Loading...
04-27-16 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Special Joint Meeting SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION & HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION JOINT MEETING APRIL 27, 2016 7:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING Saratoga Senior Center, Saunders Room | 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. AGENDA ITEMS Review results of Village Specific Plan Survey ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Janet Costa, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission was posted and available for review on April 21, 2016 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 21st day of April 2016 at Saratoga, California. Janet Costa, Office Specialist III In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. These materials are also posted on the City website. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 27, 2016 Application: Saratoga Village Plan Update Location/APN: Saratoga Village Staff Planner: Kirk Heinrichs, Special Projects Manager Saratoga Village 4 2 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission consider the community outreach information compiled to date and forward recommendations to the City on how best to proceed with the review and update of the Village Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The City Council authorized the initiation of the review and update of the Village Specific Plan as part of the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Administration Programs. The original Village Plan was adopted in 1988 establishing land use policy and development standards for the Village and there has not been a comprehensive update of the Plan since its adoption. On September 2, 2015, the City Council approved a work plan for implementing a community outreach initiative identified as the initial Phase of the Village Plan review and update process. It was the Council’s intention to gather as much community input possible on the Village prior to initiating any review of the Village Plan to better understand the community’s values and vision regarding the Village district. The work plan included six components: 1) retaining Godbe Research to conduct a scientific telephone and email based demographic survey of residents; 2) Creating a project based website (www.saratogavillageplan.org) to serve as the main portal and repository to access information about the update process; 3) utilizing Peak Democracy software platform to conduct a parallel self-initiated resident survey with the same questions; and 4) using the City’s social media resources (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter, City email databases, and the City website) to channel the public to the Peak Democracy website; 5) meeting with the Chamber and Village business owners; and 6) meeting with Village property owners. As a starting point for this effort, on November 17, 2015, a kick-off meeting with the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission was conducted including approximately 35 members of the general public in which staff presented the existing Saratoga Village Plan and Design Guidelines and summarized those implementation items from the Plan that had been accomplished thus far. The Commissions and public were provided an opportunity to voice their views, ideas and concerns regarding the Village which were recorded and posted on the Village Plan website at www.saratogavillageplan.org. A copy of that meeting summary is Attachment 1 of this report. COMMUNITY OUTREACH STRATEGY: Between January 4th and April 5th a community outreach effort was completed that included: 5 3  Godbe Research, completed a survey of 655 Saratoga residents that reflects a demographic representation of the community on their opinions, thoughts and views of the Village.  The completion of an online survey hosted by Peak Democracy and accessed via the City’s Village Plan website at www.saratogavillageplan.org where an additional 296 residents took an online survey on the Village.  A grass roots effort was made by setting up laptops at the Library and the Village Farmers Market.  On March 15th a meeting with the Chamber and the Village business owners was held to discuss their views on how the City can better help facilitate the success of the Village; and  On April 5, a meeting with Village property owners was held to better understand their perspective of how the City and its policies affect their stake holdings. The information in this report and the recommendation the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission forwards to the Council is intended to provide guidance for the Council as it deliberates and decides how to proceed with the review and update of the Village Plan. DISCUSSION: This section of the report will provide a summary of the results of the resident surveys and the meetings with Village property and business owners. GODBE RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY: The City hired Godbe Research, a prominent professional polling firm to poll a demographic representation of the Saratoga residential community on their opinions of the Village. Understanding how the residents view the Village and what they value most in their downtown is a key element in helping to develop fully informed decisions . There were a total of 14 questions asked about the Village centered around:  Residents frequency of visiting the Village;  Why or why not they visit