building, the entire building must be brought up to current building
codes. This may be too much for owners and they may opt to demolish the house instead. The
Heritage Preservation Ordinance requires a permit for architectural changes, additions or
demolition of a designated landmark.
AVAILABLE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE
Most of the vacant land is located in hillside areas. These areas tend to be further away from
urban services, have limited access, and have geologic and other environmental constraints on
development. New sewer and storm drainage systems are required for development in the
hillsides. Control of the runoff is critical to protect water quality and prevent erosion and
flooding:
There are some remaining small isolated vacant parcels that are scattered throughout the City
surrounded by existing development and could be classified as infill. _ Providing services to areas
0000'79
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
that are not currently being service would be relatively easy since they are close to existing utility
systems and would require only minimal extension of such systems. Police and fire protection
and access to the schools are easier for these parcels than hillside areas since the travel distances
is significantly less. These infill parcels are also better served by public transportation because
many of them are within walking distance of an existing bus route.
CONSTRAINTS
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Availability of Financing
The City has not uncovered any local constraints to the availability or cost of financing for home
purchases or rehabilitation that differ significantly from the availability and cost of financing
generally in California. Even in older neighborhoods of the City, there are no barriers to
obtaining financing for home purchase, improvement, or construction (other than customary
underwriting considerations by lenders). Because virtually all homeowners and homebuyers in
Saratoga have moderate or higher incomes, there are few barriers to obtaining financing relating
to income-the primary consideration is whether the housing price or home improvement cost is
consistent with the borrower's ability to make monthly loan payments.
Rental Availability
Rental availability in Saratoga is extremely low with a vacancy rate of less than one percent. The
low vacancy rates means that there are limited housing choices for residents who cannot afford to
purchase a home in Saratoga. A five percent rental vacancy rate is considered necessary to
permit ordinary rental mobility. With less than one percent vacancy rate tenants have difficulty
locating appropriate units and the strong market pressure has inflated. rents beyond the reach of
the very low, low, and moderate income Saratoga residents. "
Land Costs "
Land costs are a major factor in the cost to build in Saratoga. According to the California
Association of Realtors, housing prices have been rising in the area, nearly five percent between
December 1999 and December 1998. This increase also includes vacant land, which is very
scarce in the City: A search of LoopNet® Internet land-for-sale records between September 2000
and June 2001 uncovered no vacant residential properties for sale in Saratoga. A wider search of
vacant residential properties, and properties with residential potential, within a five miles of
Saratoga revealed the following results: .
9. Single family residential lots, hillside: $230,000 to $1 million per lot
10. Single family residential lots, non-hillside: $200,000 to $85:0,000 per lot
11.. Multifamily, medium density: $175,000 to $250,000 per dwelling unit
12. Commercial properties with residential potential: $1.7 - $3.5 million per acre ($70,000 to
$290,000 per dwelling unit, depending on assumptions about density) .
13.
Given these extremely high land costs, it is unlikely that increases in density (such as a 25%
density bonus) would significantly reduce the unit cost of building a dwelling unit to the level of "
affordability for low- oi• moderate-income households. Densities. of 40 units or more. per acre,
combined with greatly reduced dwelling unit sizes, would be necessary to construct affordable
housing to moderate- and some low-income households without significant public subsidies.
55
00080
Y 1 ~
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Construction and Labor Costs
The most significant constraint on development of new housing in Saratoga is the overall cost of
housing, including land costs and construction costs. Many factors can affect the cost to build a
house, including the type of construction, materials, site conditions, finishing details, amenities.
and structural configuration. Development costs were developed from estimates provided by
Allen Lambert of Morse Enterprises in Saratoga and Chuck Bommarito, Pinn Brothers
Construction.
Permitting costs in Saratoga are about $30,000 for an average size home. The total includes
permitting costs and school fees.
Once a vacant parcel is purchased, the contractor has to make certain site improvements to
prepare for building on the property. Such improvements include connections to existing utility
systems, rough grading, plus installation of water, and sewer lines. This type of work generally
costs between $40,000 to $70,000 depending on the amount of work required at.each location.
Materials and labor have a wide range of costs depending on the type of materials used for
construction. Typically more expensive materials are used for custom homes, which ranged from
$140 to $200 per square foot. An average quality construction single-family home generally
costs less because the materials are less expensive and easier to handle. These material and labor
costs for these homes cost around $65 per square foot.
In addition to site improvement costs and the cost for building materials, there are engineering
and architecture soft costs, which can range from $10,000 and $70,000 per lot. Additional costs
including trash and temporary fencing average about $5,000 per lot.
At the costs listed above, none of the very low, low, or moderate-income households in Saratoga
can afford to build a home in the area. The scarcity of easily developed land, combined with the
-great demand, indicates that housing construction costs are likely to remain high in the future.
Saratoga will continue to follow the trend that is occurring throughout the Bay Area and the
Silicon Valley.
Available Senior Housing
There is a lack of available housing for younger seniors who might otherwise sell their family
homes to relocate into smaller homes with less maintenance requirements. There are a number of
facilities in the City that offer institutionalized care however many of these facilities. have
extensive waiting lists. There are very few facilities that offer independent living for seniors and
the ones currently available have waiting lists and often have long application processes. These
processes can often take more than a year to complete. As a result, many seniors are opting to
remain in their homes and are choosing to retain their homes rather than relocate.
56 OOOO~1
K. r H-
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Hillside Development
Since most undeveloped land in the City is located in the hillside_ areas, development of these
areas carries environmental and financial risks and constraints. Due to environmental constraints,
particularly unstable soils, topography, and the ability of hillside areas to accommodate septic
systems, development densities are limited to single family homes on large lots. There are
currently 565.21 vacant acres of land in the hillside areas.
Maintaining Public Open Space
The City is dedicated to the preservation of its open space. Open space is a valuable resource as
it discourages noncontiguous development patterns that result in sprawl and inefficient use of
community service funds. Open space also maintains the natural character of the area so that
urbanization does not become out of control and cities do not lose their natural resources. Open
spaces are beneficial to the responsible growth of cities and -offer many environmental,
recreational, and psychological benefits to the community. The City's existing open space lands
are diverse in scale, use, and level of improvement. While most of the open space in the hillside is
characterized by undeveloped and undisturbed, the typical open space in the foothills and valley
are landscaped and designed.
Seismic Safety
Like most other areas of the state, Saratoga is located on a number of active fault lines. Most
notably, the San Andreas fault. Other faults include Berrocalm the Monta Vista/Shannon, and the
Sargent faults. Therefore, development of the hillside and other open space areas, which are most
susceptible to ground failure and landslide during earthquake activity, should be limited to low
occupancy to avoid potential disasters.
Development Costs
Since little to no improvements have been made on hillside properties, development of
infrastructure would add to the cost of development. Parcels would need to be graded and utility
and road extensions would need to occur. Due to seismic risks, further provisions for earthquake
safety would need to be imposed including building design safety standards. These costs would
create a large burden on the City and developers to such a degree that the City does not provide
incentives for hillside or any other type of development of low- and moderate-income housing.
Land Ilse Controls
Historically, Saratoga has been a large lot single-family home community. The basis of the
community's identity has been low-density residential neighborhoods that maintain asemi-rural
feel to the City. Commercial development has been limited primarily to retail and services
needed by the local population, although the historic downtown business district does attract
visitors from outside the City. The preservation of heritage orchards, hillside and other open
spaces, and active agricultural lands have been integral to maintaining this community vision.
The City's land use policies have worked well in past decades when plenty of open space and
developable land was available in other parts of Santa Clara County to meet the needs ~of a
growing, and diverse, population. Over the past 20 years, however, vacant land has become
increasingly scarce, except in the southern part of the County, while countywide employment
growth and redevelopment in many developed communities have created large demands for
additional housing. Over the past decade, in particular, Saratoga has been greatly affected by the
extreme increase in housing costs that have accompanied the. shortage of housing.
57 OOOO~~
,+ :~
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Saratoga and other Santa Clara County communities are required by state law to .plan for, and
accommodate, additional housing at a_ variety densities to meet a fair share of the additional
housing needs of all income segments under a regional housing allocation plan (Regional
Housing Needs Determination, or "RHND") prepared by ABAG. Under the RHND, the City
must accommodate 111 additional dwelling units at densities suitable for the development of
housing for very low- and low-income households, and 108 additional dwelling units at densities
suitable for moderate-income households.
As shown in Table 26, the City can accommodate up to 515 dwelling units on vacant residential
land and commercial properties that permit residences, about 96% of its total RHND allocation of
539 dwelling units. The City could also approve up to 20 second units per year (more if the City
Council waives the annual limit on second unit permits), or 100 second units in the five
remaining years of the current RHND allocation period. In addition, approximatel}' S0 single
family homes have been constructed or approved by_permit since January 1, 1999. Other ways in
which the City could accommodate additional housing include the construction of dwelling units
over or behind existing ground-level commercial uses in the historic downtown area and approval
of additional dwelling units in the Saratoga Retirement Community (Odd Fellows).
In combination with development potential on vacant land, the City can meet its total RHND
allocation.
The City's current zoning policies and land use patterns will make it difficult. to accommodate
City's share of regional housing needs for very low- low-, and some moderate-income households
under ABAG's Plan for several reasons:
1. There is very little vacant land left in the City zoned for residential use, or that could be
rezoned for residential use to accommodate higher densities needed for low- and moderate-_
income housing. Nearly two-thirds of vacant, non-hillside residential parcels are less than '/~
acre, and almost half are less than '/< acre.
2. Maximum residential densities in the City's residential zones (excluding hillside zones) range
from one dwelling unit per acre to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. Current zoning would not
~~ permit the kinds of densities that could make the production of affordable housing feasible to
low-income, and even some moderate-income households.
3. Residential uses, although permitted in commercial zones, are limited to the same maximum
densities as in multifamily zones and are subject to conditional use permit. The allowed
density is determined on a case-by-case basis.
4. Re-use potential in Saratoga is limited as there are few sites containing older, substandard
land uses that could recycle to higher density residential uses.
The City's potential to accommodate housing affordable to low- and moderate-income
households could be increased through higher densities of vacant sites along arterial roads (such
as Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road), higher densities for housing in commercial
zones, incentives to construct housing in commercial zones (including dwelling units over or
behind ground-level commercial structures in the historic downtown district), and a negotiated
inclusionary requirement on new housing construction at the Saratoga Retirement Community.
Residential uses are permitted in residential zones as shown in the table below. However,
conversion of commercial uses in commercial zones to residential uses is permitted with the
approval of a conditional use permit. The Zoning Ordinance does allow the construction of new
residential units in all commercial zones with a Use Permit. Single family dwelling are permitted
uses in residential zones and in Agriculture, Planned Community, Multiple Use Planned
Development, and Commercial districts; however, multi-family dwellings are either permitted or
58 ~ ~ oooos3
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT -
• HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
conditional uses in Planned Community, Multi-Family Residential, Multiple Use Planned
Development, and Commercial districts.
Single Family Residential `
The majority of land in Saratoga is zoned R-1, which only allows one unit per lots of at least
10,000 square feet, or just over one-fifth of an acre. In addition there are setbacks, yard sizes and
height restrictions that guide development on these parcels. These restrictions and the limitations
cater to households with moderate incomes and above.
There are parcels in Saratoga that are underdeveloped and could be subdivided to achieve
maximum density as allowed by the zoning provisions. However, a sewer permit is needed for
each parcel that was formerly one parcel, causing additional fees and constraints to development.
Upon recordation of a final subdivision or parcel map covering any site, no lots or parcels shown
on the map may be further subdivided to increase the total density.
Hillside Residential and Residential Open Space Districts
As with most other hillside communities, Saratoga has specific guidelines and standards for
hillside development to preserve the character of the hillside and protect residents and the
environment. The Hillside Residential District (HR) and the Residential Open Space (R-OS)
both strive to maintain the natural environment and existing rural character of hillsides while
encouraging development on gently sloping sites that have natural screening features lather than
on steep, visually exposed sites.
The development standards are very specific in this district. Low Density residential housing is
allowed; however a site development plan must be prepared and approved by the advisory
agency. Existing vegetation and land formations must be retained as much as possible and plans
for erosion and sediment control must be in place, consistent with City ordinances. Grading shall
be conducted along the natural contours as much as reasonably practical and shall be designed to
avoid erosion, flooding, slides and other hazards.
In addition to the site development plan, a geologic and soils report must be prepared.- Additional
studies may be required unless the City Geologist determines that existing information is
adequate. The location of the structure is limited by the maximum site coverage of 25% and the
slope percentage. Because of the strict regulations involving hillside development, it is not
feasible for affordable housing.
Planned Community
The P-C designated land designed for a common open-space development or for persons desiring
smaller residences or dwelling units than is economically feasible under existing zoning districts,
and which combines a number of uses in order to develop a living environment that conforms to
the General Plan. Single-family or multi-family dwellings are permitted. The constraints may be
the lack of available land in this zoning designation.
Second Units
Some of the City's affordable housing needs can be met through the construction of second units,
which are permitted in all single-family zones on lot sizes on 12,500 square feet or more. Most
of the City's single-family lots meet this minimum requirement. Other requirements for second
units are:
i; The minimum lot size for properties with second units is 1.6 times that otherwise needed in
the applicable zones if the second unit is detached.
59
000084
~; ~ r
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
~ Occupancy of either the second unit or the principal residence is limited to a person sixh~
years of age or more or an individual with a physical handicap. This requirements may be
waived by conditional use permit if the property owner can show that extreme hardship will
result from the application of this requirement.
The total number of second units that may be approved per year is 20, of which no more than
five per year may be located in the R-10,000 zone, although the City Council may increase or
decrease this number based on a periodic review of the impacts of second units on the
community.
~ Second units may be approved for a limited duration, with or without the right to apply for an
extension. Property owners with approved second units must certify every five years-that the
units continue to comply with all applicable zoning and conditional use permit requirements.
Although Saratoga's second unit permit requirements allow such units to be constructed in most
of the City, the restrictions on lot size for detached units, occupancy, the number of annual
permits,. and renewaUre-certification could serve as disincentives for many property owners to use
this housing option.
Homeless Facilities and Transitional Housing
The Saratoga Zoning Code does not expressly allow or prohibit homeless shelters, homeless
supportive service facilities, and/or transitional housing. Institutional, religious, charitable, and
public facilities are permitted by conditional use in multifamily and commercial zones.
Depending on the operator and nature of the services provided, it is possible that a homeless or .
transitional housing facility-could fall under the Zoning Code definition of institutional, religious,
charitable, or public facility. Because the City does not have a significant internal homeless
problem, there has never been a request to operate a homeless shelter, supportive service facility,
or transitional housing facility in the City. However, state law' (Section 65583[c][]] of the
California Government Code) requires that the Housing Element:
identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development
standards and with services and facilities...needed to facilitate and encourage the development of
a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including... emergency shelters and transitional
housing in order to meet the community's housing goals.
Clarification in the Zoning Code of where such uses would be permitted, if requested, would help
the City show compliance with this section of state law.
•
so00085
n ~~ •'
,~
• SARATOGA HOU~LEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT O
• Q
Q
Saratoga Zoning Code Requirements with Allowable Residential Development
Development R-1 HR P-C R-M R-0S MU-PD P-A Agriculture Commercial
Components
Lot Area - 10,000 to 2-10 acres . lot size can 3,000 to minimum is 25 acres 12,000 C-N: 10
000
Minimum (sq/ft) 48,0002 depending vary 5,000 20 to 180 gross with sq. fi ,
C-V: 10,000
on the ~ minimum subdivision, CH-1:5
000
.minimum per dwelling consistent ,
slope.
unit
with. CH-2: 7,500
surrounding,
Zoning
' District.
Lot Coverage - 39%-60% 25% or Can vary but 40% 25% or 60% 30% 25% or 15,000 C-N 60%
Maximum 15,000 ft2 guidelines 12,000 ft2 ft2 C-V 60%
which ever refer to R-1
is greater
and 1tM CH-1 80%
standards CH-2 60%
Maximum 26 feet 26-feet 26 to 30 ft. 30 feet 22-26 feet 30 feet 30 feet 26 feet. C-N 20 feet
Height -
Structure (ft)
• C-V 20 feet
CH-1 35 feet
CH-2 26 feet
Parking Two 2 covered Can vary One covered 2 covered Can use R-1 One 2 within Varies by use
Requirements covered spaces space within within a or RM space per garage from 1 per 75
spaces within a a garage and garage standard 200 sq. - sq. ft. to 1 per
within a garage one and a ft. of 500 sq. ft.
garage. half gross
additional floor area
s~
,,
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Development R-1 HR P-C R-M R-OS MU-PD P- Agriculture Commercial
Components
spaces on
site for eacl-
dwelling unit
Allowable two two two two two two , two two
Storica
Units/Acre 1.09 to 2.9 0.5 12.45 14.5 0 to 0.5 Single 10.89 Refers to 14.5 units/acre
units/acre units/per units/acre units/acre units/acre Family - units/acre surrounding
acre 10,000 zoning
ft2/unit
Multi Family ,
7,000 fie/unit
Senior
Housing 20
units/acre
Single Family Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not Permitted Use C-N: multi-
Dwellings Use Use Use Use Use Use Permitted family only
C-V: multi-
family only
CH: single and
multi family
above and
behind retail
with a CUP.
Second Condition Conditional Not Depends Not Not N/A Conditional Not permitted
Residential al Use Use Permitted upon density permitted permitted Use
Units
ApartmentslM Not Not Permitted Pern~itted Not Permitted Conditio Not Permitted C-H District
ultifamily permitted permitted Use Use Permitted Use nal Use Permitted Use
Units C-N and C-V
s 62
`,L u.
~.
.,
0
i ~ SARATOGA HOU~LEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
,~
Development R-1 HR P-C R-M R-OS MU-PD P-A Agriculture Commercial
Components
Conditional
Use'
Guest Houses Permitted Permitted Not Not Not Not feasible N/A Permitted Permitted with
Usc Use. Permitted Permitted Permitted approved
residential
Institutional Condition Conditional Conditional Conditional Not So-ne Requires Conditional Permitted
~'~uciiities al Use Use Use Use permitted a CUP Use
ly~ufsing Condition Conditional Conditional Conditional Not Permitted Requires Conditional Permitted
Homes/Day ,. al Use Use Use Use Permitted Use CUP Use
Care
Clustering Permitted Permitted N/A N/A Permitted N/A N/A N/A N/A
Lots
Saratoga Ueneral Plan
63
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
~. Measure G
On March 26, 1996, the voters of the City of Saratoga approved a measure (Measure G) to
change the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to require that certain amendments
to said Land Use Element may only be made by a voter of the people, and on April 23, 1996, the
City Council did certify the results of the March 26, 1996, election and adopted a resolution
incorporating the Measure G amendments in the Land Use Element. These land use policies were
set forth to protect the character of Saratoga's residential neighborhoods, including the following:
LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a communih~ of single-
family detached residences.
LU.8.1 Existing non-developed sites zoned single-family detached residential should
remain so designated.
This initiative provides assurance by giving greater stability to the City's General Plan, to protect
the residential and recreational open space areas in the City. The initiative requires,- with certain
exceptions, a vote of the people to permit: (1) the redesignation of residential lands to
commercial, industrial or other land use designations, (2) an increase of densities or intensities of
residential land use, or (3) the redesignation of recreational open space lands to other land use
designation. This initiative does not affect the City's existing .regulations that authorize the
creation of second dwelling units. Nor does the initiative interfere with the City's obligation
under state law to revise the Housing Element of the General Plan every five years.
.infrastructure and Roads/Traffic
Since the City and most of its developments are quite old, infrastructure,- including streets,
sewers, storm drains, and water lines, are quickly aging and in need of repair. To offset the cost
of installation and repair, new developments are required to provide on-site infrastructure and pay
an impact fee for these facilities. There are no physical infrastructure limitations on the City's
ability to accommodate affordable housing, nor are there infrastructure or public service
constraints on remaining sites potentially suitable for affordable housing. The. City cannot.
presently serve hillside sites above the current limits of development without extending roads,
water, and sewer lines.
There is a concern that higher densities or intensities of residential development will strain the
planned capacity of city streets. The General Plan EIR states that: "Traffic impacts are significant
primarily in a regional sense since Saratoga will be contributing to the traffic congestion of the
region but it may also be significant to specific neighborhoods." In addition to potential impacts
on State Highways, citizens are concerned about the traffic levels on other arterial streets in the
city. Additional development along some of the. more congested roadways should be carefully
examined for potential significant traffic impacts. Potential aesthetic and noise impacts will also
have to be carefully considered.
Neighborhood Character
Allowing higher densities on infill parcels may create incompatible uses when they are
substantially surrounded by low single-family development. There is a strong desire by residents
to maintain low housing densities to retain the neighborhood character:' One of the major reasons
Saratoga incorporated in 1956 was to preserve its low-density character.
Building and Fire Codes
Fire sprinklers are required by the City in all residential garage structures, which increases the
cost of housing construction. The City also requires Class A roofing for all new roofs. Class A is
sa
000089
.~. . ~: ,
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
the highest standard-for fire retardant roofing and is the most effective against sever fire exposure. S
Roofing materials that meet Class A requirements are also among the most expensive and can add
significantly to the cost of an affordable housing development.
Enforcement
The City has an active- enforcement program, with two code enforcement officers. The City's
main code enforcement problems range from vehicle storage within the front vard set backs to
garbage complaints. They have encountered very few illegal second units in the City but as
housing prices rise this might become a problem. About one percent of the housing is in need of
rehabilitation. This one percent is located in an older section of town where people are starting to
buy these houses and remodel them; so this problem is quickly ending.