the Village;  What kinds of things they thought would motivate them to frequent the Village more often;  What residents valued most about the Village ; and  What kinds of improvements or changes residents would like to see implemented. The survey was conducted through a hybrid of email and phone surveys. The survey is scientifically done to assure that the responses reflect an accurate demographic representation of 6 4 the community. Results are provided showing age and gender differences, as well as those living within close proximity of the Village. There were 655 residents polled and the Commissions should feel they can rely on the results reflecting the views of the community at large within a margin of error plus or minus 4%. A summary of the results of that survey is Attachment 2 of this report. The report in its entirety can be found at www.saratogavillageplan.org. Some of the results that came out of the survey are: Frequency of Visits: 39% of the community visits the Village once a week or more. Nearly 60% visit a few times a month or more. Resident Satisfaction with Village: 58% said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the Village; 38% dissatisfied; 4% unsure. Reasons for Going to the Village: 65% go to the Village to dine or for a drink; 25% for banking or coffee, and 23% for walking or exercise. Reasons for not visiting the Village: 27.5% said they don’t visit the Village because there is no grocery store and 15% because the businesses don’t appeal to them. Role of the Village in the Community: 55% said a place to dine; 40% said a gathering place or place to meet; and 37% said it was a place to relax or hang out. Qualities of the Village Valued Most: 53% said “Small town charm;” 40% said close to home; 36% said pedestrian friendly; 28% said historic character; and 26% said preserves views of hills. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements: 45% said more parking. 23% said preserve historic character; 22% said increase public plazas. Important to maintain the “look and feel” of the Village: 50% agree; 45% disagree; 5% undecided PEAK DEMOCRACY RESIDENT ON-LINE SURVEY In addition to the Godbe survey, the City employed the use of an on-line survey platform of Peak Democracy to further engage a larger segment of the resident population. The on-line survey closely followed the questions in the Godbe survey and was promoted through the social media platforms of the City including Facebook, Next Door and Twitter. And while staff also included a grassroots approach to the online survey including setting up lap tops in the library on 7 5 weekends and setting up at the farmers market, the use of social media was the key to a successful community response. The on-line survey was initiated on January 9th and ran through March 15th. The survey was taken by 296 people including five surveys that were submitted manually to the City via postal mail. Since the survey was open to all Saratoga residents, it does not reflect any scientific representation of the community. Users were not required to provide demographic information and in fact many choose not to. However, it did enable the City to engage a greater number of residents in the community outreach process. The combined survey responses to both the Peak Democracy on-line survey and the Godbe survey totaled 951. Attachment 3 of this staff report is a summary of the results of the survey. The entire survey results can be accessed at www.saratogavillageplan.org. The results differ from the Godbe survey in that Godbe surveyed a scientific representation of the resident population and the Peak Democracy survey is a self-initiated survey available to all residents. Some of the results of the survey include: Frequency of Visits: 56% of the community visits the Village once a week or more; 77% a few times a month or more. Resident Satisfaction with Village: 40% said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the Village; 60% were at least somewhat dissatisfied. Reasons for Going to the Village: 40% said they go to the Village to dine or for a drink; 25% for banking or coffee, and 23% for walking or exercise. Reasons for not visiting the Village: 72% of the respondents said they don’t go to the Village because the “businesses don’t appeal to them.” 40% of respondents said they don’t visit the Village because there is no grocery store and 30% because parking is inconvenient. Role of the Village in the Community: 79% said a place to dine; 70% said a place to relax; 69% said a place to meet; 62% said a gathering place; and 52% said a place to shop Qualities of the Village Valued Most: 69% said close to home; 68% said pedestrian friendly; 67% said small town charm; 48% said historic character. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements: 51% said more parking, 45% said preserving historic character, 44% said improved circulation and 42% said increased public plazas or gathering places. 8 6 Important to maintain the “look and feel” of the Village: 56% agree; 44% disagree. VILLAGE BUSINESS OWNER MEETING: A meeting with the Village Business Owners was conducted on March 15th in the Village to provide a forum for feedback on the kinds of the things the City could be doing to better facilitate a successful business environment in the downtown district. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Attachment 4. There were 15 business owners in attendance along with three Planning Commissioners (not as participants) and three staff members. There were some common threads that were repeated throughout the discussion. The major points of the discussion included:  Community Vision for the Village: It is important that the community decide on what the Village is going to be. More of a “Destination” shopping and dining district that includes restaurants, wine bars and uses that attract visitors, versus promoting local serving businesses such as a grocery store, pharmacy and other personal businesses. Many of the business owners feel that policies should favor the Village as a destination.  Parking: More parking is needed. Parking enforcement needs to be implemented and better management of parking resources needs to occur. Several comments that business patronage is lost due to lack of parking. Many did not realize that valet parking was available to all businesses and not just certain restaurants.  Circulation: needs to be resolved providing an option or alternative to the current situation.  Vibrant Street Presence: The community needs to encourage and promote a more vibrant street presence that typically will attract more patrons. The right business mix generates an energetic synergy which breeds a more successful business climate.  Strategic Partnership: There needs to be a coordinated effort between the Village business owners, the Chamber of Commerce and the City to market and promote the Village, possibly hiring a marketing professional to design a marketing strategy and implementation plan.  Business Sensitivity: Any future public improvement plan needs to be sensitive to the adverse impacts on business during construction. The slim profit margins of small business are susceptible to interruptions such as construction that can discourage patronage. The time of day and the duration of construction are critical. 9 7 VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING: A meeting was conducted for the Village Property Owners to provide feedback on the issues that affect them as stakeholders in the Village. The meeting was held on April 5th in the City Council chambers. There were 11 property owners in attendance along with two Planning Commissioners who observed only. A summary of the comments from that meeting are contained Attachment 5. The main issues discussed were:  Parking: There needs to be more parking, and better management of existing parking resources including parking enforcement.  Circulation: The issue of circulation needs to be examined to determine what options are available for circulating traffic through the Village that helps patrons navigate the Village and minimize traffic snarls. Current situation creates significant constraints.  What is the Vision for the Village?: The community needs to decide whether the Village is going to be a “destination” consisting primarily of restaurants and specialty retail; or a resident serving downtown that includes services such as a grocery store, pharmacy, shoe repair, etc…  Active Street Presence: The needs to encourage an active streetscape with outdoor dining, public plazas and daytime activity to provide interest and street life.  Village Promotion: There needs to be a strategic partnership between business (business and property owners, and the Chamber) and the City to promote and market the Village.  Equal Footing: The perception is that the opinion and views of the property owners is not on equal footing with other stakeholders and are often blamed for business leaving the Village. Their hope is that the community will give equal consideration to their views and that they do more to retain tenants than they are given credit.  Business Supportive Policy: There needs to be clear policy that demonstrates a general support for more active businesses in the Village. STAFF OBSERVATIONS: After a comprehensive review of the current Village Plan, reviewing the resident surveys and meeting with the Village business and property owners, the staff has compiled some observations to assist the Commissions with their recommendation and serve as a springboard from which the decision makers and the community can begin the review process. 10 8  No significant changes to those policies or ordinances addressing the scale, density or physical form of the Village appear necessary to achieve the desired objectives as stated by the stakeholders. In reviewing the resident surveys and from the discussions with property and business owners, staff did not see or hear, either directly or indirectly, a need or desire to change the physical scale, density or form of the Village in order to achieve the expressed changes for a more vibrant and civically successful Village. The Village Specific Plan addresses two major categories; the physical development of the Village, both on private property and within the public domain; and the use of private property. In the resident surveys, responses to questions regarding the physical appearance and scale of the Village were generally positive. The “small town charm,” the “historic character” and the “preserve view of hills” were qualities that resonated with the community. The high percentage of residents using the Village to walk, “hang out” and exercise suggests that the current physical environment is a desirable amenity that contributes to the value of the Village and the desire to experience it. The fact that these characteristics score well with the community leads staff to conclude that any update of City policy should reinforce these qualities. The priorities of the stakeholders include improving the economic success of the Village, creating a more active street view, attracting a more viable business mix, encouraging mixed use and seeing the City as more of a strategic partner in promoting and marketing the Village. Staff believes there is nothing stated in the Village Plan (or in the Village Design Guidelines) addressing building scale, height, form and density that would prevent the City from achieving the desired objectives.  