Processing and Permit Procedures
The City's permitting procedures are not a barrier to housing development as requests for single-
family homes and multi-family projects are processed within the time limits set forth by AB-884,
CEQA, and the Subdivision Map Act. According to the Planning Department, Plan Checking
takes 3 to 4 weeks to receive a permit. Design Reviews and Use Permits take three months to
process Two months for a public hearing, and 1 month to get a zone clearance and building plan
check.
The City has a design review procedure for residential developments. The parking requirements
have not been an impediment to housing development. Single-family dwelling units currently
require two covered spaces, excluding a covered parking space for a second unit. Second units
require one covered space within a garage. Multi-family units require one covered space, or a
garage for each dwelling. Parking requirements are not considered excessive in comparison to
those of similar communities.
Fees -and Exactions
Direct Development costs due to governmental processes include permit and application fees,
-park and recreation fees, improvement bonds, public works improvement fees, and environmental
review fees. The fees charged in Saratoga are comparable to the fees charged by other local
governments, rates were established to cover most of the costs incurred by the City to process an
.application. Since Saratoga's median housing value is high, fees charged by the City make up a
proportionally smaller percent of the overall cost of the unit than in other communities.
City of Saratoga Planning Department Application Fees
Development Type Fee
Permit Fees
Accessory Structure Director Approval $500
Annexation
Waiver Request $500
Exempt from LAFCO Review $2,500
Subject to LAFCO Review $5,000 plus LAFCO fee
•
65
nnnn4n
~ ,rr r
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT .
City of Saratoga Planning Department Application Fees
Development Type
Appeals
To Planning Commission
To Citv Council
Building Site Approval (Tent.)
Building Site Exemption
Certificate of Compliance
Construction Trailer Permit
Continuance Request (2°d and ea. additional)
Design Review
Administrative
Single Family (Addition to: include demo/new)
Single Family (New on Vacant Lot)
Multiple Family or Non-Residential
(Addition to include demo and new)
Multiple Family or Non-Residential
(New on Vacant Lot)
Accessory Structure
Document Storage Fee
Administrative File
Public Hearing File
Environment Review
Environmental Assessment
Dept. of Fish and Game Neg. Dec.
E.I.R
Extension of Approved Application
Fence Exception Request
General Plan Amendment
Geotechnical Review (Deposit)
Horticultural Review (Deposit)
Lot Line Adjustment/Merging of Parcels
Modification of approved application
Sign Permit ..
Permits Issued by Staff
Fee
$150
$250
$2,500
$500
$500 Deposit
$100
$250
$1,500
$2,500
$3,500
$5,000
$5,000
$1,500
$50
$150
$1,500
$1,250 (DFG) $25 (City)
Cost of Consultants plus 35%
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$3,500 for 15i lot/up to $10,000 for each added lot.
$1,000
$250
$1,500 .
$100
ss
nnnnq~
~. '~'", v
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
1
City of Saratoga Planning Department Application Fees
Development Type Fee
Permits Issued by PC (Single- Tenant) $500
(Multiple Tenant) $1,500
Sound wall Permit $500
Storage Permit $100
Tentative Subdivisions
Less than ten lots $5,000
Ten or more lots d ,, ,. $5,000 plus $150 for each -lot over ten
Use Permit
Accessory Structure or Use ~ $1,500
No New Construction $2,500
Addition to .(Include Demo and New Construction) $3,500
New Construction on Vacant Lot $5,000 " _
Second Unit: Planning Commission $2;500
Second Unit: Administrative $500
Temporary Use: Planning Commission $500
Temporary Use: Administrative $200
Variance
Accessory Structure or Use $1,500
Single-Family Main Structure
(Addition to include Demo and New)
$2,500
(New on Vacant Lot) $3,500
Multiple Family or Non-Residential Main
Structure (Addition to include Demo and New) $3,500
(New on Vacant Lot) $5,000
Zoning Ordinance Amendment $3,500 .
Source: Ciri of Saratoea 2001.
On and Off-site Improvement Requirements
•
•
When new developments are constructed there is a need to .improve .the land upon which the
development is located, or provide improvements in the general .area to properly serve the
development. These improvements vary depending on whether. the development is located on
raw land or an infill site. Typical raw land improvements include the installation of sewers,
curbs, gutters, and streets. Many infill sites -are already equipped with some if not most
s~ n~~~9z
~r
~~.. --
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
•
•
improvements, particularly streets. Therefore there are usually no dedication or easement
requirements. Most of the new construction in the City occurs on existing lots that are being
recvcled for reuse.
ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES
There are many opportunities for conserving energy in new and existing homes. New buildings;
by design, can easily incorporate energy efficient techniques into the construction. Since much of
Saratoga is already developed, however, it is important to consider the opportunity for energy
savings in existing housing also. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the concept of
energy efficiency in buildings is the building envelope, which is everything that separates the
interior of the building from the outdoor environment: the doors, windows, walls, foundation,
roof, and insulation. All the components of the building envelope need to work together to keep a
building warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
Constructing new homes with energy-conserving features, . in. ,addition to retrofitting existing
structures, will result in a reduction in monthly utility costs:. There are many ways to determine
how energy efficient an existing building is and; if needed, whit'improvements can be made.
PG&E offers free home energy audits and can specify areas for energy conservation. Examples
of energy conservation opportunities include installation of insulation and/or storm windows and
doors, use of natural gas instead of electricity, installation or retrofitting of more efficient
appliances and mechanical or solar energy systems, and building design and orientation which
incorporates energy conservation considerations.
Many modern building design methods are used to reduce residential energy consumption and are
based on proven techniques. These methods can be categorized in three ways:
1. Building design that keeps natural heat in during the winter and keeps natural heat out during
the summer. Such design reduces air conditioning and heating demands. Proven building
techniques in this category include:
~ location of windows and openings in relation to the path of the sun to minimize solar gain
in the summer and maximize solar gain in the winter;
i; use of "thermal mass," earthen materials such as stone, brick, concrete, and tiles- that
absorb heat during the day and release heat at_ night;
i; "burying" part of the home in a hillside or berm to reduce solar exposure or to insulate
the home against extremes of temperature;
i; use of window coverings, insulation, and other materials to reduce heat exchange
between the interior of a home and the exterior;
~ location of openings and the use of ventilating devices that take advantage of natural
air flow (particularly cool evening breezes);
~ use of eaves and overhangs that block direct solar gain through window openings during the
summer but allow solar gain during the winter; and
1; zone heating and cooling systems, which reduce heating and cooling in the unused areas
of a home.
14.
.a~ _ .
2 Building orientation that uses natural forces to maintain a comfortable interior temperature.
Examples include:
~ north-south orientation of the long axis of a dwelling;
i; minimizing the southern and western exposure of exterior surfaces; and
i; location of dwellings to take advantage of natural air circulation and evening breezes.
15.
sa
~D~~q~
,~+~!~. ,
SAFLgTOGA HOUSING ELEMENT ~'
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
3 Use of landscaping features to moderate interior temperatures. Such techniques. include:
~ use of deciduous shade trees and other plants to protect the home;
~ use of natural or artificial flowing water;-and
i:, use of trees and hedges as windbreaks.
16. .
In addition to natural techniques, a number of modern methods of energy conservation have been -
developed or advanced during the present century. These include:
~ use of solar energy .to heat water;
~, use of solar panels and other devices to generate electricity;
~ window glazing to repel summer heat and trap winter warmth;
~ weather-stripping and other insulation to reduce heat gain and loss;
~ use of natural gas for dryers, stovetops and ranges;
~ use of energy efficient home appliances;- and
•'' i - ~ use of low-flow shop _ >~ ~ =~ ,tors to reduce hot water use.
t, ~ .- r f ~ -~ . ._.
. The city's Mediterranean-like .,a..~~ ~ ~ a1;,~f :coastal northern California with year-round
mild temperatures and provides an opportunity to use solar energy techniques to generate
electricity, heat water, and provide space heating during colder moriths;~as well. Natural space
heating can be substantially increased through the proper location of windows and thermal mass.
Use of solar panels can generate 1,000 watts of electricity on .a sunny day.. This can constitute
more than enough power for daily residential operations and a special converter. attached to the
solar panels can take excess electricity and funnel it back into the PG&E grid.
There are local programs that assist low- and moderate-income households in retrofitting their
homes. PG&E offers free weatherization to qualified residents, including free attic insulation,
weatherstripping and caulking, water heater blankets and low flow.showerheads. They also offer
rebates on the purchase of certain energy efficient appliances and vouchers for replacing
windows, furnaces and other household items. In addition to PG&E, The City uses SHARP
funds to offer installation of insulation for low and moderate income rehabilitated homes.
State Building Code Standards
Policy H.4.0 and the supporting policies of the City's 1990 Housing Element requires compliance
with Title 24 as discussed below. Compliance with Title 24 will enable homeowners to reduce
energy consumption.
The California Energy Commission was created in 1974 by the Warren-Alquist State Enerev
Resources Conservation and Development Act (Public Resources Code 25000 et seg.). Among
the requirements of the new law was a directive for the Commission to adopt energy conservation
standards for new construction. The first residential energy conservatton standards were
developed in the late 1970s (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) and have been
periodically revised and refined since that time.
•
69 000094
t •-
a
I~
-n
11 ~~
M~ ~~~ ~ c~ 20 ~~ ~`'~
I;!TY U~ :.: ~~~~~)~ I L
t~
SF54xc429A
FARWE:LL AVE & SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
U
9~ ~
& ~ //`SITE,.
Q
a ,/
* ~
THREE DAMS WAY
~.
~~~
4
S PARK Dfl '~
~'~
ROBIN WAY ~ ~~
WAY
VICINITY MAP
DWECTIONS FROM SPRRTf REdONAI OFTICE 91 PLEASWTON
TAKE I-680 SOUTH 10 CA/262 (YI$SION BLVD) WEST TO I-880 SOUTH. TAKE 1-
SOUIH ro lA$ GTOS, E)OT ROUTED 9 AND HFAO WEST. SITE s APPRp%11MIELY,
MILES PAST 1HE TOWN OF MONTE SERENA
DRIVING DIRECTIONS
s
Sprint PCSSM
CALTRANS R.O.W.
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
THE PROJECT CON5615 OF THE INSTAUAIp)N AND OPERAnON OF
ANTENNAS AND ASSOdA1E0 EWIPMENT CA&NEfS FOR SPR%1i
SPECIRUY'S PERSONY COMMI%JIGnON SERVICES (PCS) WIRELESS
7ELECONWNNR110N5 NETWORK. ANTENNAS WILL BE MOONED ON A
EOIIIPNENT Mq BE LUNDERCRWNDN87 BPROPOSED EdAPMENT
VAUIi. iXE EOUFYEM CA6wE1S WILL NOOSE TILE iRANSMR ANO
RECEIVE E01%P11ENf.
L PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANTiLESSEE
SPRINT PC$
1683 CNABOi DANE, SURE 100
PlEA5ANi0N, G 94566
IYPLENENUTgN ENOMEER EARLE FARIEY
PHONE: (510) 168-7380
PROPERTY INFORMATION
LANDLORD: JOE REZOUNSNY
COMPANY: CAUiORNq DEPT. OE TRANSPORTAIgN
ADDRESS: FARWELL AYE ! SARATOG-LOS GT05 RD
sMarocA G esp7o
PHONE: (510) 286-5425
fAX: (510) 286-5366
CONTACT: JOE REZOUNSKT
C04PANY: CAIJFORNL4 DEPT. OF TRAFSPIRAnON
ADDRESS: 111. CRANp AYE
OWUWD, G 91612
PRONE: (510) 286-5425
FAiD ~ (510) 286-5366
ARG OF CONSTRUCiptt 3325! 50. Ff.
OCCUPANCY TYPE: B
NUMBER OF STORIES: 0 - ACl
0-au
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VN
aRRENr zoxu,c: R1 - w,ooo
ZONING APPl1GnON ~:
AP.N.: N/A
1UNDIGP REQUIREMENTS: $PRWT FAGUtt R UNMANNED ANO
NOi FOR HUNAN HABITATION.
HANDMM ACCESS NOT REOURED.
~ PROJECT SUMMARY
ALL WORN AND WTEAWS SHALL RE PERFORMED AND INSIALLEp IN
ACCORDNR;E WRH TILE CURRENT ECITIONS OF THE FOLLOWVRT CODES
A$ ADOPTED BY 71E LOGL CDYERNINC AUIHORRIES. NOTHWC IN
THESE PIAN$ 6 TO BF fYAVSTRUEO ro PERMR wDWK NOT
CONFORMING ro THE uTESr ElnnoNS of n+E roL1.OWTNC cooES.
1. 1998 CAUFORNM 6UADINC GOOF. 6. UNINRLI PLUMBING CODE
SAN FRNId5C0 AMENDMENTS 7. NATgNAt EIECIRIC CODE
2 UNBORLI BULDNG CODE g, CAUFYJpNM AOWN5iRA1NE CODE
3. BNLOOC OFFlCMLS AND CODF 9. dtt/COUNTY ORDINMICES
AoMwISTRaroaS (BOLA)
4. 1MW01W MECIWNCAE CODE 10. 1997 NFPA 72,UFE SAFETY CODE
8. pNSi/EIA_222-F LFE yy~Y I I. NFPA 13, $PROLKIER CODE
CODE NFPA-101 12. 71TLE 24, ENERGY CODE
CODE COMPLIANCE
SURVEYOR:
NAME EVANS $uaYEYS, nC
ADDRESS 420 UNION AVE
dtt, STATE ZIP FAEIFIELD. G 99533
CON1ACn CHPo$ TRO%CWR
PHON[ (707) f2fi-1709 FA%; (707) 426-5398
CIVIL ENGINEER:
AW E55 I 3138 IICCMWN RD.
Cltt, STALE, ZIP SAN LUIS OB58D, G 93101
CONTACL• FRANK NARnYEUSER
PKOKE: (eos)s4z-9osz FA%: (6os)sa2-9zs4
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
NAME
Ott, STALE, ZIP
CONDCi;
PHONE: FA%;
MECHANICAL ENGINEER:
MLLE ~
ADDRESS
UfY, STATE. ZIP'
CONTACT: ~
PHOFB:: { FA%;
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER:
NAME TETRA 7ECH / AA
ADDRESS 16241 LACUNA CANYON RO0.D, SURE 20D
CRY, STATE. ZIPS, IRvINE, G 92618
CONTACT: ROBERT PARSONS
PHONE: ~ (949) 727-7099 FAX (919) 727-7097
~ PROJECT TEAM
CJ
SHEET DESCRIPTION ~
T1 11RE sNEEr D
I.S1 PLOP PuN ANp SITE PNOTOCRAPHY ~ ~ ~ 3
Al SITE PLAIL EOIAPMENi UYOUE axTEraY UYWT p
AZ FJUaNC PLAN p
A3 ELLVa1roNS D
A4 ElEVA1KlNS O
A5 DEVULS 0
A6 DETNLS p
E1 ELECTRICAL 1-ONE. PoWEA AND TELCD TABLE RWNIC, PAJFL SCHEDULE
AND Nora
o
E2 EDUrMENT caauNODU. ANTENNA GROUNO9LC, DEraLS ANO xora a
E3 DETAn,S D
SHEET INDEX -
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS ..
CONTRACTOR SHALL YERdY'ALL PUNS AND E%ISTWC OIMENSION$ ANO
CONOITN)NS ON 711E JOB SITE AND SHALL O9MEOMTELY NOnTY TI1E CML ENCWEERS
IN WRinNC OF ANY D6X7tEPANCIES BEiORE PROCEEDING WRH iXE WCRK OR
BE RESPON56LE FOR SAYE.
~ GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES
~~~5 .
--~• prlntW
SpAnt PC6'
4683 CHABOT DRNE, SUITE 100
L PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PROJECT INFORMATION:
CALTRANS R.O,W.
SF54xcA29A
FARWELL AVE d SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARAT004, CA 95070
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CURRENT 155UE DATE:
155UED FD05/30/01
CONSTRUCTION
0 5/30/01_ 90S CONSTRUCTION I EM
PREPARED
TETRA TECH.
JB75 HopyaM Road, Swie 245
PNOSmHon, G 9/568
(925) )]0-1070, TAX (925) 770-7999
~+„", ""`TITLE SHEET
=SHEET NUMBER:---17EVISION:
0
PCASPRNCD96
~- i - ~
~~ ~
D ~~o~~ ~~~~~ $~ ~ 8~ 8EE ~~~ ~ci6 ~B~P~ ~~ ~R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~fa~~~ ~~~~fi~~~; QA
~ ~zAA ~~ ~~ g ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~A ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~N,~ ~9
mA~~~ ~~ ~ ~ Amy ~~~ ~~ m~~ A ~~~ sus - - ., r ~~ ~~~ ~~~*p~~~A ~~
/-LF ~ uN ! C ~ x ~ O a a s a'r-.. ~V s AAA EE~ ~~ N v - 1 ii GYl G~ ~9 ~~~+ v-I u7N V-I ,t Y~ -9i
D ~Llom ~F am ~~ € ~,'-, ~~~= r~w~~.:9~1~~ ~ ~°~ x~ ~ ~ $ E ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ °° ^ ~~~ zF$5 ~~z
zA "€ ~ ma w wa~~c St S ~ 4
`~ z~ ~+ $ Nq$ N ~ o ~
N _ ~~od i. ~ ~ ~ i~ ~~~ N~~P~ ~ Y_s{ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Kit ~~~~ ~ ~ eSal ~~ ~
n9~ 1 ~ 6 ~~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y
co j ~ `~
g ~ -
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a s~~~ ~ ~~~~a
~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ N ~
=A~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~8~ ~~,~ m
m e{ Z! esl r5 ~ 2 a a a a ~ i e,~ a N
~~~1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ R ~
UI O {yq~! ~'1 ~7 E C D A
O A `_-g.N$i~~~~ ~8 - ~~1 _~~ N~Otl 9~~& ~ ~ ~~ ~~~' v 9 1 ^ v^~ 9'~9 ~ 1 ^J 9 ~+-la ^~~ A
~~Z m E 8 g $ mwpa~,d,~ ~ 8 ag 8 wV1Y~m ~°$~ aA~WN° O '^o
~~~
>~~ N ~~~ '" g ~~ ~ ~~~ R
zvA &~AAGA yA ~ p~z DcADtA LIAADSAALC zz t~AA L~AA - z
~SO RFR a a > > s-> !q~ ~ as - p - ~+ m m k ~,A xa zz - z--z z -zi.z z - ~ ° .
A S B ~ p a a Fi 8 a a a a a a a> a D a 7
°Q ~"~"S'S'~"~' rwrn L" L^1i L"S'i" i" i^i^i sirnG~i L^L"S'i"L^~'S' L"L^ SL^ 6i"L^ LSL" i^S^S`L^L^L^ ° ° c c cc
zo.~' ... ... ... ... ... -- ----
a
C
_~
O
Z
N
.a
z
m
z
z
a
W
m
n
2
m
v
c
r
m
Ili
m ~ 1 ~ ~ o
o Iiilli il'~~ ~~~~~
o~
°~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s
~ ~~ ~ ~ $ § ~ 8 ° ~ ~ x o
~~~~~~~~ ~m ~ ~ A
~ ~ ~ g
w
m
z
m
O
m
N
..L
~ P w
~V~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
~~~ ~ ~~e~~ ~~~~~~
~ ~
~~~ ~~ a~~ ~~ ~~~• ~
~~
P ~~ ~
~ a
{~ N r M
~~~ ~
€~~
~ ~€ ~~g
~~
~ ~~~p. g
I ~~~€ ~
~~'<°
8 g ~
~q
~~~
>< ~mOD ® $
_ ~ ~ b ~ P
~ a a
~~ ~ `~ ~ ~
c
~
C fi
~Y'
$
Fi ~
~
Fri
~ =
A~
~ '
X p
6
6 m
F°
' `~
((1l
F °
~ ~
o
m
C n
~
o
O x
R
g z
~
2
I
~1
~ _ ~ ~ ~
s
Z
a N ~ N r p u P
° ~ ~ ~
~r Y ~~
~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~f~~ ~~~ ~
~ ~~~~~ ~ ~,~ ~~~ a ~~ ~~~~~~,
~ ;~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ a~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~Y~~~
~~
V' ~ YEN ~ `I A f^ a
` ~~~ ~~ ~~p ~ ~~o~ ~ "~ ~p~~ ~
~ ~ €€## °
I~~1 o (ZQJ~ T s
~~~g~~~~ ~a€1~{~~~ ~~a~
•A 8
~ ~ N$a ~
y SSpp _ ~µ _
~°yr~ N~4~}y ~ 1pg~~a ~ ~ ~~ ~ a
~ ~~~~ ~ ~~s ~ ~ ~~~
_ ~P ~
~ ~y°
R n ~].
~ ~~g~~
~ ~~~~
~~
~ A
~~
~ ~~~~~
~~Y~
o E~ ~
~~~
a~A
r~
~~~
N =o;o
F~ ~ ~~~~~
~~ ~ ~~~~
° ~ ~A B~g
~~ ~~
~~ ~ A ~~~~
g ~
~8 ~ '
r
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ .:
P }n ~ y
~~a~~~~~~~~
~ N~~~o
~~ ~ ~~~ ~~
~~~$a~~~~~~
~ ~ ~s
~_
~ ~ ~~
~~
~ ~ 8~
~~
Y~~
~~~
~-
~~ ~
~~
o~ ~
~~ o
~~
Y !~ - n
!~~~F~~g~~~~~~~~~ ~
~ ~N~~
~~~~s~~s~~~ ~~g ~
$ ~ ~, ~ a
~sRs~~L~Lb~~AA~y~ ~j~a
'~OOr ~F ~# ~~ ~Ox N
,o€~~~~~~~?~~ ~e~
I~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
~ ~. ~~
Q~o~~ ~~
a
R~ A v
~Am ~ ~
~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ 1~ ~
Y~ ~ ~ o
~~~~~ €°~g ~ ~
~a~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~.
~~~~~
~~
_ = r O -- ~
Z -~
i ~ ~
C Z C v~~ ~ o <
i~l C ~ T
~ ~
11++1~
r0o
~
a
0~~~
~ ~ ~ ZZ
~ _
m ~
m
g
~
I r
a
y ~ x
4 0
0 ~8
o~33°
~ ~
~
PA
o
O
O
~
_
~
II
Of
~•
N
O
A
~
y
C
r
Z ~ m ~
~
~
y
p D
Z=
ZO
~C
O
~ -~
~~
~ lu
ZZ ~ o ~~7
n°
~ ~
Z ~o ~,
~
~. ~
~
?
. ~ D~N
~~_~
v~ ~
D
II c N
~ ~
~ m
~
C
Z ~
Z
II \~
'~
Z \
~ D CO !r
~
~ovr°~ DQ
~ ~ G (A
m r
.
o
~ = x ~ ~
o
N1Fl '~ E'E <CCC ~-Iti-1 -ItiHy UINNy1 YI y1 Av y qqq o ~y 1r1 1~1
~y~\ ~Qi-<l ~f y19!In} ~~~C~~!~o~~y~~la~~":`A~~w(1fl~UI C\72nN ~~~=,~~+~m~Y'r~p~~^~~09A2 Nm.'I~r ~aa~0000 ?=~I+I +IXXXOm~l mrr O 00 06f1 AA A Qmmmmmmm a
F ' ,~, ° ~, rv. FNS~~p. P'~~-11~y• ~z"~c"'i ~~~a~F,*~¢~ ~soo~a~a~6~bzFicS~~~g~S~~g~c,-,-ploo~~m
O fIZ'~ '~~ CCC -ly O~ ~~~y NN~ TN 1CA 9 v 9 O z
Sri'1s~~~r°.~~~zU(~~i$OV~~ov`~rn3i=~~~~Z c"_'i~~n8c~r'I~~~~il~aP~~ gg ~~~~6=$~ ~ ~ €i ~ ° .. " °~
1^mx o 11.1 _v m 4 c 7°r~i °ffi (E~ ~ ~ pS~ oc Y ~4* 1~%Inrl~l rlrlm ogog0opv°fl~lfl n gg mac
A-~m ~ yl nA +Oi +0i00 *O ZO~~Q~m±~j~r>~o SOmp A~~O A {7: m ~~^fC S-OCI ~P,'I,m Z~~>~~ ~ m~ ~~NRrgll gl~~l~0p~17i 171~1~11AV ~R~~Fj~~j yaC yof~Or~00000r~r1~riGFi 5 ~~?{ yD yy~
= O z~A N ~e~p 0y1 DA 5 IT N~ p.4 O C~19~5 O m~ti~ ~ wx A Zx :O~z~~~ D ax~v~m~Cn9m=~ 2fZIC ~-JC~C ~fIR~ ~yy~ 9000
z ~ ~ ~~8 7 « S8 =JO~~a C 1~ ~~ o..o~, ti C.~ aim oooo~ sT ~i8 Oj ~ ~-. "-1 $ ~2~ ~f~ z ;z ornn a=,~, rl~
r. ~ool~0 2 rYri ° r^< n ~ v N ~ R e o~~~A.. t -1-1.,•n_ D~ ~ o ~czi'i' „1 ~1 °Ai °4. ~co~ "4n zf ~
$ ~^~ c F ~sa~ o g ^;~ ~'~' ~~ A~ ~{"~~ $ ~_~~ `3~"p _o .~°.~?o S a~~'z~= 5~ ~~ o ~1~ ~ ~i °p~S~~~ ~~
oho ^~ly. Zm ~ z ^~ .3 ~$ S~ ~ ~ ~ L-~ ~ ~£¢° l~~ ~~jF~~ m~p^ = I~ ~z p~y ~N~~ gym vo yv ~ ~~zz m
yOy TO D ~ v ~~+{ J in V O R +1 1~1~~ V117' O
' S r~ ~ m~ ~OC~ Am Cy f' fxnm '~
OA ~ ~ 0~~2 ~T $ ~~ ~~. ~ Iz~ZZ ~ ~ Oo
~ vpl u,
•
•
W
~~
z
~w
a
a
a
~w
a .
w~ T
ESI CONTROL POINT INFORMATION
CP 1 N. 7658.1191 E 4201.706fi
CP 2 N. 7416.8756 E 4173.0208
CP 3 N: 75321351 E 3874.0648
P 32 N. 7421.1688 E 4000.9288
J' 34 N. 77924634 3818.9148
CALTRANS RIGHT QF WAY
FARWr11 AVENUE
PROJECT
LocanoN
PROPOSED -~
15.83'X21.OD'
SPRINT
(EASE AREA '
(SEE OESCRPnON) .
TREE OAKS WAY
"~r~
W (Df
~ ~r~
~ RD+o
a
VICINITY MAP
UNDERGRWND
Td CABLE RUN
``~*r
~'~e
.~
~1
1
I
R=5400' 1
l•118.86'
D=1J354'30'~
/ i
1B' TREE 'C
a=568.9' AYSL tV
'
HT=28.9
AGL '! ^
24' TREE `Y
a=578.2' AMA ,1/~
Hf=34.7' ACL r~ ` "
4,T0
S
I
~?~
O
~ a '
P ~ EL=5719 A~LIA~
iV CABLE 'T
VAULT HT=30.Y ACL ``
0
~
\ 4' PINE O
'
\. ~,~ 18
TNN
~HT532fi AGL~
PROPOSED ~.~
15.83'X21.00' ~- _ sA~-_.
SPRINT
LEASE AREA
(sEE DESCwPnan)
~~~
-:....EP 90-
,~ '''`.
X12
4~, ,A~,
A'~~
~~
PO
~~
10' REOW9d1 -
a=s7s.3' AMSL
HT=30.9' ACl
SIGN PC
AC.
20' REDwoco
a=607.0' AYSL
HT_59,9' Ad. S89'i4'JO'W
~ _r---.-- .,~,~ -
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL THAT CERTAN U:ASE AREA SIIUAIm IN THE COUNtt q'
SANTA CLANA, STATE d' CAIJFORNIA, BONG A PORTION d' THE
STATE d' CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS RIGHT
WAY, AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN PoCHT OF WAY RECORD
YAP, RWTE 42. SECnON A SHEET NQ J, YgtE PAR9WLARLY
OESCPoBED AS FOLLOWS:
CCMYENCWC AT A PDNi ON THE NORTHEAST LWE OF THE
ABOVE NENnONFD RICJIT ~OF WAY, SAID POWT HAVWC THE
Fd.LONN0000R01NATES: N. 7716.84,E 3736.6& SAID CO-
f5~ diDWAIES BEING SHOYM ANO DELINEATED AS SUCH UPON
~ 1HE ABOVE MENnONm PoGNT OF WAY RECORD YAP; THENCE
FROM SA1D POINT OF CDNMENCEYENT SW1H 3626'06• EAST
159.55 FEET TO THE TRUE POWT d' BECNF9NC; iIIENCE FREM
Z SA® PdNT OF BECWNING SWTH 4490'00• EAST, 21.00 FEEL
THENCE SW1H 48m'00• NEST, 15.8J FEET; 7NENCE NOR1H
44m'00• WEST, 21.00 FEEL THENCE NORIx 4690'00• EAST,
15.83 FEE! TO THE TRUE PdNT d= BEC;NNW4
PROJECT AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOCE9IEfl NTH UWUTY aNO POTER EASEIENTS NECESSARY m SER1E
n1E PROJECT.
7TJOE9IER NTH AN EASEMENT FTMI WGRESS AND EGRESS FROM 1FiE
PUBLIC ROAD 70 7NE PROJECT AREA AS OLTIEAAILY SHON1 UPON
TN1s Plan.
NOTE niE LOCAncN OF ETaSTMC U1Wtt FAdLr1RS HA5 NOT BEEII
RESEARCHm THE CONIRACTdi SHALL CONTACT 7HE RESPECnVE UnUIY
COMPANIES TO OBTAIN WFORMAnON AECARdNG E:iACi OFPiH OF BlNBAL
AND HOARONTAL LOCAnON OF UT81tt UN6 PPoCR TO Cd4SiRUCnON.
THE SURVEI9R ASSUMES NO RESPON518811Y Fdt nE DEUNEAmN W
SUCH UNOFRCRWND UTMIES, Ndt FOR 7HE E7051ETICE q: BURE9
d9JECts wucH ARE xoT sHOwN ON THIS PLAR
~A'~' DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT(S)
RTS
GATE: Ofi/20/OI
RE CALTRANS R.4W.
SFSF%C429-A
FAI1NE11. AVE k SARATOCA l05 CATOS R0.
SAAAlOOA
CA 95070
I CERWFY THAT THE LAn1UDE aF 37'15'1.89' Px0 THE LONCINDE
OF 122911244' ARE ACWRATE TD NTHIN 115 FELT HOPoZONTALLY;
Alb) 1NE CRWND ELEVAnON d: 514.8 FEET AMS IS ACCURATE 79
NTF6N t3 FETT VcRTICALLY. THE HOPoZONTAL DATUM ((COdiDINAIES)
ARE W TERMS aF 1HE NORTH AMFAICAN 0A1UM d' 19B'J (HAD-8J
AND ARE ETPRE~S}{SED AS DEdtEES, MFn1TE5, AND SECONDS (TO iH~
M15) A~RETMfN U1E~RL6 ~ T~fE N~ONADI~d:O~DERCRVER~WCALA NY
DOFF 1929 (NCVTI 29) AND ARE OEIERMNED TO THE NEAREST FOOT.
0.=SBO.d' IAISL ` ~ i6' OAN ~ R=7SD0'
HT=13.2' AGl a=584.2' AMSL L=59.79'
DRIP LWE HT=37.3' ACL D=45'40'ZY
THREE OAKS WAY
A4 PAVeT1ENT
--'~--_- N89'54'30'E ------_--
-' 149.35' - --
R=5400' ~ ~
' L=39.97 ~
D=4s•4B'os'
SITE MAP
GRAPHIC SCALE 1•= 20'
G 20 40 60
coxtalR INnatvu = r .
R=7928.Od
~~WR90J'
SCR@! WUL
a=551.Y AYSL
~Np HT=b.4' AGL
a=s45.r Axa
20' REDW000
a=so5.z AMSL
HT=59.2' ACL
E~810.~5'~
HT=84.G AGL
/ R=50.00' /',
L=115.55'
~CF' 32 ~ D=135'50'44'
~1
r=2LY
-LATITUDE & LONGITUDE
0 CP /..._.E51 FIELD CONTROL PdNT
MANHOLE 0 0
EDGE d' PAV9AENf
- 7 9-
y FlAE HYDRANT OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE
-~ ~ ~-
UCHT POLE ~ FENCE lNE
O YONUNENT CALTRANS PoC41T OF WAY LINE
TREE PP=POWER POLE
JP=JLINT POLE
1P=TELEPHONE POLE
LEGEND
91E NAYS CALTRANS R0.W
SITE NUYBER Sf541(C429-A
SITE ADDRESS: FARNOL AVE d:
~~ Los cAtos Ro.
CA 85070
owNEIYS xAME: J~ RQOIINSKY
ONNER'S ADOPF3S 111 GRAND AVENUE
OAKLAND, CA 84612
ASSESSORS PARCa NUNBER(5) N/A
NET AREA a' UNOERLTINC PARCEL(S); N/A
NET AREA p• PROJECT AREA: JJ250 S4 fT.
CRWND ELLVARON AT CPS PdNT: 544.9'
SRLUCIURE IgCHn N/A
PROJECT BOTdt 514.9' 1Y~SP8fE
BASIS a E1avAna+s Ncw 29 oaTUM
BASIS d' BEARNCS: CuTRU4s PoCHT a• NAY YAP
N4 8423, SHEET N0. 3.
FLOOD PANEL: Ofi0J51dT04C
ZdIE x
DATE: JULY J, 1997
NOTES:
1. LAn1U0E, LONCINDE AND CRWNO EIEYAnON TAKEN AT INDICATED
CPS POWT.
2 Cd4TWRS ARE AT ONE (1) FOOT INTOTVALS.
J. DATE OF SURVEY: 12/01/00
4. ALL BWNOARY DATA SHONV HEREON IS FROM RECORD INFOItYAnON.
5. 7HI5 YAP WAS PREPARED FOR SPPoNi PCS FOR THE PURPOSE GF
FlUNG A CONdnONAL USE PERMR NTH 1HE CWNtt
SITE DATA
~.
-~ ~~o
Spent PCS
4683 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 100
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PROJECT INFORMATION:
CALTRANS R.O.W.
SF54XC429-A
WELL AVE. & SARATOGA LOS GATOS R .
SARATOGA
.COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CA 95070
CURRENT ISSUE DATE:---~
.06/20/01
ISSUED FOR:
ZONING
_r7c~ ~-neYV~-nccrvivrnei.-ev
5 06/20/01
4 03/19/01
3 03/12/01
2 01/15/01
12/06/00 I
`PLANS PREPARED
vans SurveysInc.
txa DtaoN evIBTDIt
PAdFDDD, CATII+O&BA 94599
1:aL (707) 188-4709
Pur (mO {28-6948
CONSULTANT
DRAWN BY• CHK:-J4PV.
C ESI CADD DEPT. G. E
~LICENSURE
`sNEEr n
PLOT PLAN AND.
SITE TOPOGRAPHY
SHEET NUMBER: RE41510N:
5
{ ....
d
•
I I I
I I I
(N) BU$ STOP BENCHES ~ I I I
I
I
I
(TYPICAL OF 2) (10 OE
I
I
I
PROIIOED B1 CONTRACTOR)
I I I
•
(N) 6:6 PTDF I I I
• RETAINING NAEL I I
I
2~ SfC} ~
~ ~ I
I
pSi\Ea~ ~ ~ ~
I
GSO~
I
7f SE
I
I
d I I I
I I I
0 I I I L(p) uNDSUmIxO ~
I I I
(N) GPS AHTENN0. I F I
a I I I
W } I
I
AS I ~ I
(N)~6 T/4'e EM5 WIRELESS I I I
~
p MTRR75-I7-272DPL AAOOME I
)
F
ANTENNA NOIIMED TO TOP OF I I
W
(N) 9'e SIREEi LIGHT POLE I I I
b 5'-9 1/8' I I I
N I 19'-4'
I IT 10' I 6'_6.
(N) 6=6 PTOF ~
RETAMINO WALL
ROUND
N J _ ~L _ _ ._L~ _ _
_
~ NTRY NATCH
E ~
(INSIDE FLOON AREa)
OLOCASTLE CONTROLLED
ENNRONMEM VAULT I _ _ _ _ _
~ I (- -
(BE1.OW)
(N) GENERATOR a
n i ~ - - - - ~1 i
I
RECEPTACLE (MOUNTED I
I
I
ON 10'%10' wD00EN I
POST) (10 BE USED WITH I
i
I
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
tawEO To rNE snE FoR I
I I
I I
EMERGENCIES ONLY)
(N) ELECTRICAL MLTER
WUMED TO 454' I
!
WoooEN PosT I
~ I
I
II I
(N) IS'-10517-0' I I
SPRINT PC$ LEASE ARG I
I I I
' I II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~,
1
o 'i
n i
-------
0
,ANTENNA LAYOUT
I~Ilil
111111
1 1 1 1 1 1 15'-10' LEASE ARFA
I I I I I I.7 ,/,'
I I
I
C
ID'-6-
f
I l l l
l
_ -(N) PPC CABWEi, IAOUNTED
T
TER wau
V I I I ~
e
IIII~I I ~ ~ I
I~Ilil ' ^__--
•
~D®~~2
I I
I
I I
I
. f - _ _ - ~
(N) AIRIYE GROUND <
<
I o
ENTRY WLroN I I I I N io
111111 I I I I
n (
( a
(N) 16'-0'=1D~-6' (INSIDE I I ~ G I
R
OO
R
IiE) E ~
~ ~ ~ - - - -
J N
C
O
NT
O
T4L
JT
VAULT 111111 n n I
I I
I I
I I
(N) SPRINF PCS I
I
EOUIPMEM (MOUNTED TO
I a
I
I a
~~
~
(
!~
.. CONCRETE VAUU BOOR) ¢=
~ I I i
O N
\ yW
<
8 III III I ~~ I I N ~
- „ ~
(N) SUSPENDED I ~ I I I I ( U ^ c
CABLE TWLY II ICI ( _~' (
N
A5
®
I I
I
~S n
(N) CABLE ENTRf
PORTS PRONGED
wrtH vault I .
\` -_ -
I
I~W~
I I -
I
(N) (7) 6' CONDUITS ~
ROUTED UNDERGROUND TD
BASE OF (N) LLCM POLE. ,
I
e
(N) COAKIaL CABLE
_ '
h
o
(N) SWRCHED FLWRESCENT
LLGHING PROVIDED WITH
EQUIPMENT VAULT (TYP)
EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
SCALE:
v9'.I~ a~• 3 SITE PLAN
' III
~~ (N) UNDERGROUND TELCO RUN \ III '
(' TO POWT OF CONNECTION Ai I I
' (E) FARWELL AVE UTAItt POLE' \ I ~ I
(SEE EIECTRIGI SHEETS) ~ LL I I I
\ L II
\ \ ': I I
L (N) 5'-0' WIDE i
`~. UTILITY ROUTE L\ 1'\ i ! I I ~. /!
\ \I 'III
\ Ili
II
:.~' i 1 j\ III ~.11~
1
L i\~ III;
,. i A l l l I~.
Y i...I ~ I I `~. ..
r
WIDE ~ \ ~ ~.~ I (~ '
~ I Y, I ~
I I V -:
\ I I N ,~-
~ ~ LiiiT
-~ `LI T
I '~ r L
1 I ~ IVI L~
I ~ ~~ I A I \ `~.
I i `til V 1
S I (~, 1
YN I I A4 I I I LL ~~ L1
I I ~~
ro&1$ ~ l i ', I III L\
L' I.~ I L
I ~ - L 1". L
.r ri • ~ L~1.. ~`~
i
'~ ', ~ I `~ 1 ~ 'II
(N) 6ss PTOF a ,\. I I I I III I
RE7NNINC WALL ~ I
L i1~I•~.1
(N) 9PRMT PCS I ~ ( II i I I
MYT MOUNTED ON ! I `I I ! I
)06 DF UCHT PDLE l"
' I
(N) BENfifES (TYPICN.
OF 2) (TO BE PROVgED
Br coNTRACroR)
(N) BUS STOP (TO CONf0~11
WRH SWTA'CIARA VAUEY
TRANSPORTAnON AUTHOPoIY~.' ~• '://
I °v~F
o I lo,_a
~ I
N
-~I o I ..
Y Q I' :,r
~ I
o I ,
J
Q r
O I~
Q
~ ~
~'' ~~
I ~:
~~
utiun rioir ~ I
(N) UNDERGROUND ~ ,`~
POWEN CDNDUR ~
(E) ASPHALT SIDEWALK ~)•~
,'~
2
A4
n
- /
{,, %/, /
,II' / / ~
I
I I ' \.
III \\\
III
~, III
I~I
I
~~ I
` I (}
tl I
I I ~`~
jll
III ~~~
II
I III j
IWI
III ~~
III
III
~, ..
III
III
III
I I
IWI
I
j I I~
IWI `~
~`. III
~~~ III
,III
~JI~
~I
I I ~),
III`
y(IIIII `~'~
~~~ '~,
~`\\ 3~
\~~
~ ~ ~ '.
,, ~~.
~,. ~~,
N6\ 3
\`\
'~`,
/,.~
1 1
/ I\
\~'~
r' .. ,
+1-
I
I ~
I
I
(N) 6d PT
RETAWNO Y
Y(N) 21 -05
I LEASE ARG
I
T"(N) lAHOSC
(N) OIDGS
CONTROLLED _
-~VAULi (SEE 2~
i
/~
~rl~'-•~
1
/•
-` i
i
~)
I _' ! I
I
II NOTES:
`~ I. PRIOR to rouNDanox INSPErnoN~ ar
THE CITY; iFE RCE OR LLS OF RECORD
I A4 $NVE PROVIDE A WRIi1EN CERTFIGTION
THAI ALL BUILDING SE78ACN5 NtE PER
I THE APPROVED PlANS.'
I I
(EI SCREENwAII
I r /-(E) TREES
(E) 0
,ONES
I
I (E) PROPERTY
LPI
~~
I ~~
i
f I
(E) UTILRY POLE, (N)
POWER PgNi OF
CGNNECigN (SEE
t ELECQRICAL) I
,11 ~ ; '\\
I.
scAU:
--~ Sprite
SPAnt PCS
a683 CHADOT ORNE, SUITE tD0
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
`PROJECT INFORMATION:
CALTRANS R.O.W.
SF54xC429A
FARWELL AVE & SARATOOq LDS GATOS RD
SARATOGA, CA 95070
sYwra cEaRa couNTr
CURRENT ISSUE GATE:
05/30/01
ISSUED FOR:
CONSTRUCTION
REV.: ~AIE:-DESCRIPTION:-DY:.~
0 5/30/01 908 CONSTRUCTION EN
TETRA TECH
3875 HoP7ard Rope, Swte 245
PleosYmlon, G 94588
(975) 730-1070, FA% (92S) 770-7999
o RAWN RY: CHK: -APV:'-~
` ~ EWN FMK MA
UCENSURE:
~~
r
pgOFE5SI0i.,
AW LL 1, 'V
N ~ ~ f,
_~
Na E 1$119 y^
1 c ; E'P 96-m.DE .