Implementation Plan vs. Policy Document: The current Village Plan is formatted more as an implementation plan rather than a policy document. What the Plan generally identifies as “Policy” is actually an action item to be implemented such as creating parking districts, rezoning property, replacing the street tree program or installing sidewalk. An implementation plan has a finite life. When the action items have been implemented or completed, the plan has fulfilled its usefulness. A policy document is a more enduring community statement that establishes ongoing formal goals and objectives with correlating strategies and polices to help achieve those objectives. In practice, the Village Design Guidelines and the zoning ordinance have been the documents used to determine whether a land use application in the Village is consistent with City policy. The Village Plan has not been as helpful given its format. 11 9 In 1988, the Village Plan may have served the community’s goals with respect to identifying existing conditions, developing a public infrastructure plan, and providing direction for establishing appropriate zoning districts and regulations. To the City’s credit, most of that implementation plan has been completed creating a foundation for how the Village has developed over the last 28 years. Moving forward, the community’s input in response to the outreach has primarily focused on maintaining the small town scale, the encouragement of business mix and diversity, a more active commercial district, improving parking and circulation, and the availability of public plazas and spaces for community gathering. These kinds of goals may best be addressed as specific policy statements within the General Plan and the Village Design Guidelines, and when appropriate, the City Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes the Saratoga Village Plan has served its useful life and may no longer be necessary in its current format and that moving forward with clear policy in response to the input from the community outreach is best served through specific amendments to the General Plan, the Village Design Guidelines and the City’s zoning ordinance. Major areas to be addressed: Staff has identified a few major areas that should get particular attention with new or updated policy. The Commissions may identify other areas as well.  Village Vision: It will be important that policy be formulated that provides clear direction for what the Village is to be, and then craft a path as to how best to achieve that objective. Stakeholders have raised the question of whether the Village is to be a “destination” or should it be more “resident serving”.  Parking: Is there an opportunity to create new parking? And if so, is there a feasible financing option? At minimum, there is an opportunity to create policy for managing existing parking resources more effectively and efficiently including an active parking enforcement program. The parking policy that is developed will have a direct affect on land use decisions and this may be best addressed by specific General Plan policies or Zoning Ordinance requirements.  Circulation: The lack of circulation, with the current one way in and one way out of the Village on Big Basin Way, creates challenges managing traffic flow. The Village Plan identifies a solution of creating a turnaround at the end of Big Basin Way, which is less than optimal, but it may be the City’s only practical option which has already been thoroughly reviewed. Are there other options? Like parking, circulation has a direct affect on land use decisions, traffic impacts and the level of vibrancy the Village can tolerate. Specific physical changes or policies that may have the potential 12 10 to impact overall Citywide traffic patterns are best addressed within the context of the General Plan and/or the Circulation Element.  Building Scale, Volume, and Density: This process presents an opportunity to better address what might be considered the most sensitive component of the Village, its physical development. As stated earlier in this report, staff believes goals and objectives expressed in the community outreach segment can be accomplished without changing the current policy in that regard. In fact, this will present an opportunity to reinforce those “small town charm” values expressed by the community by providing clear policy direction for all stakeholders.  