I ~ ~~4tfVECTRI ~Z`~
n OF CAUL
i '
% ! ; ! 6 HEET TITLE:
'• I I ~ ( o
SITE PLAN
(E) HOUSE al EQUPMENT LAYOUT
ANTENNA LAYOUT
HEET NUMBER: REVISION:
u
0
a®6, ~ a PCASPRNC096
i
•
•
' \~
. ~~ ,
PROPOSED BUS STOP
`_
PROPOSE(D STREET -~
UCNT PtlIF
\~
N
.l
Z
PROPOSED RETNIWC
nAlr. .
~~~
l
r
I
!I
I
I/
~ •
'i.
!I
\ \
+t~ ~ 1
~ ) I I L.
I ,~~\ }W
~~:~l
II
\ -~ ~
\ \ O\ w
,~ I W II
~~ ~ 1~
I I
~ ' ~\
.~
\\ i I .
E%KTINO DRI f
® I \ \ ~ ~~ t fj
I
'~ ° /' \ ° 1
Tw s4s Fc saa.s ~ I '° ~
1
6W 541.7 BW 5 1.6 E%6RNC I EES
Bw 511.7 \ PRO
.._ CONCR $UIB I
j1, r I
541.6 ~~ G ~ '~
6W 541.7 ^~ _ ~ f
\ ~
\I ,~ 1
BW 511.7 ..~-.. _J gyl S 1.6 PROPOSES ~.
RETeealxq Wau I
I o S b
\ FO 1.5
\ I
1 1
\\\ I 1
1
/ 1
\ /
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
\ / u I
\ W W 1
\~/
\ ~~~~~
\ NP SWAIE 512.6
i
\ i
~i
/\\ _
~/ ~ u ~' ~ u
\\ \
\ 1
' ° ~ ~ ~ I
u
~',
,~
i
i
/ ;:
i'-~
j I \ ~ I I NOTES:
CUT: 2191 SOPT
i \ flLL• 2616 SOFT
I ;1 ~ !~ \
1 \ i
f i 1
`~ '` •~ -\ ~ _ I I : ~ - -EwSnNC coNrouR
. ~ , \ ~ a w ~ ~ -xo--nEw cavrouR
i .I ` \ i FO FWISn GRADE
I ~ I { I lW TOP OF WAIL
i' I i BW BACK OF WAU(
' t \ ~ I I Ew EocE of wain
~ t \~ ' I I I a
1 ~ I ~"~ I
GRADING PLAN
s/I6'el' 6 ~• a•
-~ S rote
Sprint PCS'
4683 CHADOT DRNE, SUITE 100
PLEASANTON, CA 94568
'PROJECT INFORMATION:
CALTRANS R.O.W.
SF54xc429A
FARWELL AVE & SARATOCALOS CATOS RO
SARATOCA, CA 950)0
SANTA CIARA COUNTY
CURRENT ISSUE DATE:
05/30/01
ISSUED fDR:
CONSTRUCTION
~REV.:=DATE:-DESCRIPTION: -BY:~
0 5/JO/01 '908 CONSTRUCTION EM
:PLANS PREPARED 8Y:
TETRA TECH
3875 Hopyord RoaO, Sule 245
Pkasontan, CA 94588
(92S) 730-1070, FA% (925) 730-3999
`BRAWN BY: CHN. -APV,: U
L EWM FMK MA
~ UCENSURE:
GRADING PLAN
SHEET NUMBER: REVISION:
O
PCASPRNC096
•
I1 I1
u
WEST ELEVATION
o Y®•
~S ' t.
-~- .
SPrinl PC$
4683 CHABOT DRNE. SUITE 100
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PROJECT INFORNATION:
CALTRANS R.O.W.
SF54xc429A
FNiWELL AVE k54RATOCA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOCJL, CA 95070
SANTA CIARA COUNTY
=CURRENT ISSUE DATE:
05/30%01
JSSUED FOR:
CONSTRUCTION
:REY.:=DATE:-DESCRIPTION=RY"-
0 5/30/01 90X CONSTRUCTION EM i
'TANS, PREPARED BY:
TETRA TECH
3875 NopyorG Rood, B~SLe 2a5
Pkasanton, CA 91588
(925) 730-1070, FA% (925) 730-7999
~ORAWN BY: CHH.:-APy.:=
EWM FMK MA.
~vanoNs
•
SOUTH ELEVATION
/~f o s®• 12
0
PCASPRNC096
RETNNING wiLE JJJ I
' (N) OIDCASTLE CONTROLLED J I
ENNRONMENi V/LLT L--~----J 80TfOM OF EOINPNENf ENCLOSURE
(BEYOND BUS STOP) ELEVATION 12'-1't BE1DW CRAOE
I I \
I I ~ (N) OLDUSTLE
BOTTOM OF EWPMFM ENCLOSURE I I CONTROLLED
ELEVATION 12-4 t BELOW CRApE ~'-----~ ENNRONNENT VAULT
+r
•
•
' (E) OVERHEAD LINES ~ .
.y o n,~ `y "1i •~~. `"
Sa i~~'y i',y-~ ~~a" s a P~•' w~.ho~~~6Sr .+j0>tl. r nc
up / ,{ ~A,~ a• a.
a t~ ~ r $ ~ ~., , i:a~ b+FL: ~,°.¢ ,4 ~Ybd ~'G~ U". 5~_~ 3'%~~ &.~^~k. A ih'nG
d+y• ~. ,>n>°~•' ''k'' ,,yy
1 e ¢ y ~ d2'~ ~•; a i. •+n ",~' ~.'" ~i.bm ee.,
>•:. aRn T 'ads? Y ¢
£a-., ~ '"fv ,' ~ ~ q+~P4r " • !.miY~'$ H, °~ .<0 " r.r~'~G • ~. a~FC~d1,i? ° I ~ 4tl s$ +" `5'~~~
v ~a aT'b N S46'fdn' ' % Y, yN ~tl i>b ¢ S p . `S
<'3 x i5'N b,. d`ad¢rl7-b ~ t. ~" aE ~j,~r~~ °~s ~
,~' "if• .~ ob ° t r1 ° ¢4 a al 'gs C'¢C. Y
.(y ~' a. rC~ AaT . ¢Tl~ i » ~,~°a2~ A. (f=1+a w~i' d , ~~b°•bar..
"a .y g5't I f< a ?,°,see qti. $f`; `L
ee ,~+' ;!~ /a~ 5 ° a Ems.'' o+ ., a~'+.«
•~;~ L ,g L 6' ~~ ~~ }ooar,, ~~ :::'
.,j+ ~ d d ex x,ti 7". .),tit; a °"~ ~~~f d'(, " CF
..:a .." ~ v~ ~Ct ~,
k."
W
/
'~'
+
¢~
'
}"
^
, 4 0. x z
v1
>r,~ne b w t•,.¢¢
[.'r ~ sr
~+ 'L '
+. n¢g r~
- ¢$;, d o.y a
'~,`• $,
V ~' >°~' ~, IHik~^¢i¢ 4
..44 ~ {~"" Yak' ¢
1 < 4' +e $ ~(Y
r , ~5<<'~ 0.. tP [. Itjt,
iw-' a' . ~ Yc i P h o y~4
~,~ ~ 'd~~~{~~b•
a„ v
~ tl ~~i ~`~"°°°°r
a e 4' . at~.6 LF~ °4
<
Ar
'
$ (N) SPRINT FCS ANTENNI c s: o
0~ ;.I ;
MOUNTED t0 TOP OF o ~ ••±1a1'r 4 ~''~`
STREET UGHT. y'°`t „¢ ,~,~+ r+~¢~'
tlS'n~ ,AA¢, t° y~ C8T ~j
¢, T. f.,Te, L'O •id~ i1,
c e, n h a .¢$t- 'f•a•
,~,°.^~ 4n" 3,
, ~• ~ Y `S Nr' tl ^*',Il '~1 ¢~{~, !. 6~ ~~yk~b ;~' '~*
'yp;A¢- ," ¢ b >~ { ~'tj¢ ~ .~t(¢E!',^i;i, YA.~
~$.. a r~+ a~> ; ~?pRf ~,. b
tl'. ~' ak7~ <' ~N` 1, nF M
¢ ~:k ~ ~*. w,°••~ ~. ~c g g ,~ 4G' ~
¢¢ ,<~0.a r, ,$. ~A &r a
7a. t .t 3 '~a .may
E¢ Oj N• ~°4,~ ~'~`p~ b.~t~~.
+.' °b +~j,.S2 e, ~'""I':R ,y, a'F"S'
z Zq3. r 7".
' r
'q. 4r
~
4
a'
~r
AM ~
\
.
. , ~ ~,,. ~
t r,
..,
x ,
..r .
y
' :
nn ¢
:'
~')ar ".o °(a• n i a•a'Rf~i rr-r 'R>+"•r> a a:~. w$c(K' ., pd`,1 4
~
~ 4'a
.~ lau~'r`, ~i'
.
,
,
d
b
'
~
l
~
'
y
~~ R
~
~,, ~
dS 0° ti '~ ¢'Y b
'
~
> .
ti
..
,
.
+y
~
r os ~V, O° ~¢ y ~-` >,yw
K` b °P%: ¢
(~ ~~~.~k~,¢PSt
(
~
~
'
~
~
~
"' ~
'
¢!- ~
<
~,
;
~~~A
,
~
. (~
C,k
q
np c<~i
e~.a. •,~~a$ ,Tier • ~
"~
~ a
~
>~a: S •'~
A'r">:~ i 4..!, `@~.: ,! 4tl6CF i 1 .y~~~ „a8 . ..~5¢~ ^ r. ~("'
>f, t -vya 1!' ~ „ 3y y e~i 1~ °~ ~N ' , p u °"'S•'1' Jed ~ 1~~,t, ta~~ •9~w•~'
R a >Gd;y ~' si >> aS IIq1.' n I ~'~(""°"' I Y: -'ae u
.r y~'''6 i8 1'.6 "fii~y ~.~>r• ~ h ; '. °,•~„ . ! ^, nn auyta .~ "~~. ,'~
v.Y YJ~i~-L,N~ '1 ~ > ,g+)y a a a. .C
3:; ~~. 3~ t ~ ~'6"~+ty{;~! I.Yr,•~yT.~,~'~3 ~ 'P!'~, .>'AT; ~S~,.R '
t y,,~a ~
°x
r~.*s,9.. ,e
L i dF' ,e.! :,~ :¢1i
~i ~` ^.1' ~" ~a :.""
~ a ~.T~'
Q.Aa'~' " aY , ~•
y ~~.P
, ~~ ~r';,a3'fFa q~ .
r°:
tp~
?t, a~;'
a "
I. pc "°
+°, ~
'
a . i' . Ir
n
;y'~.
~
`ra.ll. irk ' e. ~ i" i. 1`~ „$¢,'
•,7 . f a~a•¢, .,r a I. ~ a ~. I' T'f.
y i~ a,. ~~1. ~ ye•. ~, Y` '+C.~~
~°,,[: ~. r~ ~n ~~«n r, ~ (~^•'] al i
,I• ~ rJ L,
",~;'ltir, "~ ,t• 1 ;~'+ ~ '~,!6 '. ( 3.^,;.a/.p.
,
'~l•'^ .4;, ',~~:21 .} •~f.. y^•v:
1n.~.k.~~ i ~ •/R~ °~n°+y: ~, w.. •d ~
yy.. k:~ on: ~h ,
''.Yq. ..k~:F'. :,~,.:
x;~r..;. :•h. ;al..'V~•~Y' 't1a~{, y.,P i•,. :•F: °n:' (•on„ `••gy.tM1; n.
•y~ •'~A, 4 J` • ~"' T ~/ i4'...
'
'
ElEVA110N AGL-D
-0
t J_ (N) IATHT FOFNRE At
r----- i Id' rBOYE GRADE
I I
' I I (N) 6tl6 F1DF
I ~RETNNING MALL
h60TT0Y'OF EOIAPYENT ENCLOSURE L__-__--J (N) OLDCASiLE
E1.EVATgN 12'-4`d BELON GRME CONfROl1ED
ENWRONYENT YWLT
(BEYOND BUS STOP)
EAST ELEVATION s~u.r , ~® 1
TOP OF N AN INl
' ~ EIEYATgN ACl-T]'-0't
CENTERLINE OF (NI ANTENNA
EIEUnON ACl-ZO'-0't
(N) GPS ANTENNA
i0P OF (E) 1RE A
i ELEUIgN A±1-61'-0'3'
~`
-•^~- ~
()SPRINT PCS
N
TO TOP~OF pOLE~ .
~. (~ umnr POLE
--~
~b bs °I~
° ~nY b hi, b~ ~_ TOP OF (E)_U9U1Y P9LEA
tlad<~ y r ELEYATgN AGL-42'-0'3
h $ ~ tlsk~`~-.
A by ab~, qT,C 'Mt y ~
EIEYAidTNNK,LP 15u-fi S~ M) ~•
ORADE
,
,a $~~6LyC a '~Y''" ~• tl ~ ~
!
~' ,
(N) SPRINT PCS TOP OF N AMENNA
pCd
f~ ~ . ~,'~ •?b
C~,Af+'a C~ l~ti $$g 9 ANTENNA MOUNTED TO ~ EIEVATgN AGL-23'-0'f
TOP POLE
e 4a
l
d
A
>
<
b
; ~N ! C ! e~~
CENTERLINE OF (N) ANTENNA
S qf~." q$ x d"°~ti,. (N) fR5 MITENNA ELEVATION AGL-20'-O.t..
O* "•
~
•
¢ ~
YOUNTEO OPPOSITE OF
'
~
<
~a •
'
.
q
.
d
~1.L2
pp
``
v~.
,H-i. Y '4" ~4h~• la UGHf ~
Cn V~'~ (N) d%/ POST
ao
T•b °a'H~ Ih+r ~La+y V •~ (N) IgHT FDOUTIE Ai 14' ~
d() f " 'd'f - ', ABOVE GRADE
/! •a,A .
(rr) ABOVE GROUND (LQ fic6 PTDF BUS
STOP RETAINING LULL
Y(ETER~E UP OF ~
~
I fMRY HATCH (BEYOND) RE ~B~ W~
~
, (N) ABOVE GROUND
ENTRY HATCH
'
' PETER 0 6'-8'. ,. I
(SEE ELECTRICAL) ,
(N) 6X6 P10F BUS
"
~'^'„~, `•,'';~ i ``:q;
; . 4•,:j.K ','7; ;~:' ~,:: --
.•
;
J,;
/; '.
,a;w'
•
7j
'
TO AGL
-I T
1
P OF RETAIWNC WALL I '
STOP RETNNWC WALL
,
a.,. A;
,<•,
,
l
,
,
r. •. ; ~,: ,. ~ ...
; r:,.. ,• ~ • _ cPADE
J--_ EIEVAT10N ALL-D'-0'3
' r 'II
I
eL
EVnnoN AGL-s-TD't
! ~ TOP'OF RETAAIINC WALLA
EIEYAnON AGL-]~-0't
_/ )
A
L~ U
.
-, I `'
I '
\
''r
L----J BO7TOY OF EOUIPYENf ENCIOSURE
ENVIRONYENT
ELLVATgN 12'-4'3 BELOW GRADE _ ___
,
:
,
---~---- ,~ -_~-.__-_
GRADE
ELEVATgN 0'-0'Y
(N) GENERATOR RECEPTACLE N 6%6 PTOF
,
(TO BE USED WI1H ~T
'
' ~
~ NMNG WALL
ENERCENCEY GENERATOR
TOWED TO 1HE SDE TOR ~ (N) 10%10 W000 ~~
'
' EMERGENCIES ONLY) (36
POST. MIN. ]'-3'
YIN. AGL)
ACL
` 2 OF BUS
CTI STOP ~`; ® 2
NORTH ELEVATION „u
,' ,®' ON
CROSS SE „
• ,
•
Js~.S •
--e prlntm
Spini PCS91
4683 CHABOT ORNE, SUITE 100
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
=PROJECT INFORMATION:
cALrw~NS R.o.w.
SF54xc429A
FARWELI AVE k SARATOCA LOS CATOS RD
SARATOCA, CA 95070
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
=CURRENT ISSUE DATE:
05~30~01
:ISSUED FOR:
CONSTRUCTION
:REV.:.DATE:. -OESCRIPTION:~ BY:.~
O 1 5/30/01 1 90X CONSTRUCTION I EM I
T'LN4S PREPARED BY:
TETRA TECH
J875 H¢q¢rd Road, Suila 245
Pleowntan, CA 94568
(925) IJO-1070, FA% (925) 730-J999
=CONSULTANT:
:DRAWN BY: CHK.:=APV.
EWN FkK MA
=UCENSURE:
:SHEET TITLE:
ELEVATIONS
:SHEET NUMBER: REVISION:
O
PCASPRNC096
•
I1 ,~
u
10:10 WOOD POr
APPIFT01
BACx BO1
APPIETDN EuERGCNII
CCNEPATpt RECFPTACU
O J6' wN, ABOYT
P1N2H GRADE
CONDUIT CLIP
coNDUrt
PER PUW
' I~ I FlNISH
__1~LL--yytilYV!`A ~...A-~~IL- GRADE
i1~M ~
GENERATOR RECEPTACLE
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOGTION OF ALL
' UNDEACROUND UnU11ES BEiOAE E%GVATING
(N) MONOPOLE (E) GROUND
'~~ (N) 1/B'6 COAxIAt L'ABLES
RauTED W ro MTENN45
I
P
i II-
;
l
l
~
'
'
-
(
Y
KJO, OF 6) ~ ,
_i~,
u~ ~ 1;
-;..+j ~1
f L
.=
!Ij
(N) MCNOR BOLTS (A-307 lilt=;i i;u--,ilil=
~lilr"-+~~i,:;~~l~;l.-. ~!I: ' iii
;I ;
OR AASHro M314 CPAOE 36 =,';T';F=''i',i,'~"?:-`
~ -~;li~ . .•
OR 59) .
nn'~\. .'.
~
(E) GRADE
~ / •,
wARNlxc TAPE
.~`~~` ~ Z
a
.a ' .~ '7,~ r~C`
'
~
/
•\ WRN CPnONN, '
TRACE WIRE
~~~.
/'
,~ . • a
, ~~ ~.
`
~~
;;
` <I
~ UNDISTURBED
,
~~ ~' 504,
~ /
(n) MONOFroLE
~ a ~ /' roUNDAnON (f6Y OTHERS) APPROVED ' 4'MIN
~ ' a i (x) + e PVC CONDUIT &CK FILL
. OrnCr1 OF 2)
~ NEw 7/g'6 ':
'` ~ (1YPICA
0 ~~
~ a /, i `?, /
° L OF S) ~~ 0
~ •a
. xEw 4'd PVC
' ~ / r.., . , CONDUIT (TYPICAL ~~
a
• ° ,.
9 CABLE ROUTING @ MONOPOLE ~ 6 TRENCH DETAIL
,,
(H) +%+ PO6T
BUILDING
uw-sTRUr u w
Mrc CHANNEL (2 PlCS.)
i I ~1~PPc
• I I lI
a ( I ~ 1 J/8' GIMPING WIT
I ~I 8 PltS
I I 11
I I I
I I I.
I I +I
I I rl
' I I ~I
` I I I
i I ~I
• I ,,III
( !~ SHELER FLOOR
I I I
•I I I
r___L__~
• ,a ••~
sccuRE m wau usac
1/r6 ~ s I/2' TAO ear
o wuoD snlDS. Ip'6
trmFADm Roo w/Ntn xr
IsD [vaxY w/wN J 1/A'
EMB OGeDlsl9s) a sam
cxoutm cuu oR wLn HN
CZO EPOxY N/YW. 6'
EYB (xB0EA016) 0
IIDILON CuU
1.59' 27.50'
OutoaoR vowER cABNET
PAOw
I. R ~ slcN ro BE MouNTED
Ar Lounoxs SHOPM oN
ELEVAT6rN5, ANO 9GN TO BE
PNNIEO A GREY WiIE.
2 9GN SMALL COAPLT WITH ANSI
095.2 COLOR, SYMBOL. ANO
CONIEM CONVENTDN$.
METAL W/DY(ED
ENAAIEI F'IwSN
~1
I
: FROM
so.7Y
o
w I I
r--+ -
OU1000H BATTERY IABXLEf ~
iRaEr
\ `2001 uLTFx eASE
UN61PoIf PIl10D, IMP. ~O.TE$:
1• USE wN 1/2'6 G4LV. EXPANSxw
' , Nun KWIN BOLT 0, ICBO
j+627, MTM A YW. E16EOMExf OF
2-I/+' oR 1/2'6 wln wrERNNLr
THREADED INSERTS w/ HFA RESAL
K:BO j4016, Wfffl A MM. EMBEOYEM
OF + 1/4' i0R CONNECfpN OF
CABINETS TO CONCRETE FOR ALL
CABwER, UNLESS NOTED 07HERw6E. WOOOR FlE%ENf CABWET INDOOR POWER CABPLEf R/DOOA D117ERY IABAIET
METER BASEMOUNT~~ 7 EQUIPMENT BOLTING PATTERN 9GNE: 2
YfYA
CTION
(x) YDNUPDLE
I.
1/2'6 n6NI
~-~ Bou, Trv.l
CPS AMENNA i 1
SECURE TO wolf USING: 3/BY iHRFAOED R00 Brt06 a d / a c 5' YIN ~ lU$1~1r~ 8Y
AT W000 SRJ0. 1 4'd . J 1 LAO, BOLT AL , PRE-DRILLED 7/16'0 XIXE, EOIAPMEM
/ ~" EMBEDDED WITH HLR HY + SHELLER CONCRETE a a
CON(rifTE:l/h 7HAEADEO ROD w/N0.n Hr Is0 150 AOxESNE, LUNWUM CEIUNC ° 4 IpUNTALD gRPLKET
EPOXY W/Ig6L J 1/4' EYB (ICBOj519J) 0 EYBEDMDIT 5 2 1/2' a ~ P'4N PLALE (SUPPLIED
SOUD CROIJIFD CMU OR wL11 HH C20 EPOxY 1/ZY V-Bar ~' ~+O
w/YO+, 6' EYB (Il.BO/4016) 0 NOUDN CW ~ I>'P• OP 2) VALMOM wCROFIECT
PPE-LEG SUPPORT
5' wN P/N PIPF n7r pJWP (SEE TABLE
J/8'6 THREADED R00 ~ , ~ 6P5 ANTFNNa 8590 5-9/16' 0.0 roR PMT NUMBER)
~ (SUPPLIED BY 8585 6-5/6" O.D.
8586 8-5/8' O.D.
LucENT) &591 10-3/4' 0.0.
B-LINE HANGER SUPPORr
F`--''--~ (PART j5B-2116-D-2) 1/2' ~ (x) YDrxIPaE wvac~i c wPRi
I I i STMOMO 1-1/+' COMP (SEE TABLE
i ; "
TEIDO t - _ _ _ _ (N) UNLSIRUT ATTACxm PIPE roR PMr xVYBER)
_ _ 1/z•~ rHRu
ro Ex6nNC eLRLOINC eou, m.
I I 'POWER ~ WALT LOA%ML CABLE /8"6 I/2 11
I I CHE~YIGi~MCHOR M H6ul AN HOR ®®________j®
I• `•+6" ~ RUNWA NBUEUR~~ 1AWMINC BRACKET _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T ~,
PUTE
sralNCER STYLE ,-,/z' wtn KWIK eo T 1I ANrur» ~ ®®
I
1/2'6 U-BOLT PIA~TEn(91PP~p~ ~'
(TYP.) er LUL~ENO
ATION
PPC CABINET DETAIL , ~` 10 CABLE TRAY DETAIL~~ 8 MOUNTING EQUIPMENT _ 5 GPS ANTENNA MOUNTS 3
ExISnNG COxCREIE
10 BE SAwClff
ExSnNG 5'-O~
w10E 9DEWAUt
~~
t2'
~{ j)~)
^ ~
WARNING
RF/MICROWAVE ENERGY
CONTROLLED AREA
COMACT SPRINT NARONAL
OPEPATIONS CONTROL CENTER
t-888-859-1400 ;
4 ~ WARNING SIGN
I/2'=1'
FROM
-.- SjJ1'111t',
sPdmPCS~
4683 CHA80T DRNE, SUITE 100
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PR0.IECT INFORMATION:
CALTRANS R.O.W,
SF54xc429A
FARWELL AVE d< SARATOGA LOS CAiOS RO
SARATOGA, CA 95070
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CURRENT ISSUE DATE:
05/30/01
rISSUED FOR:
CONSTRUCTION
~tEV.:=pATE:-DESCRIPTION:- =BY:
0 5/30/D1 90X CONSTRUCTION EM
:PLANS PREPARED BY:----~
TETRA TECH
3875 Hop7ard Rand, Suite 2AS
PMa6aMan, G 94588
(925) 730-1070. FAX (925) 730-3999
:DRAWN BY: CHK.:.- APV: -'I
EWM FMK MA
~LICENSURE:
SHEET TITLE:
DETAILS
-SHEET NUMBER: REVISION:-
O
PCASPRNC096
OUTDOOR FIEXENT CABINET
FROM
. I,
' ~ (N) ENS WIRELESS
' RR65-IB-020P ,
ANTENNA (V SECTOR)
. (N) ELLS WOlElE55
cwsTER NouNi
(U-BOLT) ~ (N) U-BOIT SUPPLIED
WITH CLUSTER MOUNT
(U-BOLT) qT
(N) ENS WdiELE55
RR65-18-O20P
ANTENNA (12P SECTOR)
. ~ (N) ENS WIRELE55
I
RR65-T8-02DP
ANTENNA (240' SECTOR)
(N) ANIENWI NOUNIINC
PPE
. (N) AF 7RANSPARQR ~.
ANTENNA EN0.0SURE I '
Ir
I
NOT USED 10 NOT USED ~~ 7 NOT USED
,~ 4 ANTENNA SECTION ,,~ 1
(N) ENS WBiElfSS I
aU51ER MOUNT I (N) U-BOLT SUPPUEO
(U_601.T) (p~T ~ i wIM aUSTER YOUNi
NTC-coz-lo) i I (U-BOLT) Klf
~ ~
. I
i
~ (119 ENS WBiELE55
~ RR65-18-020P
II ANTENNA (120' SECTOR)
I
j
NOTE: RF TRANSPARENT
ENCLOSURE NOT SHOWN
FOR LLM11Y
I
II
NOT USED
~
11
NOT USED I
I ,~ 8 NOT USED 1~ 5
i
I,
MJ EYS MTRElE55 I ~
' RR65-18-02DP
~
. ANTENNA (240' SECTOR) ~
'
(N) 4.5' D.D. ANTENNA
' YpINDNO PIPE i ,
., DI o
~ i
NOT USED ~ 12 NOT USED ~ 9 NOT USED A
~
, , 6 NTENNA DETAIL 3
~S
-~ print.
Spnnf PCS
4683 CHABOT DRNE, SUITE 100
PIEASANTON, CA 94588
=PROJECT INFORMATION:
CALTRANS R.O.W.
SF54xc429A
FARWELL A4E k SARATOCA LOS CATOS RO
SARATOCA, CA 95010
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
=CURRENT ISSUE GATE:
05/30/01
=ISSUED fOR:
CONSTRUCTION
0 ~ 5/30/01 ~ 90R CONSTRUCTION ~ EM
:PLANS PREPARED BY:
TETRA TECH
3815 Hopprd Raad, Suila 245
Pkomnlan, CA 94588
(925) 730-1070, FA% (925) 130-0999 ,
,^r.." EWM FMK MA
=SHEET TITLE:
DE~AIIS
:SHEET NUMBER: REVISION=
PCASPRNC096
----.
STREET MAP
Sile Analysis )Vlemorandrasn
The proposed I'CS facility will be located on an existing California Department of
Transportation (CalTrans) right-of way off of Saratoga Los Gatos Road between
.Farwell Avenue and Three Oaks Avenue. The parcel is located within the 8-1-
40,000 (Single Family Residential) Zoning llistrict and is currently being used as a
public right-of--way.
Dice to the specific needs that were determined by Sprint PCS"s Radio Frequency
(RF) 13ngineers, the subject search ring was limited to the surrounding properties
extending into Farwell Avenue to the north, Valley Vista Drive to the east, Glen lJna
Drivc to the south, and Piedmont Road to the west, All parcels in this search ring are
`'• located in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) 7,oning Dish~ict. As the proposed site
(CalTrans) is surrounded by single family homes in all directions,.there were no other
viable candidates in the search ring. Therefore, Sprint PCS has designated this
specific site (CalTrans) as the ideal candidate.
_...---
ALTERNATIVE SoTE A
t
CALTRANS R,O.W.
FARWELL AVE & SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
SARATOGA
~I
J
C1[!L
R.O,V9P.
SF54XC4?_9A
•
•
•
f _.
~,
I. 1
~~~
I
x
x
i-
x
n
C
a
x$
do
1
7c
II UIST COUNTY ROUTE TaTALapR~~ECT ~ ET SHETETS
ABBREVIATIONS Da ~ g __7__
AMEND-amendment MIN minimum
8&B-balled & burlapped mm millimeter ,
DIA-diameter No number
EA-each PLT ESTB-plant establishment
gg gram PVMT-pavement
~
2~/IC H05 e
LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT o ~TOrgp o
~"
~
to~c
~
kg-kilogram R[W-nght of waYY
m-met
r ~ 11 ,
~,p,
~y
?
¢
am
e
SF state i4rnished
mz-square meter TAB tablets) j ~
PLANS APPROVAL DATE -~
a
s,"
m~-cubic meter TRVD-traveled
MAX -
i J ~
~ a
a
max
mum CITY OF SARATOGA
~f
p
1377 Fruitvale Ave
'!r
d'~
i .
or ca~~T
Saratoga, CA 95070
PLANT ~
LIST AND PL ANTING SPECIFICATIONS l
~ TETRA TECH, Infrastructure Services Group
rl 3138 McMillan Ave., Suite IOD
j S
L
i
Obi
CA 93401
an
u
s
spo
~ rnr smfe er cmmm;a er fts o/rcas or ogmis stroll nol M
rcspwrsi6le lar the accuracy or completeness al ekctmnic
° I~ copes of this plan sheet.
w I~
e
~
PLANT
PLANT
QUANTITY
HOLE SIZE
BASIN
IRON
SOIL
COMMERCIAL
~ PLANTING LIMITS -
_
o GROUP No SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE EACH (mm) TYPE SULFATE AMMEND FERTIL IZER OI MULCH STAKING M INIMUM DISTANCE m ROM oN
~ REMARKS
DIA DEPTH ~ ~ PLANING PLT ESTB ~ ~; , PVMT FENCE WALL oir~ oR~cH (~
~ S 1 I
" ' 1 O MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM PROSTRATE MYOP 3
ORUM No. 1 71 20 2 .11 kg - 115g 115g .05m - -
! 2 2 2 2 2 1.5 SHRUB
a ] 1 ~
Q 2 O ROSMARINUS 'IRENE' ROSEMARY No. 1 47'! 02 2 .11 kg - 115g 115g .O5m3 - -~i 2 2 2 2 2 0.9 SHRUB
W ~ ~ __.
'~
Q9Q~ ~
W 3 ~ ZAUSCHNERIA CALIFORNICA
_ CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA No. 1 18~I 02 2 .11 kg - 115g 115g ,O5m3 - -~ 2 2 2 2 2 0.9 SHRUB
U~ U li
I -- I
u I.
rc
I
z
_
U
N
0
_ -
-
1 -
_ f
!
I
F+ .
I
F I
O
' lI
N
~
r )~
-- l
O __,-_
~~ _-_
II _ _
-
. 111
1I
W I
A
APPLICABLE WHEN CIRCLED: I
f
~ ~ --
~'
-Quantities shown are "per plant" unless shown as m2 application rates.
,I 6
Q-Sufficient to recieve roof ball
i; NOTE: l~
Underlines
portions of botanical name indicate
w 3 -Does not apply to mulch ores, ,
abbreviations used an Planting Plans.
o ®-As shown on plans,
F
5 -Unless otherwise shown on plans. li ~I
E
6 -See detail.
~ V
V
; PLANT LIST
v
i 7 -See Special Provisions. I
~ 8 -Special conditions-remove bottom, plant with box sides intact with top 2" exposed j iV HP-1
V
NPoI UC-0E-9g-PF (RtV. I/EE) r a,,,
urt tttLUUW PUNS 0 10 ZU .fU 10 ]U W /0 8a
OPoCINAL SCALE IS IN mm it I I I I I t I I 1
V U - I~ -
•
•
•
~ ~i~ 1
I
__
x ,
.~,
~,..
j / 32 MM BP~E
`
m ' 25 MM METER
U , I
EW POC AND MAINLIN~,
ONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE
CONNECTION FROM CIjY
j ~ MAINUN~.
I
W I
~ i
~
° _
rc I ~ 1 I
I
u
v,
~ W
o
25 OV
I
X
u I
u I
;
~~ I
~
a
~ I
I
n ~
8US S
w A t ////
~OCATE ALL IRRICATIO~!
°
~~
~o °
w
I
, QUIPMENT WITHIN THE
PLANTING AREA, SHOWN
-DIAGRAMMATICALLY F0~
~ ~~
CLARITY. I
1
i 4 STATION CONTROLLEIR
~-I--~ 'A' - 3 STATIONS USED
I 1 I
I
/
_
*
°
_ '
RETAINING W
~
C
I
/I
V J I
Y ii
\ Z
n Rp
~ ~
o
U
% ~ Cc
O
=gw
~ rn
;c
i'ORM OC-0E-90-PF pxv. I/A61 m v«,
1
f
r-~
~_~
I
FOR REDUCED PLWS ~ O 10 20 3p 40 50 fi0 70 Bp
ORIGINAL SCPLE IS IN mm ', I I I I I I I I I
~i
A
I
i~
r
0
f
,~
-- ----
~' DISi COUNTY ROUTE OTALOPRSECT SH ET
04 sAR s --~--
2(/1C LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ~htlD5C1Pf
p OHO ~R
II jy.~~,/p~Ce
PLANS APPROVAL DATE ¢ s -
I a ~~~I~
{ CITY OF SARATOGA r
~ 1377 Fruitvale Ave. ~'rf n~~cauloQ
I' Soratoga, CA 95070
u
TETRA TECH, Infrastructure Services Group
f~ 3138 McMillan Ave., Suile 100
I; San Luis Obispo CA 93401
lip
Y~ rno rote or cob7omm « its o+cc«s or ogenls snWl oor ~
responsible for the ovvmry « campletmess of decfronic
capes al this pbn sheet.
~``
IRRIGATION PLAN
SCALE 1:125
HP-3
EA -
•
•
r~
.]
x
x
• i
x
n
n
x~
• ~9
~~
' 111 DIST CWN7Y ROUTE TOTAL PR0.ECi SH Ei SHETETS
1
i 04 SAR 9 --/--
I
efrrc ~hNOSCgpf
LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHIIECi ,~o,cro qR 4q
~II~ ~~ ~.40~C~~~s
I~ sY ~^
PLANS APPROVAL DATE -Il "
S
uW
p
rt
p 6 1 0~ V
I
~~ CITY OF SARATOGA sr--oa. ~~
1377 F
it
'!
~a
ru
vole Ave.
e a Eau~O
Saratoga, CA 95070
II
~ ~,~ TETRA TECH, Infrastructure Services Group
, ,I; 3138 McMillan Ave., Suite 100
~ Son Luis Obispo CA 93401
I i me srate al car;rwa;a w ae arraer: r ayem: ~n,n not be
rcspmsible Iw the accuracy or compkleness al electronic
copresolfhs
lansheel
~ SP N p
.
~ RI
KLER SC HEDUL E I
w ~ ~
E P LUS / MINUS 5% 02 RISER N
I DI SCHARG E ~ MAT ERIAL .,
a
~
~
^
W
~ I
.,
~
w
~ w
o_
z
~
w
~I
~
n-
o'
w
a
g
~
~ O
5
.,
W~
~ w
~
~
o
~
~',
~
z
w
W
~
~ ~
o
~~
° W
w ~
~ Z
~ Z
O ~
K v ]
JI
Z
(~ W
~ J
O
~ {~
W W
d U
W
~ o u Z W W Z OO W 2 ~~ ~ ? ~ ~ W J W f- H- O
WW a O (n ~ 2 W U ~ a Z (~ ~ I
, ~ `~ ~
J Z WI W~ z h O n
~ Q
~D 0_ K D_ W W N. Z D' O H
~ 2
~ ~ ~ Q ~ v 'f J ~ Cl, .
DESCRIPTION Q
n rJ
z to w
o! w
a w
a w
a ~
., J
~~ z w
o
j
g
~
=
w ~
~ ~
~ o ~
~ REMARKS
o .
" J
I ~
v
> ~ w U
~ N
a ~
~
~
~ w
m ~-
Q ¢ a
~ O ~
!n to
~ cn u, ~
2
2 ~ J
N ~
H
r Q ~ N
O z
~ v
I- z
Q ~
~.
2
CD Y
~
~ W
0
0_
W J
W
W ~
W ~
W
D
p W
F
N' J
W _1
(n ~ Y
U
LL Q
F-
W
N
J
W
i; C7
z ~
W Z
~
rc
~
f/I _
}
I-
Q.
Vl
O. Y
O ..
K
O
H
J
F
J
H
J
Q
O:
3
Q
~
O'
Z
-~ ~
?
O O
Q
L`
_~ ~
0
O.
~
Q
N
V W K
°
~
-
.
..
0_ Q
m
~
O
Q
~
d
U
U1
)_ U1 D: U1
a
~
B-2
SHRUB SPRAY
207
-
.1 .O6
-
-
4.0
-
PL
-+
15
_
-
- --
-
-
-
X
-
15
j: - -
III
-
-
300 mm POP-UP
° ~ B-2 SHRUB SPRAY F 207 - 0.23 - - 4.0 - PL -I 15 - - - - - - X - 15 ~I - III - - 300 mm POP-UP
^ B-4 STRIP SPRAY EST 207 - 0.04 - - 4.8 - PL -, 15 - - - - - - X __ _
- 15 jl - III - - 300 mm POP-UP
i.
-
-
_ ~
°
_
I I
6 -
F ^
~ II,
V
_ ~ _
- - ,__ ~ II
O
z
-
~
- ~ I
-
r
F X: DENOTES REQUIREMENT ~I
APPLICABLE WHEN CIRC LED: ~ ABBREVIATIONS
1 -See Special Provisions.
I' ADJ-
B/B- asjust ble
brass bronze L/h-liters per hour
L/min-liters per minute
2 -If a pressure compensating device os specified,
VALVE
CODE FO
R PROPOSED V
E B/B/PL- brass/bronze/plastic L/s- liters per second
''
the discharge and radii shown r eflect its use. ALV
S I B[_P - brass/plastic nr- meter
~'
3 -Arc stop shall be fisted with a nut and bolt. y CsST-
DN- censer strip
diameter nominal mm-
NPT- millimeter
national
i
e thread
4 -Vinyl-coated cost iron housing.
5 -R
i
d
d
t i
h
ld
b
id
lk
i RCV SIZE (mm)
IRRIGATION CONTROLL ~
ER EST= end strip P- P
p
part circe I
~ re
equ
a
jacen
ou
ers, cur
o s
s, s
ewa
s and
6 -Unless otherwise shown an plans. d
kes.
CONTROLLER STATION ~ F-
F/P full circle
full/part circle PL-
0- plastic
quarter circle
_
R hall circle SST- side stop it
~ L/min I IPS-
kP
- iron pipe size
kil
l T
T third cirde~~gthread
th
t
KX_g_X_~
~ a opasca Q-
TT- ree quar
er circle
two thirds circle
~ SPRINKLER SCHEDULE
n ~
HP-5
nru OC-DE-9? PF (mV, t/ES~ m xw FDR REDUCED RIANS 0 10 ZD . 70 10 SD fi0 70
80
ORICINAI SCN.E IS W mm L I I I I I I I I ~ GU - EA -
,;.
•
x
~IE50 mm Clearance
on all sides min
•
w
w o:
N W
Q
X ~ G
~c w
~n ~~
a 3
w~ ~
W W
'~ W
~a U
~-
~ I
Inlei fa
pattern .~,.~
Plug
WS-,
BACKFLOW
PREVENTER
•
a 50 mm (Typ)
-_ 310 mm Min
x N 1
•~ 50 mm (Typ) 100 FG
z .•n:.°i•:°:::••'•: 1.0 n Vlde PCC pnd :a,°a~:!:;;,
w
E, PCC support: Galvanized and
'i,~ ., plastic pipe
w .:e:.-_:•°.~.. 0.03 m3 for pipe 40 mm and smaller ••: ~: ::e•., connection
a ''°•' 0.06 m3 for pipe 50 mm and larger ~d~`•• ~:.•':
'.•I ?~ .• a .li. r
,a.: •.
From WM 600 mm Mi Plastic pipe
~ ~ supply line
o ~ ELEVATION
x o
~' BACKFLOW PREVENTER ASSEMBLY
~.~_,~_~ mw ,,.., - _...
Valle boz cover -
Hinge when required
One machine bolt
each label
PLAN
Drill label and cover 6 mm ~ Slatted head
to accept screw machine bolt with
2 washers and nut
Label
Cover =
_ ~
~3t
SECTION
VALVE BOX IDENTIFICATION
_- -- - ~ FOR REDUCED PIANS I D 10 20 JO 10 50 W 70 aD
aPoCINPI SC4E IS IN mm l I I I I I I I I
Cover
50 I
I
l
75 '
t Op0 O
S ~ oo ~ I
E oo
c oOQ 20 mm Gravel or crushnhed roc
N X0°000 O Oho Oo0 ~aUQp ~c
Woven wire cloth
SECTION
I
VALVE BOX
I~
1
Valve box
/ ~O
0 0
rAoo~Z
j Identification label:
I` For abbreviations see
Standard Plans H1 and H2.
~ For controller and
I station number
see project plans.
1 Reclaimed water warning
~ label when required
'I DIST COUNtt RWTE TOTAL PRWECT E
D4 sAS s --/--
I etric LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT a closrepF
~, ~~ ,DEG
PLANS APPROVAL DATE -s;~,~l,~,~
~ 9 ~
6
4
v
~ ..e
A.
o
a.
CITY OF SARATOGA s~ o.l.
j 1377 Fruitvale Ave. 4jF
t°
! or Lao
Saratoga, CA 95070
i
TETRA TECH, Infrastructure Services Group
~ 3138 McMillan Ave., Suite 100
I Son Luis Obispo CA 93401
/Ae Stafe o! Calilomia ar ifs olfrers or agents shall not fM
responuble !ar fbe accuracy or rnmpleteness of Necfromk
copes of this plan sheet.
IRRIGATION DETAILS
HP-6
_ EA _
pastern valve
ELEVATION
VALVE
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE: VF~ednesday, August 22, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL C =ALL: Commissioners Hunter, Jackman, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry
ABSENT: Commissioner Garakani, Kurasch
STAFF: Director Sullivan, Planner Li~~ingstone, and Minutes Clerk Shinn
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES -Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 8, 2001
ORAL CO~~MU?`TICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The lawgenerallyprohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on
such items. However, the Planning Commission ma}~ instnrct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2001.