Opportunity Sites: There is a section in the Village Design Guidelines called “Opportunity Sites” where criteria is listed indicating what is desired by the community on those properties. There was some discussion by the property and business owners about what the long range plan is for the Saratoga Village Center commonly known as the “Buy and Save” site. The property is a 1950’s style strip mall located within the first block of the Village. This property is seen as an opportunity to inject new life into the Village. The redevelopment of this property provides a significant opportunity to achieve some of the objectives raised in the surveys and by the other stakeholders by creating new retail/restaurant opportunities, the incorporation of a public plaza and the opportunity to provide an active street presence that is currently void in that section of Big Basin Way. Over the years there have been discussions about redeveloping the property to a more appropriate pedestrian oriented format that brings retail up to the street. However, the property has also created potential controversy due to the lack of clear policy needed to assure the community that an appropriate development within the context of the “small town scale” as expressed by the community will be accomplished. This process provides the community the opportunity to develop site specific policy in the Village Design Guidelines related to the kind of development it would like to see on this property. By adopting such site specific policy, the stake holders, including the property owners, the development community, the decision makers and the residents have a clear understanding of what the community desires on this key parcel, and maybe more importantly, what is not desired. The community may determine there are other sites within the Village that fall into this category as well. 13 11 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from the November 17, 2015 Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission Village Plan Kick-off meeting. 2. Summary of Godbe Resident Survey 3. Summary of Peak Democracy Survey 4. Minutes from Village Business Owner meeting 5. Minutes from Village Property Owner meeting 6. Comparison of Godbe and Peak Democracy survey results 14 City of Saratoga | Village Plan Update Village Plan Update Kick-Off Meeting – Meeting Summary November 17, 2015 Joint Planning & Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting Joan Pisani Community Center Moderators: Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director and Kirk Heinrichs, Special Projects Manager Event Summary The first Village Specific Plan Update community engagement meeting was held on Tuesday, November 17th in the Joan Pisani Community Center from 6:00 to 8:00 PM. The Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission held a joint meeting to kick-off the Village Specific Plan Update. The purpose of the meeting was to review with the Commissions, and those community members at large that were present, the existing Saratoga Village Specific Plan and the Village Design Guidelines. The Village Specific Plan set land use policy and guidance for developing and building in the Village. The Design Guidelines establishes in more detail architectural standards for both public and private improvements. In addition to the two Commissions, an estimated 34 Saratoga community members attended the event. Staff provided an introduction to the attendees with a summary of the purpose of the Village Plan update process including background information as to why the City is embarking on the Village Plan update. The Village Plan was originally adopted in 1988 and while the General Plan has been updated, the Village Plan has not had a comprehensive update since its adoption. The Village Plan needs to be evaluated to determine if the current policies still reflect the values of the community. The Village Specific Plan was presented detailing stated goals in the Plan, including land use & zoning, circulation & parking, village design, and implementation. A summary was provided of the community outreach process the City will undertake to solicit community input on the Village. It was explained that the City will use a variety of platforms to reach out to the community for feedback including a separate Saratoga Village Plan website, a crowd sourcing social media platform for surveying residents, the use of a professional polling firm to seek resident views of the Village, and grass roots efforts to reach out to community groups and organizations. The Saratoga Village Plan website will be launched in mid- December. Staff to return to the City Council in early summer, 2016, to report community outreach results. Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission Comments After the staff completed its presentation, Planning Commission Chair Leonard Almalech provided an opportunity for the Commissioners to ask questions and comment on the proposed Village Plan process. Some of the main comments were: • For the resident survey, some Commissioners wanted to know what kinds of businesses do residents want to see in the Village. • Important to understand if the existing Design Guidelines are working by evaluating successful projects and those that are viewed as unsuccessful. 