TECHNICAL. CORRECTI0ITS TO PACKET
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION FOR V-O1-007 (386-18-003) -NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive; -
Requestfor Variance approval to construct a new 439 square foot garage in the rear yard
setback approximately five feet from the rear property line. The proposed garage will be
attached to the existing single story house. Maximum height of the structure will be 12
feet 11 inches. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district.
(LIVII~IGSTONE) Staff has prepared a resolution with findings approving this
variance. (APPROVED 5-0)
RESOLUTION FOR V-O1-014 (386-18-003) -NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive; -
Request for Variance approval to construct an addition into the required exterior side
yard setback. The proposed side yard addition would intrude 13 feet into the required 25-
foot exterior side yard setback facing Kosich Drive. The 10,788 square foot parcel is
located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Staff has prepared a
resolution with findings denying this variance. (APPROVED RESO DENYING
VARIANCE 5-0)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
AUGUST 22, 2001
PAGE 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this
agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior
to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets,
written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting.
1. UP-O1-007 SPRINT, Saratoga Los Gatos Road &z Farwell Avenue; -Request for a
Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility
consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-~vay. The site is
located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED TO SEPT.
12)
2. V-O1-010 (517-20-034) - TIMMONS, 20200 Mendelsohn Lane; -Request for a
Variance approval to construct an approximate eight foot tall sound wall in the front
yard setback across the front of the property, where three feet in height is normally
required. The site is located in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
(APPROVED RESO DENYING VARIANCE 5-1, ROUPE OPPOSED)
3. GPA-Ol-001 (CITYWIDE) -GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT; -The 2000
Housing Element update is a comprehensive statement by the City of Saratoga of its
current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the pro~~ision of
housing to meet those needs at all income levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is
to identify current and projected housing needs and set forth goals, policies, and
programs that address those needs. The Housing Element has been prepared to meet the
requirements of State la~v and local housing objectives. (SULLIVAN)(APPROVED S-0)
DIRECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT AT 10:02 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING
Wednesday, September 12, 2001 Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
~' LAND USE AGENDA
DATE: Tuesday, August 21, 2001- 3:00 p.m.
PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
TYPE: Land Use Committee
SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2001
C7
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
AGENDA
1. UP-O1-007
.. '_ f
- SPRINT Item 1
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 6:. Farwell Avenue
2. V-O1-010
- TIMMONS Item 2
20200 Mendelsohn Lane
•
LAND USE COMMITTEE
The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee
conducts site visits to properties which are ne~v items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site
~~isits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and x:00 p.m.
It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site
~~isit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of
time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public
hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit.
~.~
~..-
`'~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers/Ci~~ic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES -Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 8, 2001
ORAL. COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three
minutes on matters not on this agenda The lawgenerally prohibits thePlanning Commission from discussing or-taking action on
such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2001.
TECH\'ICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION FOR V-O1-007 (386-18-003) - NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive; -
Requestfor Variance approval to construct a nev~~ 439 square foot garage in the rear yard
setback approximately five feet from the rear property hne. The proposed garage will be
attached to the existing single story house. Maximum height of the structure will be 12
feet 11 inches. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district.
(LIVINGSTONE) Staff has prepared a resolution with findings approving this
variance.
• RESOLUTION FOR V-O1-014 (386-18-003) - NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive; -
Request for Variance approval to construct an addition into the required exterior side
yard setback. The proposed side yard addition would intrude 13 feet into the required 25-
foot exterior side yard setback facing Kosich Drive. The 10,788 square foot parcel is
located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (LIVII~TGSTONE) Staff has prepared a
resolution with findings denying this variance.
•
PIANNING COiviMISSION AGEI~TDA
AUGUST 22, 2001
PAGE 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this
agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior
to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets,
written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting.
1. UP-O1-007 SPRINT, Saratoga Los Gatos Road &t Farwell Avenue; -Request for a
Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility
consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-~vay. The site is
located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
2. V-O1-010 (517-20-034) - TIMMONS, 20200 Mendelsohn Lane; -Request for a
Variance approval to construct an approximate eight foot tall sound wall in the front
yard setback across the front of the property, where three feet in height is normally
required. The site is located in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
GPA-Ol-001 (CITI'WIDE) -GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT; -The 2000
Housing Element update is a comprehensive statement by the City of Saratoga of its
current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of
housing to meet those needs at all income levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is
to identify current and projected housing needs and set forth goals, policies, and
programs that address those needs. The Housing Element has been prepared to meet the
requirements of State law and local housing objectives. (SULLIVAN)
DIRECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Wednesday, September 12, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
•
•
t~,
~ t~,l ~~~
MINUTES ~ / `~ `~ ~ '~ ~_
v' ;
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION `~ ~ ~ y
"~~
,~.
DATE: Wednesday, August 8, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater; 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
Absent: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Allison Knapp
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of July 25, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Regular Planning Commission minutes of July 25, 2001, were approved as
presented.
AYES:Barry, Garakani and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: Jackman
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on August 2, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Director Sullivan proposed that the Commission change the order of the agenda and consider Item No.
5 first as it is being continued . to a date uncertain. Agenda Item No. 1 has been continued to the
September 12, 2001, meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no consent calendar items.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S
DR-O1-016 &BSE-O1-022 (517-14-027) - NIJOR, 15330 Kittrid~e -Road: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a 2,301 square foot second-story addition to an existing 2,308 square
foot single-story residence. The proposed addition includes 60 square feet on the first floor and a new
2,241 square foot second story. The maximum height of the residence would be 25.5 feet. The site is
466.086 square feet and is located in the HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. (SULLIVAN)
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 5 at 7:04 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Commission continued consideration of DR-O1-016 and BSE-O1-022 to allow a
second story addition to an existing -home at 15330 Kittridge Road to a date
uncertain.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT:. Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Director Sullivan advised that this item would be renoticed for public hearing once the project is ready
for Commission review and approval.
*** i
PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.2
DR-O1-007 &BSE-O1-011 (397-17-034) - CHEN, 19752 Versailles Way: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 5,917 square foot single-story home and demolish an existing
3,822 square foot home. The proposed height is 26 feet. The lot is 40,000 square feet in area and is
located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application is for a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,917
square foot, single-story residence. with basement and the demolition of an existing 3,822 square
foot residence.
• Said that the neighborhood consists of a mixture of older -ranch-style homes as well as newer
designer-style homes with approximately 50 percent of each type.
• Added that this proposal is for more of a designer style architecture.
• Pointed out that the project has articulation and nice fenestration.
• Said that a letter of concern was received about the proposed height of the project.
• Added that the architect has prepared a packet of information.
• Recommended approval of this project.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:10 p.m.
Mr. Greg Kawahara, Project Architect, 5466 Molly Circle, Livermore: ~~'~
• Stated that the proposed architecture is of a Mediterranean style, somewhat Italianate.
- Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 3
• -Added that the project will include cast stone moldings and that the massing and elevation steps
down.
• Explained that the tallest portion of the home is a 10-foot length at 26 feet in height.
• Pointed out that there is one chimney for the single woodburning fireplace. Two additional gas
fireplaces will also be included in the home but will not incorporate any chimneys.
• Acknowledged the comments from the neighbor regarding view concerns.
• Said that the proposed structure will be further setback from the street, which will decrease the
perceived bulk of the home.
• Advised that the 26-foot height will exist in just one point and that this highest ridge is just 6 feet, 9
inches higher than the existing ridge on the current home.
• Added that the existing mature vegetation in the area will help obscure any impacts and that views
will not be impacted.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Kawahara whether story poles have been requested.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no and restated the fact that only a 10-foot ridge will run at 26 feet in
height, running from front to back in order to have minimal impact.
Chair Barry asked if there is any functional use of the 26 foot height.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no.
Chair Barry asked why that height should not be reduced.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that the design concept is for an elegant architectural porch entry feature that
is more unique and traditional. Added that there is a low pitch to the roof and that the massing steps
down so that the project feels vertical being horizontally stretched out.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Kawahara if he would honor a Commission request to lower the height if doing
so is possible.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he prefers to have the design approved as presented.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, 3083 East River Hills Drive, Saratoga:
• Cautioned that lowering the ridge risks impacting building drainage and use of materials.
• Reminded that while this is a small section, it is an important element in order to tie in the roof
design.
• Suggested the possibility of moving the house back another five feet.
Chair Barry mentioned that this Architect and Builder will be working on another similar home on this
street and asked what similarities and differences are proposed.
Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that the second home will utilize wood corbels. Both homes will have
stucco siding and the roofs. The next home will not include as wide a front porch.
• Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Kawahara if the next home would utilize the same arch features as
does this one.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 4
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no, adding that there will be just a single arch and that gable roof elements
will be included on the next project. Asked the Commission members if they were comfortable with
the proposed materials.
Chair Barry replied no. She stated that- the Commission looks to see as much as wood and stone as
possible as opposed to use of stucco. Added that they do not want to see two homes directly across the
street from one another that are basically the same.
Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the elimination of arches on the sides could result in a lower roof
height. -
Mr. Kawahara replied yes but that the appeal is the provision of the wider porch element.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she likes the way the home steps back and asked how far it steps
back.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that there is a significant step back of between 13 and 14 feet.
Chair Barry asked if Mr. Greg Kawahara has any further comments about proposed. materials -for this
house and the next one he will propose on the same street.
Director Sullivan advised the Commission that he has invited the architect to bring material samples
for the-next house into the Planning Department Offices tomorrow.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they would welcome as much input on the next project as possible from
staff and the Commission.
Mr. Hari Pillai, Neighboring Property Owner: ~ .
• Advised that he is the neighbor to the right corner.
• Declared that past wrongs do not justify new wrongs.
• Said that he had a number of issues, including the fact that this home is out of tune with the
neighborhood of mostly ranch style homes over stucco palaces.
• Said that the roof height is an issue and that the 26-foot height achieves nothing but is purely
cosmetic.
• Pointed out that the proposed materials are out of line with the neighborhood.
• Opined that this is a loud, cookie-cutter design that represents a "house on steroids" and that this
home is a Trojan horse that sets a bad precedent for the neighborhood.
• Stated his opposition to the outdoor shower.
• Said that there has been zero consultations with the neighbors.
• Asked the Commission to instruct staff not to accept similar designs in the future and to encourage
more community involvement.
• Added that they don't want to see their neighborhood become another Cupertino or Las Vegas but
rather would like to retain the rural atmosphere and preserve the taste of the neighborhood.
• Expressed strong opposition to the design.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai whether additional trees might obscure this home from view
from his rear yard.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 5
Mr: Hari Pillai replied that trees would not screen this home from view from their home's rear yard.
The existing screening trees will obscure from the front of the house and not from the back.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai if extra screening at the rear would help him accept this
project:
Mr. Hari Pillai pointed out that it would take a long time for this new screening material to mature.
Reiterated his belief that the home can be lowered without adversely impacting the owners' use of their
new home.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai how he would change this project.
Mr. Hari Pillai said that the project should change to a ranch-style architecture and change -its
materials.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the ranch style is no longer prevalent in this area.
Mr. Hari Pillai said that the fact that wrong decisions were made 10 years ago does not mean that other
wrongs should be propagated on top of that. Added that he went to a lot of trouble to add to his
property and to the area.
Mr. Raj Kumar, 19805 Versailles Way, Saratoga:
• Stated that he likes this proposal, finding it quite elegant and believes that it will be well built.
• Pointed out that there is a variety of architectural styles in the area and that not a lot of beck is
used.
• Stated that "an argument of consistency due to existing inconsistency is not consistent."
Chair Barry asked to see the project material board.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder:
• .Reminded that there is but a small area at the 26-foot height and that this height is permitted under
Code.
• Suggested that full-grown trees (as large as 110-inch box, 25-foot high) could be brought in
without a problem.
• Assured that they are willing to plant trees necessary to help make the neighbor happy.
• Stated that this will be a very beautiful house and that communities want variation in architecture.
• Said that the materials proposed are very expensive and elegant. The stone is glass reinforced
concrete. Additionally they can utilize a custom stucco texture.
• Said that in his business they build homes to compliment communities, for different clients that
need to be made happy as well as for different City Planning Departments, who must also be made
happy.
Commissioner Garakani asked if it would be possible to utilize stone on the arches.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that core or natural stone would be appropriate for use on the arches.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for the width of the arched area.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 ~ Page 6
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied approximately 40 feet.
Chair Barry said that she does not oppose the roofing material but wants to be sure that the colors
blend as much as possible. '
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he was willing to work with staff to select abrown-toned roof tile.
Chair Barry pointed out that using a Spanish the roof suggests that this is not strictly aMediterranean-
style house.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they can get a blended roof.
Chair Barry, suggested something that blends with the color of the stone.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, assured that the roof color can be custom blended to be a more earth
tone:
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman:
• Said that while she could sympathize with the Pillais about the changing neighborhood, it is
already a 50 percent mixture of ranch and designer homes.
• Added that it is possible to have a tasteful architectural mix since these are large one-acre lots and
as long as the architecture is well done.
• . Stated that she liked the style of this home and believes it can fit in well.
Commissioner Zutshi expressed doubts about the size of the architectural porch feature, saying that the
40-foot width is rather large and will appear massive.
Commissioner Garakani: .
• Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Jackman regarding the existing changes in the
neighborhood, saying that this is not a neighborhood just beginning to change. Rather it is a
neighborhood that has changed so much that it can't be stopped at this point.
• Suggested that the arches should be proportionate to the overall length of the house and upon
learning that the home is 122 feet long, declared that the proposed 40 foot wide porch would be
proportionate.
• Supported the further setback from the front property line by another five feet as proposed by the
builder.
• Suggested that good screening landscaping be installed to meet any concerns of the neighbors.
• With the added use of stone around the arches, stated that he has no objections to this project being
approved.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No: 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Hari Pillai declared that the entire lot is but 164 feet wide (having misheard the size of the home's
width of 162 feet instead of the actual 122 feet).
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 7
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Chair Barry:
• Stated that it is clear this is a changing neighborhood.
• Agreed that previous Planning Commissions and Councils have had different approaches.
• Pointed out that the current view of the Planning Commission is to preserve as much as possible of
an areas architectural style.
• Expressed a problem with the proposed facade.
• Supported the increased front setback.
• Said that she liked the added stone to the pillars and suggested that it be added to the base as well.
• Said that she supports the roof color that will blend with the stone color.
• Suggested additional changes to the front landscaping so that the front entry will not appear as
prominent.
• Said that the first floor footprint is huge.
• Asked if there is any City policy concerning installation of outdoor showers.
Planner Alison Knapp replied no. Added that this outside shower is located off of a cabana and will be
for use with the spa.
Chair Barry wondered if perhaps it could be eliminated if not particularly needed.
Commissioner Garakani asked for a overview of the pending added Conditions for this project.
Director Sullivan stated:
• Addition of mature redwood trees to serve as screening between this project site and neighboring
properties.
• Use of a the roof material in a color that closely matches the stone.
• Increase the use of stone around the arches and walls and wrapped around the windows.
• Move the house back by approximately five feet.
Reduce the porch entry in size and mass.
Commissioner Garakani said that it would be nice to reduce the porch width to 20 feet.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder:
• Agreed that the front setback could be moved to 55 feet.
Suggested the inclusion of 48-inch box olive trees at the front so that the porch feature would not
be as visible.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:59 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman said that she is comfortable with less formal landscaping.
Commissioner Zutshi said that this would be good.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 8
Chair Barry expressed support for added mature olive trees to the front yard landscaping and asked if
the Commissioners had any disagreement with the proposed added Conditions as overviewed by
Director Sullivan.
Commissioner Jackman asked how far the outdoor shower is located from the neighboring property.
Planner Alison Knapp replied 26 feet.
Chair Barry suggested that the shower could be screened with landscaping.
Commissioner Garakani said that this should not be an issue but that perhaps the applicant can screen
as a neighborly gesture.
Chair Barry pointed out that there is potential for noise with the use of this outdoor shower.
Commissioner Garakani disagreed and pointed out that people could get the same effect of having an
outdoor shower simply by using garden hoses.
Chair Barry said that it appears the Commission is prepared to leave the outside shower in this
approval.
Commissioner Garakani said that he has no problem accepting this outdoor shower.
Chair Barry reiterated that the Commission is prepared to accept this application with the addition of
mature olive trees at the front of the house as well as the added Conditions overviewed by Director
Sullivan.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Jackman,
the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-007 & BSE-O1-011 to allow the
construction of a new single-story 5,917 square foot home on property located at
19752 Versailles Way with the added Conditions outlined by Director Sullivan and
Chair Barry.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3
***
DR-O1-015 &BSE-Ol-o21 (503-29-038) - CHENAULT, 21345 Saratoga Hills Road: Request for
Design Review approval to construct:a new 5,837 square foot two-story residence and demolish an
existing 3,153 square foot residence. Maximum height will be 26 feet. The 53,403 new square foot
parcel is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning distract. (KNAPP)
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 9
Ms. Alison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to construct a 5,837 square foot, two-story residence
with basement and demolish an existing 3,153 square foot home.
• Said that this is a mixed one and two-story area and many homes are obscured from view from the
street.
• Said that a geotechnical review was done for this project and.it received clearance from the City.
• Informed that one rear neighbor has expressed concern regarding potential loss of privacy and
views.
• Advised that to mitigate those concerns, the applicant has offered to add up to eight redwood trees
and eliminate a second story balcony off a child's bedroom to help alleviate any privacy impacts.
• Said that staff is recommending approval.
Chair Barry asked if the neighbor in questions is on the flag lot.
Ms. Alison Knapp replied yes.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. John Chenault, Property Owner/Applicant:
• Informed that he is a 10-year resident of Saratoga and has taken the last year to-design a residence
for his family that will fit within the lot and topography.
Mr. Fred Luminoso, 12772 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as an advisor to the Chenaults.
• Advised that they have met with five neighbors and received written support from four.
• Informed that the fifth neighbor had privacy impact concerns, which they believe have been met
through the relocation of two second story windows, the use of opaque glass in the bathroom and
the elimination of a second story balcony off one of the bedrooms. Additionally, they propose to
provide screening and hedging to benefit the neighbor to the north.
• Said that the builders will be Mark Thomas Builders and it is the practice of this builder to fence
off a construction site and comply with construction hours and City guidelines. Materials will be
staged on site.
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group:
• Said that the proposed alignment of the house on this site is similar to the existing house.
• Said that in addition to the mature tree formation on site, they propose to add trees.
• Pointed out that the garage will be located under the house and that the home is a linear house with
only short sides to help minimize impacts on the side neighbors.
• Said that this design will blend well into the hillside and materials include. a gray slate roof and
muted stucco siding with a stone base to anchor the home.
• Assured that water runoff will be retained on site and advised that permeable driveway materials
are proposed.
Commissioner Garakani stated that this is a beautiful design but questioned how water from a 4,500
square foot driveway will be retained on site.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 10
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group, advised that through the use of sloping and dry wells.
Said that the driveway will consist of interlocking block pavers.
Mr. Jun Siliano, International Design Group:
• Said that in addition, catch basins will be situated on the low end of the property and that.captured
water will be used to water the landscaping.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Siliano to point out the proposed balcony site, which is being removed.
Mr. Jun Siliano directed the Commission to page 6 of the plans and said that the balcony was to be
included in a child's bedroom.
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group, added that one reason to incorporate that balcony was
to allow for air circulation. While they want to keep this balcony, they are willing to eliminate it to
meet the neighbor's concern.
Ms. Laurie Duran, 21421 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga:
• Said that this is a neighborhood in the best sense of the word.
• Opined that there are no homes like this proposed residence on the street.
• Advised that her family home was rebuilt in the neighborhood in 1995 and represented the first
new home in the neighborhood over the past 20 years.
• Pointed out that the adjacent property to this site is currently on the market.
• Suggested that this project should be designed to step down the hill, be tiled and painted in neutral
colors, that efforts should be made to work out issues with neighbors, that screening be done using
oak trees rather than redwoods, that no deer fencing be installed and that an appropriate street
facade be incorporated.
Chair Barry pointed out that the applicants have obtained letters of support from four of five adjacent
neighbors. Asked why Ms. Duran objected to the use of redwoods and was insisting on oaks.
Ms. Laurie Duran replied that in her estimation redwood trees are used to screen ugly houses simply
because they grow rapidly. Rather than using redwood trees, a more attractive home design should be
reached. She added that she hoped to see that the posts on the front walkway not exceed four feet in
height.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Duran if she has installed.oaks on her property.
Ms. Laurie Duran replied yes and added that she also plans to replace some ailing oaks along the street.
Chair Barry asked Ms. -Duran if her concern is basically the development of a ridgeline property.
Ms. Laurie Duran replied yes.
Chair Barry asked Ms. Duran what the applicant could do to make it fit better.
Ms. Laurie Duran suggested that the second story would need to be reduced and that the two-story
architectural portico features be eliminated.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 11
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the second story is have half the square footage of the first floor
footprint:
Mr. Bill Paceman, 21363 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he has resided in Saratoga for 20 years and moved into this neighborhood last year.
• Expressed main issues (several of which have been satisfied by the applicant), including moving
two second story windows overlooking his patio, the planting of two to three trees to screen this
site from his property, removal of a second floor balcony, inclusion of opaque glass in the upstairs
bathroom and maintenance of a hedge at the property line.
• Explained that in the past, the hedge had been inadequately trimmed so as to create a visual barrier
to a treasured bay view from his property. Wanted to ensure that the hedges were kept trimmed in
such a way that this view is available. Said he has offered to maintain these hedges himself.
• Acknowledged that his preference would be for asingle-story home.
• Said that he wants to see the careful placement of screening trees in order to maintain a view
corridor to the bay.
• Said that the applicant needs to be sure that the property line is accurately located prior to
construction.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Paceman if he can guarantee the accurate placement of his own home.
Mr. Bill Paceman said no and added that he just measured using a measuring tape.
Director Sullivan pointed out that a standard Condition of Approval requirement is that a licensed
surveyor certifies setbacks.
Mrs. Marguerite Paceman reiterated her husband's plea to carefully locate trees so as not to obscure
their view of the bay.
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group:
• Said that the house has been set down considerably, that the second story is half the size of the first
story and the house stretches along the front elevation so as to reduce impact on side neighbors.
• Added that they placed the house in a way to give the smallest facades on the sides.
• Pointed out that orange bunting is included on site and it is almost impossible to see this bunting
from the road, saying that he himself tried to see it in order to take photos.
• Reminded that the-new home will be only 10 feet higher than the existing home.
• Restated that 52-percent of houses in the area are two-story homes and that there is no single-story
precedent for the vicinity.
• Said that they are utilizing redwoods to provide screening as asked by neighbors.
Mr. Fred Luminoso, Applicant's Representative:
• Said that the Chenaults want to enjoy privacy on their property just as much as the Pacemans.
• Assured that everyone will be very happy once this project is constructed.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Luminoso if he knows the height of the Paceman home.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 12
Mr. Fred Luminoso said that the placement of a window on the Pacemans' master bedroom would be
seriously discussed by today's design standards and that it appears that the home is taller than 26-feet
maximum allowed. Said this home design would not meet today's standards.
Chair .Barry sought clarification that the General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Residential
rather than Hillside or Ridgeline.
Ms. Alison~Knapp stated that the General Plan Land Use designation is Low-Density Residential and
the Zoning is simply Residential and not Hillside Residential.
Chair Barry asked Ms. -Knapp what height differences might be allowed on a Hillside property.
Ms. Alison Knapp responded that this is a difficult question to answer. Said that were the site not
already developed, a flat pad would have to be developed. This proposal is not being constructed
outside of the existing pad. If Hillside zoning applied, the project would require grading and stepping.
Chair Barry asked if restrictions on architectural style and building materials apply for Hillside zoning.
Ms. Alison Knapp replied no. Said that neighborhood compatibility is considered as are shielding of
the home and retention of mature landscaping where possible.
Chair Barry said that while this property is not zoned Hillside, it appears to be a Hillside property. .
Mr. Fred Luminoso pointed out that they met with former Director Walgren early in the development
process for this site and at that time atwo-story structure was supported.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:55 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi said that existing neighbors can also screen their properties with additional
landscaping if necessary. The burden of screening should not completely fall upon this applicant.
Commissioner Jackman stated that the yellow color on the colored elevation gives a wrong impression
and asked if a color board is available.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:56 p.m.
Mr. Jun Siliano advised that the paint color is such that it will blend with the stone color.
Mr. Bill Paceman advised that he had offered to care for the hedge separating the properties but Mr:
Chenault declined his offer. Clarified that the hedge is on the project site and not on his own property.
Mr. John Chenault said that the hedge in question is an existing hedge that he is more than willing to
eliminate entirely should that be the preference of the Pacemans. Suggested that perhaps they may
want to plant an alternative hedge on their side of the property line that they can maintain at a height as
they desire.. Said that he simply was not comfortable~having a'neighbor_access his property to maintain
this hedge. -
Commissioner Garakani asked about the roofing colors.
- Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 13
Mr. Jun Siliano reminded that the roofing material is full slate.
Commissioner Jackman said that the Chenaults have gone to the trouble to relocate two upstairs
windows and that, they should be allowed to retain their proposed second floor balcony.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Thanked the Pacemans for access and the opportunity to view the project site from their home.
• Stated that based upon that vantage, he does not see any issues with windows on the new home.
• Suggested that the front entry feature be minimized and lowered.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that there does not appear to be any privacy impacts to the Paceman
property based on this new home construction.
Chair Barry set that the wall is set back so far that height limitations do not apply for the pillars for that
wall.
Ms. Alison Knapp agreed that the proposed wall is 180 feet away from the front setback and that there
is no height regulation at that distance.
. Chair Barry:
• Pointed out that the applicants voluntarily agreed to move the two upstairs windows as a good
faith gesture.
• Expressed agreement with the comments on retaining the balcony, saying that if it were larger she
would not support it but since it is but three-feet deep, this balcony will only allow access for
looking at views and would in no way interfere with existing views and/or privacy of neighbors.
• Reminded that Mr. Chenault has offered to remove the hedges should the Pacemans wish him to
do so.
• Agreed that this proposed home does not look like a Hillside home but neither do many other
homes in -the area.
• Said that it is important to use natural colors and materials.
• Suggested that the entryway feature be cut down and said that a redesign to a one-story element
maybe in order:
• Said that use of oak trees is reasonable.
• Stated that the architects have sited this home sensitively.
Commissioner Jackman inquired how the architect felt about changing the entry feature.
Chair Barry:
• Suggested directing the architect to work with staff to lower this entry element, leaving the details
on how to accomplish that task to him and staff.
• Said that the only deer fencing used on site should be to protect specific trees and garden areas.
• Supported the use of oak trees.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 14
Commissioner Jackman asked if high fencing on~a nearby property is legal as it appears to be more
than six-feet in height.
Director Sullivan said that it does not appear that this fencing is legal. as it is located within the
required front yard setback area.
Chair Barry sought clarification that the landscaping plan would be approved prior to issuance of final.
Director Sullivan agreed that this would occur and that the plan will include fencing proposals•that are
consistent with ordinance requirements.
Chair Barry once again clarified the amended Conditions as follows:
• That oaks can be used in the landscaping plan and that the landscaping plan be approved prior to
issuance of building permits and should include landscaping on the east side;
•~ That the front entry feature should be redesigned to the satisfaction of .Planning staff so it is not
prominent;
• That the windows in an upstairs bedroom be moved from the left to right side and
• That the small balcony be retained.
Director Sullivan suggested that the Public Works Condition of Approval regarding the Grading and
Drainage Plan be amended to include runoff coefficient and volume in a 100-year storm.
Motion: Upon motion .of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final.
Planning Commission approved DR-O1-015 & BSE-O1-021 to allow the
construction of a new 5,837 square foot, two-story residence with basement on
property located at 21345 Saratoga Hills Road, with the following modifications
and/or additions to the Conditions of Approval:
• That oaks can be used in the landscaping plan and that the landscaping plan be
approved prior to issuance of building permits, including landscaping on the
east side of the property;
• That the front entry feature be redesigned to the satisfaction of Planning staff
so it is not as prominent a design element;
• That the windows in an upstairs bedroom be moved from the left to right side;
• That the small balcony be retained off the upstairs child's bedroom; and
• That the Grading and Drainage Plan- be required to include data regarding
runoff coefficient and volume in a 100 year storm.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and- Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4
***
•
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 15
--~ V-01-007 (386-18-003) - NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive: Request for Variance approval to construct
anew 439 square foot garage in the rear yard setback approximately five feet from the rear property
line. The proposed garage will be attached to the existing single-story house. Maximum height of the
structure will be 12 feet, 11 inches. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning
district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants seek two Variance approvals to accommodate a residential
remodeUaddition.
• Said that one Variance is sought to place an addition to an existing bedroom 13 feet into the
required 25-foot required sideyard setback for a corner lot.
• Added that the second Variance is to allow the construction of a new garage five feet into the
required 10-foot rear yard setback.
• Informed that the existing garage would be converted into a new master bedroom with a new
garage to be constructed to replace it.
• Said that the site is 10,788 square feet within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The existing home is a
three-bedroom, 2,200 square foot structure and the applicants wish to add 866 square feet for a
total of approximately 3,000 square feet.
• Cautioned the Commission that it must make all three mandatory findings required under State
- Law in order to approve these Variance requests. Staff does not believe that the findings can be
made.. No specific circumstances exist that prevent the applicants from fully enjoying the use of
their property. There is an existing functional home on the site with three bedrooms and atwo-car
garage, typical for the neighborhood.
• Recommended denial of this request.
Commissioner Garakani asked for more information on the mandatory findings.
Associate Planner John Livingstone pointed .out page 5 in .the staff report, where the findings are
outlined.
Chair Barry asked staff how it made the determination that there are no special circumstances since
there is clearly a problem backing from this property driveway onto busy Saratoga Avenue.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that when comparing this home to the others along Saratoga,
there is no specific circumstance that impacts just this property. In fact, the property has the advantage
of being a corner lot with potential access from two sides, an advantage not available to similar but
interior lots.
Chair Barry questioned whether the existence of the five-foot wide bike lane, narrower than anywhere
else on Saratoga, doesn't constitute a special circumstance.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this is not sufficient to warrant a Variance.
Commissioner Garakani agreed that other options are available to the applicants.
-Chair Barry questioned why Variances were more easily granted in the past.
Director Sullivan said that the three required findings have been a part of State Law for many years.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 16 ~.
Commissioner Jackman asked Director Sullivan if the Variances previously granted by the
Commission were inappropriate.
Director Sullivan replied that in his opinion they were if they did not satisfy these required findings.
Added that staff applies the findings and denies applications if they cannot be substantiated. The --
applicants subsequently can appeal to the Planning Commission.
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan what occurs if -the Commission agrees with the applicant's
position.
Director Sullivan replied that the Commission would need substantiate how the findings can be made
and direct staff to create a Resolution approving the Variance for return to the Commission under
Consent at the next meeting.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:30 p.m.
Mr. David Zamora, Zamora Associates:
• Advised that this is his home and that his family, including four children, loves it. They just want
to make it a little larger. _
• Pointed out that when they purchased this home plans had been approved by the City for a new
garage. However, this proposed garage encroached into an existing utility easement and could not
be built per those plans after all.
• Said that they simply want a 20 by 20-foot garage, adjacent to their home and to utilize an existing
Kosich Drive driveway for access.
• Stated that this is a life safety issue for his family and the community.
• Said that the traffic on Saratoga makes backing from his driveway a challenge.
• Said they simply want to be able to enjoy the use of their home for their family.
Mr. Bob Desparza, Project Designer:
• Said that they seek rear and side yard Variances and they are trying to show that the findings can
be made in support of these Variances.
• Said that the reason for the change is to allow better use of the home.
• .Stated that this property is somewhat unique since it is possible to enter the property from two
sides.
• ~ Said that this project will eliminate a hazard on Saratoga Avenue and the existing garage space
would be used for a kitchen. The existing driveway on Saratoga .will be walled off to provide
outdoor space for use by the family.
• Pointed out that Kosich Drive has much lower and slower traffic.
• Informed that they have neighborhood support and six letters ~, have been obtained from the
contiguous neighbors.
• Said that the front Variance will allow an interior wall to be pushed out.
• Advised that a letter from City Planner Phil Bloch dated May 8, 2001, suggested that the Variance
request would be supported.- Based upon that letter, the applicants had plans done, demolished
some portions and began some construction in a phased project.
. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 17
• Suggested that they meet all three required findings and will be improving public safety by
abandoning the Saratoga Avenue driveway. Added that they are willing to lower and clean up
existing hedges along Saratoga.
Chair Barry:
• Asked- Mr. Desparza if they had considered bring the garage forward by five feet so the rear
setback is not required.
• Added that actually, the rear setback Variance is not the problem but rather the side yard setback
Variance is a problem. .
• Questioned if the front and side yards can be redesignated.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no.
Director Sullivan added that doing so would simply redistribute the current setback problems along
alternate street frontages.
Mr. David Zamora advised that there is no other place for the garage due to existing power poles,
mature trees, etc..
Chair Barry asked staff how they felt the site could be utilized to meet the applicant's desired new
space and garage.
Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that there exists a functioning three-bedroom home with a
two-car garage on this .property. The owners want to do an addition. There are other places for the
bedroom addition but a more extensive remodel would be required. Additionally, if necessary, a
portion of the existing home could be redistributed into garage space and required setbacks satisfied.
These options are more costly and require a more extensive remodel of the home.
Mr. Bob Desparza said that denying these Variances deny the applicants the privilege of full
enjoyment of their home.
Associate Planner John Livingstone disagreed, restating that there exists a viable house on this lot.
Staff is not saying the applicants cannot remodel their home but simply that the required setbacks must
be satisfied.
1VIr. David Zamora presented a brief video demonstration of the traffic he faces along Saratoga Avenue
as he attempts to back from his driveway.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Thanked Mr. Zamora for his video footage.
• Agreed that a safety issue exists and that the Saratoga Avenue garage needs to be moved.
• Added that requiring a complete redesign would represent a financial hardship and requiring the
cutting into the house by five feet along the length to accommodate a new garage would result in
-the loss of too. much existing living space.
• Said that if the adjacent neighbor agrees to the reduced rear yard setback, he would be comfortable
supporting the rear yard Variance.
a
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 18 _
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that this location seems to be the only reasonable place to place the new
garage.
Commissioner Jackman:
• Agreed that there is a big problem backing into the heavy traffic on Saratoga Avenue.
• Pointed out that there are existing tall shrubs on both sides of the driveway that need to be removed
to improve visibility.
• Said that she is not willing to go along with the five-foot rear yard Variance because while the
current neighbor may not mind, future homeowners of that property may not like that proximity.
• Cautioned that she has afive-foot setback at her own home, a legal non-conforming situation, and
- that it is too close.
• Stated that she cannot support this Variance.
Chair Barry:
• Said that required Finding No. 1 can be made on the basis of the narrowness of the bike lane along
Saratoga Avenue in front of this property that widens at the next property.
• Added that refusing this Variance would deprive the applicant of the privilege by strictly enforcing
the setback requirement.
• Said- that approving the garage Variance would not be a special privilege. nor a detriment to the
public health and/or safety. _
• Said that while logic may suggest that the owners should be allowed to square off their home to
accommodate the bedroom addition, the Variance for the front of the home cannot be justified.
• Suggested an increase of the existing cement pad. -
Director Sullivan cautioned that the fact that this is an existing legal but non-conforming- house is
clear. The issue is that increasing the area that is non-conforming is making that non-conforming
situation worse.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed and stated that once a Variance at the front is allowed, the applicants may
seek to extend that further in the future.
Chair Barry said that she can support the garage Variance but not the Variance required for the
remainder of the addition.
Commissioner Jackman said again that she is not comfortable with the five-foot rear setback for the
garage.
Chair Barry said that nothing can be done regarding the traffic along Saratoga Avenue, which is no
doubt much worse than it was when the house was constructed. Stated that the Commission
respectfully disagrees with staff and asks them to come back to the Commission with an affirmative
finding for the garage Variance. However, the Commission cannot find a basis to support the second
Variance request for this site.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:17 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 19
Ms. Hoa Thi Nguyen, Applicant, asked the Commission to help support their request for a Variance to
accommodate a second bathroom in their home to serve the needs of their large family, which includes
four young children.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:20 p.m.
Director Sullivan asked the Commission to provide the language for the findings to support within its
motion.
Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning
Commission directed staff to bring an affirmative Resolution to the next
Commission meeting as a Consent Calendar Item granting a Variance to allow a
five-foot rear setback to accommodate construction of a new garage on property
located at 18621 Kosich Drive with the. necessary Finding of support for this
reduced rear yard setback due to the reduced five foot width of tl:e bicycle lane i~:
front of this property that other neighbors do not have and due to the proximity of this
property's driveway to Lawrence Expressway. The Commission was unable to make
the required Findings to support the second Variance request for this site.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final and the applicants
have the option to appeal this action to Council within that time frame.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Director Sullivan advised that the Joint Meeting of Council and the Planning Commission set for
Saturday, August 11th, has been cancelled. Asked the Commission to provide staff with available
...Saturday dates through the next three months so a new date can be set.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Neighbor/Commission Involvement in Development Review
Commissioner Garakani reiterated his request for earlier participation by the Commission and
neighbors in the development review process. Asked staff when the draft memo outlining a proposed
format would be provided to the Commission for consideration.
Director Sullivan assured the Commission that this policy memo is in the works. Cautioned that there
are a number of timely priorities and reminded that the department is still not fully staffed. Promised
to get this information to the Commission as soon as the draft memo could be accomplished in the
work program.
i Library Groundbreaking Ceremony
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 20
Commissioner Zutshi encouraged the Commissioners to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony
on September 8th at 1 p.m. Added that the new library furniture has been selected by the Library
Committee.
Inclusionary Housing
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if the requirement for inclusionaryhousing is being publicly
disseminated to all affected parties.
Director Sullivan replied yes.
Absences from Next Meeting
Commissioners Jackman and Garakani advised that they will be unavailable for the August 22na
meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
August 22, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
•
CONSENT
r
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION ~~
FROM: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner
DATE: August 22, 2001
RE: CONSENT CALENDAR, Variance request for 18621 Kosich Drive
BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2001 the applicant submitted a request to approve two variances for a nevv garage
and addition to an existing single-family house. The Planning Commission approved the
applicant's request for a variance for the location of the proposed garage. The applicant was
proposing a garage addition to the rear of the house that would intrude five feet into the
required ten foot rear yard set back for a corner lot.
At the same meeting, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a variance to
allow an addition into the exterior side yard of a corner lot. The proposed side yard addition
would intrude 13 feet into the required 25 foot exterior side yard required for a corner lot.
As requested staff has prepared the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions for the
garage variance and a Resolution of Denial for the proposed variance for the side yard addition.
C
~00~~1
•
T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
000002
•
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO. V-O1-007
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NGUYEN;18621 Kosich Drive
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a Variance
application to allo~~ an addition into the rear yard area of a corner lot. The proposed garage
addition to the rear of the house ~~ould intrude 5 feet into the required 10-foot rear yard set
back.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning .Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time
all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of an addition to an existing single-family
residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
Section 1301, "Existing Facilities", Class 1 (e) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for additions to existing structures; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application for a Variance approval, and the following findings have been determined:
1. That because of s ecial circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
P
topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district.
This finding -can be made in the affirmative in that the lots surroundings and location, close
to Lawrence Expressway with a reduced five foot bike lane on Saratoga Avenue, deprive the
owner of privileges enjoyed by other owners who have a wider bike lane in front of their
home and are farther way from the traffic generated by the expressway.
2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the ~~iciniry and classified in the
same zoning district.
This finding can be made in the affirmative due to the special circumstances related to the
lots location and surroundings. The lot is in close proximity to Lawrence Expressway and
has a reduced five-foot bike lane directly in front of the existing driveway facing Saratoga
Avenue.
3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is conditioned to meet all
requirements of the City of Saratoga Ordinance relating to the Triangle of Visibility.
000003
Now THEREFORE the Plannin Commission of the Ci ~ of Sarato a does hereb ~ resolve
g n g 5
as follows:
After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans -and other
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Da~~id Zamora for Variance
approval has been approved subject to the following conditions:
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The garage shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by
reference. A revised set of plans meeting all setbacks and zoning requirements shall be
submitted for the remainder of the project..
2. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning
Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page and containing the following revisions:
i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted.
ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or
Licensed Land Surveyor. ~-
iii. The site plan shall contain a note with. the following language: "Prior to
foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans."
3. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no
fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height.
4. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. The applicant shall remove the eve
intruding into the rear yard easement or pro~~ide a letter of authorization for the
intrusion.
5. A storm water retention plan indicating how .all storm water will be retained on-site,
and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best .Management
.Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other
constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. `
6. The project site shall comply with all City of Saratoga zoning requirements for a triangle
of visibility for a corner lot.
7. The existing driveway apron accessing Saratoga Avenue shall be removed and replaced
with landscaping.
000004
!. 8. A final landscape plan shall be submitted subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.
B. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
1. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or
built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-
20:210). -
2. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per
stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To
insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling.
The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size
of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of
Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]).
C. CITY ATTORNEY
1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection v~~ith City's
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court,
challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
~~ 2. 1~TOncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of
the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of X250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the
~~iolation.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga
City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
•
00005
PASSED AND ADOPTED b the Ci of Sarato a Plannin Commission State of California
Y tY g g ,
this 22nd day of August 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
SECRETARY OF THE PLANi~TING COMMISSION
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no
force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or
Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions
and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the
recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission.
Property Owner or Authorized Agent -Date
0~~0~6
• RESOLUTION OF DENIAL NO. V-O1-014
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NGUYEN; 18621 Kosich Drive
WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a Variance
application to allow an addition into the exterior side yard of a corner lot. The proposed side
yard addition would intrude 13 feet into the required 25 foot exterior side yard required for a
corner lot; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time
all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of an addition to an existing single-family
residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
Section 15301, "Existing Facilities", Class 1 (e) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for additions to existing structures; and .
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application for a Variance approval, and the following findings have been determined:
1. That because of s ecial circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
p
topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that the existing lot meets the minimum lot
dimension and size requirements, and is standard in shape and design to the other lots
fronting on Saratoga Avenue, and in the same zoning district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the
same zoning district.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative in that there are no special circumstances that
separate this lot from other lots that have a primary means of access from a garage onto
Saratoga Avenue.
- Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve
as follows:
After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other
exhibits.submitted in connection with this matter, the application of David Zamora for Variance
approval has been denied.
0000~~
r
;~:
Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, •.
this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California,
this 22nd day of August 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
•
Secretary, Planning Commission
00008
ITEM 1
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Applicant No./Location: UP-O1-007; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue
Applicant/Owner: SPRINT PCS
Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner
Date: August 22, 2001
APN: N/A Department Head:
~, 200 ,, 0 X20 400 00 ~ 800 ~ x,00 1200 Few
~ \ i
~ ,I 1 i j/
`~\
~\ ~1I >; l~ FARWELL' CT. / ~, _ i ~~ I
~ ~ ~I j ~ i i ~-~ ~ ~
`\~ \\ / ter---' I ;~
,I \ ~ I. i
~\ ~ rr'_e_ i
~/ "Y ~I
I ~ ',
~~ / ,~
I ~ \ ~OIS I \ `~
1 i f\ `r \ ~ ~ I ~,
~i ~ I ~~ \ I~ ii
1~ T I ~~
i ' LN. ~
~~ THREE OAK:
~ ' ~ ,
~ ~~ i
~~ ~ \ ~ ~~.
\~ ~~
.~
~;~ DR• SITE `~~ ~ `~~
\ ~ PARK
l ~ ' ~ ~ \
/ I I !. \/
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue
- 000001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed:
Application complete:
Notice published:
Mailing completed:
Posting completed:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4/16/01
5/27/01
8/08/01
8/08/01
8/03/01
The applicant has requested Use Permit approval to install three antennas within a
proposed light pole and one GPS antenna on the exterior of the pole. The nevv light pole
would be 23 feet in height including the antennas that would be mounted on the top six
feet of the pole. An associated equipment cabinet is proposed to be located behind the pole.
As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to construct a new bus stop with t«~o
benches. Alight fixture will be mounted on the pole for the antennas, thus giving the pole a
dual purpose. The equipment cabinet will be hidden below grade and behind a retaining
wall designating the bus stop area. The applicant will also provide landscaping to the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Use Permit application v~~ith conditions by adopting the attached Resolution
UP-O1-007.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution UP-O1-007
2. Letter from Neighbor
3. Project Description
4. Existing and Proposed Sprint Site Map
5. Photosimulations (Exhibit "A")
6. Plans (Exhibit "B")
7. Alternative Site Analysis Map (Exhibit "C")
8. Landscape and Planting Specifications (Exhibit "D")
•
000002
File No. UP-O1-007; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue
i ~ STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R-1-40,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential-Very Low Density
MEASURE G: Not Applicable
PARCEL SIZE: N/A
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: < 3%
GRADING REQUIRED: 81.25 cubic yards of cut and 98 cubic yards of fill
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The applicant will pro~~ide a materials sample
and color board at the Planning Commission meeting.
PROJECT DISCUSSION
In May of 1996, the City Council adopted an ordinance, v~rhich established communication
antenna facilities as a conditionally permitted use in all zoning districts within the City of
Saratoga, including the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Since the ordinance was passed, several
telecommunications antenna facilities in Saratoga have been approved.
Use Permit
The applicant has requested Use Permit approval to install four antennas at the proposed
facility. Three of the antennas will be part of the proposed light pole built into the top six-
foot portion of the light pole. The fourth antenna will be a small GPS antenna mounted to
the exterior of the pole. The new light pole would be 23 feet in height including the
antennas mounted in the top six feet of the pole. An associated equipment cabinet is
proposed to be located behind the pole. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to
construct a new bus stop with two benches. Alight fixture will be mounted on the pole for
the antennas, thus giving the pole a dual purpose. The light fixture will provide lighting for
the bus stop below. The equipment cabinet will be hidden belov<r grade and behind a
retaining wall designating the bus stop area. The proposed 200 square foot equipment
shelter measures approximately 17 feet long by 12 feet wide.
A visual simulation of the antennas and equipment cabinet is represented in the photo
simulations provided by the applicant (see Exhibit "A"). The applicant has also submitted
a map showing all existing and proposed Sprint telecommunication facilities in the site
vicinity. ~ .
•
P:~PlanningUohn USaratoga-Los Gatos Sprint, use pemritdoc
_ 000003
File No. UP-O1-007.; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue
Public Health and Safety
As a result of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, as long as wireless
telecommunications facilities meet standards set by the FCC, a local government ma}~ not
base any decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the grounds that radio
frequency emissions from the facilities will be harmful to the environment or health of
residents.
According to a report by William F. Hammett of Hammett ~ Edison; Inc., supplied by the
applicant, it has been determined that the proposed facilities comply-with the prevailing
standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy. Their findings are based
on the most restrictive industry standards promulgated by the American I~Tational
Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, as adopted by
the Federal Communications Commission.
The proposed bus stop will be a significant improvement and contribute to public health
safety and welfare. In addition to the proposed benches and landscaping, the improved site
location and lighting will make the bus stop considerably safer for the users.
Aesthetics
•
Staff finds that this site is an appropriate location for a telecommunication antenna facility.
The proposed antennas are unobtrusive as viewed from the street. All ground equipment
will be located underground and will be screened from ~~iew by the retaining wall and
landscaping. In addition to the other site improvements, the applicant v~Till be pro~~iding a
new bus stop area with two new benches and lighting from the proposed antenna pole.
Noise
As a condition of project approval the applicant will be required to provide documentation
that the proposed underground equipment cabinet meets all City noise standards.
Ordinance Size Trees
No trees are proposed for removal and the equipment cabinet will not be constructed under
any dripline. Tree protective fencing will be installed-prior to permit issuance as a
condition of approval.
Conclusion
The project satisfies all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code.
The antennas and associated equipment are not expected to be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare nor are they expected to be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations
applicable to antenna facilities.
P:~PlanningUohn USantoga-Los Gatos Sprint, use pecmitdoc
n00004
File No. UP-O1-007; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Use Permit application by adopting the attached Resolution UP-Ol-00
•
•
P:~PlanningUohn L~Saretoga-Los Gatos Sprint use permitdoc
nnnnn~
•
T~IIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
nn(1[)n~
Attachment 1
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. UP-O1-007
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SPRINT PCS; Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue
WHEREAS, -the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an , .
application for Use Permit approval for the installation of four antennas and an
underground equipment cabinet; and
WHEREAS, The proposed antennas and equipment facility is Categorically
Exempt from the En~~ironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, "Ne~v
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" Class 3 (d); and .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present
e~~idence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined:
1. That the proposed wireless communication antenna facility is in accord with
the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in
which it is located in that it is a conditionally permitted use that is visually
unobtrusive.
2. That the proposed ~~ireless communication antennas and the conditions
under which they would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity, and the facility will be operated under the
restrictions imposed by the FCC to insure safety with respect to limiting
human exposure to radio frequency energy; and that the aesthetic impact of
the facility will be less than significant.
3. That the proposed wireless communication antenna complies with each of
the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that the location, height,
size and use proposed is conditionally permitted in this zoning district.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does
hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site- plan, architectural drawings,
plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the Sprint PCS
application for Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following
conditions:
00~0~~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The proposed antennas shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A",
incorporated by reference.
2. ~ A minimum of two (2) warning signs shall be posted near the transmitting
antennas: one (1) at the base of the pole visible to workers intending to perform
work on the pole; and one (1) on the pole just below -the antennas. Signs will
.comply with ANSI C9~.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. Contact
information will also be pro~~ided with a 24-hr. phone number to arrange for
access to restricted areas.
The antennas shall be painted to match the light pole in color and texture and the
equipment cabinet shall be painted a dark color approved by Staff.
4. Within 30 days of cessation of the operation of the antennas, the applicant shall
remove all equipment.
5. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading permits, the following shall be
submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
•
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this •
Resolution as a separate plan page.
b. Samples of the paint color to be used.
c. Five (S) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site
plan with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The
fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
d. A note shall be included on the site. plan stating that no construction
equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline
of any ordinance protected trees on the site.
e. A revised landscape plan detailing the design, species and location of all
landscaping for planning staff approval.
f. The applicant shall provide documentation that the proposed equipment
will meet all of the City noise standards.
g. The applicant shall provide proof of a landscape maintenance agreement
for a period of two years from the date of project approval.
6. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use
Permit and may, at any time modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the
permit to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. .
000008
7. The a licant shall conduct a Pre and Post installation
pp radio frequency study and
shall make the results available to the Planning Department and homeowners
within 500 feet of the project site.
Prior to Final Inspection of the antennas, the applicant shall. submit to Planning
Division staff:
a. Verification that the level of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields
emanating from the operating antennas do not exceed the levels outlined in the
Statement of Hammett and Edison, Consulting Engineers report dated October
13, 2000.
Annual ,testing of the emissions from the facility shall be conducted at the
applicant's expense and made available to the Planning Division and neighbors
for a period to be determined by the Community Development Director.
10. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in
connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any
State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the appli-
cant's project:
11. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a
violation of the- permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City
could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to
this Ciry per each day of the ~~iolation.
•
' 000009
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will
expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 1~-90 of the
Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (1~) days from the date
of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State
of California, this 22"d day of August 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall
have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and
Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the
approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said
terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City
Planning Commission.
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
•
000010
~~
~~K~h ~ Shnvrn~~. S~lZ,i
Ira ~ ~ ftiY ~,~~ 1,---rz .
~ ~C~~O~~
AUG 1 4 2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~~~ Attachment 2
~ ~~~' V ~-o~ -~ G7~ 1=an.~eu A,,'e ~; S~ lc-~ Gr.~-~ C-e~~
~.~ a.3 ~n ~h n^ '~ ~lv~, .~ c-i ~j H I~ Cvvr %S ~~Lc~-rt ~~~~1~ Vv- ~1 -~t1,~w ~.~e1 i,L t'f'~ I ~ ~C
// ,
C 1,,,~ ~ cl ~z~ ~ ? ~.OC..,..~ ~'t• ~ Gl..,~t ~ ~,~= ~' ~ti (o,~eS ~.os~.,~.~ ivL.,rE:. J l.u.,t ~ S '~i
V ~ ~i C~ ~'-~ G u,'l~ ~ a.C tc y a~-G~ . t ~ ~'~ Lit ~c~ ~ ~ ~ rS
j i -ti t ~ C c,..ti,~,f " C~,,.,,.cf~ W G~- El,~ ti~~~ ~ v ~~ nC.~~ -~i~w-~ ~~; S V„i
"Y~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~'l0~ '~ ~ Luc- '71~j c.'~" ~ ~ ~Cc~N~
~(„ 3 ~'v~ •S 1/ ~"~ i h.:~,,..~-F,' C ~ ~~ ~ ~~" G.~-e .c~ ~.E'-!~ S fie.
~t;,v~ Le.'Y ~ ~L~cvv~-~ ~ ~~i~f C~ D~t. ~~' %S -~~ E~ ..-.a~yp~.
5~~,.J ~ r ~I I -e G~ ~..~. • A-(( f L.~ lam: ~ ~Ka-~~ a-~; .2e.~ ~ ~ .~ ; ~G~ IUD ~ ~-~-
C t,~ A-f ZSc S K • I `^~, S .~}t~ `~.e.. ~ ~ Z T+" ~. ~ S ~CC.,,..Ge
~ ~ 7
~ ~ ~ ~~~
~~~y~~~
~r ~ ~ ~ 1 ~I~ ~~ - S ~~-c~~~ ~ ~~ ~~
~ C ~ ~-~ T~ ~ L ~~ ~ _, , .00001_
~~~ ~ ~~ ~
,~
S
i ~~ ~ GlL '~'z--~-~ -~'cr.~ w~-eic^-- r2~ t,~.~.~ rre1.~
~~. ~ ~
1 ~-c~ ~5 ~ry ~~...~. l s
~ 1~1~..~1 S L ,' cL..~ 1~9 Ct~{ ( G~ ~-..`-t.}~ ~~~ L_ ti ~ (~ ~t.~,1.~"
~~ ~
~ ~ ~~~s cal,, ~„~IY _ ~rvti-,,.~ ~, ~-~i.~~-
~'~`~
~1,,~ ~ J
J
~,.~ c~-e~' limn 141-~..J~^- • Cep,,. tee- o~~~- ~-e-°~
j~ »
a,.
~' ~~ ~~'
Attachment 3
• -CITY OF SARATOGA WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY
PROJECT SUMMARY
Petitioner
Sprint Spectrum, .L.P., a Kansas corporation d/b/a Sprint PCS (Sprint), operates the largest 100 percent
digital, 100 percent Personal Communication Service (PCS) nationwide wireless network in the United
States. Sprint already serves the majority of the nation's metropolitan areas, including more than 4,000 cities
and communities across the country. Sprint has licensed PCS coverage of nearly 270 million people in all
50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In March of 1995, Sprint obtained one of two licenses
available for the San Francisco-Bay Area Major Trading Area (MTA) from the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC). The San Francisco MTA extends from the northern border of California down to the
Fresno area. Sprint is also regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Personal Communication Services
Personal Communication Services or "PCS" is the most recent generation of wireless technology. By
utilizing digital transmission, PCS is able to dramatically improve the quality of service for wireless
consumers. Conventional analog-cellular systems do not have the advantage of speaking in the digital
language of computers. This digital transmission allows PCS to outperform traditional cellular in a number
• of ways; including:
• Improved voice quality and consistency
• Increased security and privacy
• Feature-rich digital service choices such as voice mail, paging, and caller ID
• Digital data capabilities for email, facsimile and Internet access
• Alpha numeric paging
PCS Site Selection
In order to meet the basic level of operational radio signal coverage for the San Francisco-Bay Area MTA,
Sprint PCS radio frequency (RF) engineers have designed a network of PCS sites. Site selection criteria
include limitations imposed by surrounding topography, the intended service area for the PCS site, and the
ability of the new site to "see" the proposed coverage area and other sites in the network. Other factors
involved in site selection include successful radio testing of the proposed site, availability of electrical and
telephone service, lease availability, and the ability to obtain local permits.
Whenever feasible; Sprint strives to acquire sites that blend with local character and are unobtrusive to the
community. Existing structures such as water tanks, building rooftops, and other existing structures of
suitable height are often the first choice for sites. When construction of a new structure is required, sites are
chosen by their proximity to compatible land uses. It is important to remember that wireless communication
. facilities must be considered as part of a network, not as individual locations. Communication facilities can
be likened to links in a chain, one link adds to the next, making the network design larger. Once these links,
• or communication facilities, are constructed, it is difficult to adjust the network design or move individual
sites.
000013
Property Description
The proposed facility will be located on an existing California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
right of way off of Saratoga Los Gatos Road in between Farwell Ave and Three Oaks Avenue. The subject
right of way is owned by CalTrans. The parcel is located within the R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential
District) and is currently being used as a public right of way. Sprint PCS proposes to construct a wireless
transmission facility consisting of three antennas and accompanying electronic equipment cabinets. The
three proposed antennas will be located inside a radio frequency transparent radome standing 6' tall and
measuring 6 '/4" in diameter. The radome will be mounted atop a proposed 17' tall steel light pole
measuring 9" in diameter. The proposed light pole and radome will be 23' tall. A functional light fixture
will be mounted below the radome at a height of 14'.
In addition Sprint PCS will be leasing a 21" x 15' 10" parcel to house its electronic equipment cabinets.
The equipment cabinets will be located inside of an underground vault located 8' to the South East of the
proposed light pole. The underground vault will measure 17' x 11' and will be recessed 12' 4" below grade.
A retaining wall measuring 6' x 6', comprised of CMU wall and standing 3' 10" will surround the proposed
above ground entrance to the vault.
Finally, Sprint PCS proposes to install two free standing bus benches for the Valley Transit Authority. The
bus benches will be located directly to the West of the proposed light pole. A retaining wall will be built to
match the proposed walls that surround the above ground entrance to the equipment vault.
l~'ature of Request/Zoning Analysis . .
Sprint is requesting a conditional use permit and any other permits necessary to allow the construction of a
PCS facility consisting of three antennas atop the proposed 17' tall light pole and accompanying equipment
cabinets with approximate dimensions of 35.5"w x 40"d x 78"h each.
Pursuant to the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-12.030 (n), "[a]ntenna facilities operated by
a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications" are
permitted as a conditional use in the R-1 districts.
Therefore, Sprint's proposed PCS facility will require a Conditional Use Permit. Further, all setbacks will
be complied with and no streets, rights-of--way or easements will be encroached upon.
Communication Facility Components and Operations
A typical PCS facility consists of two main components: a set of transmitting and receiving antennas and
equipment cabinets. The antennas are typically small, flat panels, mounted on a communications tower,
or other suitable structures which provide the required height. A set of cabinets containing electronic
equipment allows the interface with other PCS sites, connections to landline telephone network, and the
main Personal Communications Switching Center (PSSC).
•
2 _ 00004
No nuisances will be generated by the proposed PCS facility, nor will the facility injure the public health,
safety, morals or general welfare. PCS technology does not interfere with any other forms of
communication whether public or private. To the contrary, PCS technology will provide vital
communications in emergency situations and will commonly be used by local residents and emergency
personnel to protect the general public's health, safety and welfare. ,
Statement of Operations
Once the construction of the PCS facility is complete and the telephone switching equipment is fine-tuned,
visitation to the site by service personnel for routine maintenance will occur an average of once a month.
The site is entirely self-monitored and connects directly to a central office where sophisticated computers
alert personnel to any equipment malfunction or breach of security.
Because the PCS facility will be unmanned, there will be no regular hours of operation and no impact to
existing traffic patterns. Ingress and egress will be provided along with parking for service personnel ~vho
arrive infrequently to service the site. No water or sanitation services will be required.
Compliance with Federal Regulations
Sprint will comply with all FCC rules governing construction requirements, technical standards, interference
protection, power and height limitations, and radio frequency standards. In addition, the company will
comply with all FAA rules on site location and operation.
•
Benefits to the Community
This site will provide many benefits to the surrounding communities. These benefits include the following:
• 911 capability allowing motorists to summon aid and report dangerous situations.
• Support for emergency services by providing wireless communications to paramedics, firefighters, and
law enforcement agencies.
• The ability to transmit data allowing for immediate access to vital information.
• A backup system to the land-line system in the event of power outages, natural or man-made disaster.
• Communication capabilities in remote areas, enhancing the safety of travelers by allowing immediate
access to emergency assistance.
f:\sprint\general\proj ect.doc
3 - OOOUgS
CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance Section 15-55.070, before approving a conditional use permit,
the Planning Commission shall find that the facts presented are such to establish the findings
stated below.
1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located;
The proposed location of the conditional use will be in accord with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located. The proposed facility meets the objectives specified in Sections 15-
05.020 and 15-12.010 because of its low profile non-intrusive design. The
combination of the stealth mounting structure and the underground equipment
fault maintain the residential qualities that underpin the City of Saratoga.
Since the proposed facility consists of a lo~v profile light pole and equipment
recessed underground, the facility ensures that single family dwellings in the
vicinity will be protected against encroachments on adequate light, air, privacy
and open space. In addition, the self sustaining nature of the facility ensures
that the single family dwellings in the vicinity will not be exposed to additional
noise or congestion. In addition the design of the facility will prevent these •
dwellings from being exposed to additional threats of fire, explosion, noxious
fumes, excessive light "or other hazards.
Finally, this site meets the objective of providing space for facilities needed to
compliment residential areas because it will provide reliable wireless telephone
coverage for the City of Saratoga.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity and
The proposed location of the conditional use will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Instead,
the proposed site will actually become an asset and/or commodity to the people
of the neighborhood.
When the proposed site becomes operational, Sprint's wireless communications
in this service area will be both reliable and expand the communication options
for the people of the neighborhood. With increasing numbers of people
expecting reliable wireless service for their personal and business needs, the
operation of this site will have a positive influence on potential development in
the area.
•
0000.6
In addition to providing a positive influence on potential .development, the
proposed site will also make the neighborhood safer. According to wireless
industry and emergency agency statistics, over one-third of the nearly 100,000
calls made each day in the United States to 911 emergency services are made
from wireless telephones. Moreover, wireless telephones have repeatedly proven
. to be effective in safeguarding lives and properties in times of earthquakes and
other natural disasters.
Moreover the proposed location of the conditional use will not be materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Instead, enhanced
wireless communications will have a positive influence. in the development of this
area.
As stated above, this site will become a valuable asset to both the neighborhood
and the city because it will ensure emergency communications when traditional
wireline _ phones are not operational due to natural disasters such as
earthquakes. Wireless telephones have repeatedly proven to be indispensable to
police, fire fighters, and other emergency personnel during times of natural
disasters.
Since this site is entirely self-monitored and connects directly to a central office
where sophisticated computers alert personnel to any equipment malfunctions,
this site is virtually self-sufficient. Moreover since this site is both unmanned
and virtually self-sufficient, the proposed PCS facility will not impact existing
traffic patterns nor will it create traffic congestion.
Since the PCS facility is unmanned, the only utilities necessary for this facility
are telephone and electricity both of which will be provided by Sprint. Site
plans submitted together with this application, reflect that provisions have been
made for utilities and access. Therefore, the proposed facility will not create any
additional requirements for public or private service facilities. Wireless
telephone technology provides many benefits to the communities it serves. These
services include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Easier 911 access allowing motorists to summon aid and report dangerous
situations.
• Support for emergency services by providing wireless communications to
paramedics, firefighters, and law enforcement agencies.
• The ability to transmit data allowing for immediate access to vital
information.
• A backup system to the land-line system in the event of a natural or man-
made disaster.
• Communication capabilities in remote areas, enhancing the safety of
travelers by allowing immediate access to emergency assistance.
• Support for the residents and people who live and work in the City of
Saratoga.
C7
0000~~
3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Sprint PCS and Richard Connor Riley & Associates, L.L.C. have worked closely
with Mr. Mark Connolly, of the City of Saratoga Planning Department, to
ensure that the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
•
•
nnctn~ ~
~ Existing an~roposed Sprint Sites
City of Saratoga 11127/2000
+' • Existing Sites
~.~'
• Proposed Sites
ROda
OG
7~
'A4p
~~
er P Road
e9
Bds/~
Q
~~
1 ~s
r-~~~-~~~~ ~~~~i~ro~
~~
1=
i~.
•
T~iIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
000020
Photosimulation of view looking southeast from Saratoga Los Gatos Rd. ~`"
\• •
tC'opyrigh121p1(1- I'rcrixwlisly Inc. all riRhls rexrved. Attoracy of pAolosimuldion basert upon in/ormalion provided by projccl applicant. Qucslions' Call I-fMq-I U 1 Uti1~1.