15 • What is the scope of the review and update? Are we starting from scratch? What is the scope? City staff indicated that the intent of the Village Plan update is to have a comprehensive review, but currently there are no planned changes, other than improving the aesthetics, format and function of the document. Material changes, if any, would come from the community. • Want feedback from Village business owners of their views on the Village. • Survey resident use or patronage of the Village. How often they visit and what would compel them to visit more often? • Several suggestions that the Village boundaries should be extended easterly across Saratoga – Los Gatos Road to the Foothill Club, Saratoga Federated Church, and Neale’s Hollow. • Do residents have an interest in have pedestrian plazas in the Village? • Make sure we target Saratoga teens and uses in the Village to attract that demographic. • Do the residents proximate or adjacent to the Village carry more political clout when it comes to Village projects and policy decisions? • Share Village Walk and historic components of Village on Saratoga Village Plan website for community education and understanding. • Traffic safety and circulation in the Village was mentioned numerous times and how can traffic controls be implemented to protect pedestrians as well as provide for better traffic circulation. Specifically, 5th Street intersection is unsafe. • Concern that there is no light at Fourth Street and that traffic calming has not fully addressed the safety concerns. • Suggestion to consider speed bumps as found in residential areas of the City. • Is there adequate parking to serve the Village needs and does the public understand that valet parking is available to the general public and not just those who patronize certain businesses. • The Heritage Preservation Commission was interested in surveying residents to find out how interested they are in historic structures in the Village. • Quantifying the number of wineries and tasting rooms in the village. • Recognizing existing valet services and lack of outreach or understanding by residents that it is free to the public and why this adds to the perception that “parking downtown is not working”. 16 • Understanding how noise produced from Village uses impacts nearby neighbors (e.g. Oak Street). • Understanding how uses impact traffic and parking demand in the village and what uses are “appropriate” for the community. • Desire to examine Employee Parking Program and how parking or code enforcement are related to a possible program. • Discussing the appropriateness of retaining the proposed turn-around at the end of Big Basin Way as specified in the plan. • Desire to understand the evolution of the CH-1 & CH-2 zoning designations versus the CV designation. • Desire to share the video of the Archives and Architecture walk of the Village at the Joint HPC/PC event earlier in 2015. • Comment that new architecture has not been well received in the Village since its adoption in 1988. • Desire to see traffic changes in the Village area and comparison since 1988 adoption. • Desire to see info about vacancy rates in the Village. An audience member responded that, currently, there are only three vacancies in the Village. • Desire to see info about how businesses are doing in the Village. • Desire to see info about public’s behavior regarding types of business and what is supportable in the Village. Public Comments After the Commissioners shared their thoughts for the Village Plan Update, the attendees were encouraged to share their vision or questions about the Village Plan. The following were themes from the public statements at the kickoff meeting: • Parking & Traffic– Many attendees commented that there are not continuous lots throughout the Village, and this can cause a parking deficit that may deter visitors. It was stated this could be accomplished through eminent domain to make all parking lots public. The turnaround at the end of Big Basin Way was also mentioned. • Would like to see if there is a way to leverage West Valley College performances for the village. • Concern about how the space or separation between buildings is used to promote pedestrian friendly space or enhance the character of the village. 17 • Comment about existing building heights generally 1-2 stories but maximum height allowed is 35 feet. • Desire to highlight good things in the village and celebrate its identity (e.g. America in Bloom Award). Font on median banners is too small to read. • Overall Goal for the Village – The idea was brought up that community should decide how it wants to market the Village to the public and develop a “Mission Statement”. Attendees wanted the community to have a concrete answer on how the Village should be used. Survey questions regarding this topic were: How residents envision the Village?; How many hours do you spend in the Village?; What do you do when you’re there?; How often would you like to be in the Village?; Do we want the Village to attract more people or be a sleepy town center? There was a comment that the City needs to be aware of other cities’ plans (e.g. Vallco) and how this may impact the village. • Catalyst to Meet – Along with the idea of pedestrian plazas, attendees expressed a need for a meeting place. Those who spoke mentioned somewhere central and away from busy traffic to protect small children. • Public Safety Involvement- The commenter wanted to know if the Sheriff’s Office and Fire Department would be involved in the Village Plan update to ensure all safety issues are addressed. • Land Uses – The attendees had ideas for different opportunities of stores to place in the Village including more places for teens, a grocery store, hardware store, office space for early stage tech companies, “browsable” retail, and affordable restaurants. The attendees did not want any “big box” stores. There was also discussion that any new buildings in the Village should not block the view of the hills. Attendees also had divergent views on the how to view the Village as some want to stress that it’s mixed use so the Plan should be mindful of the Village residents. Others discussed the need for the commercial elements of the Village to be more vibrant and attractive to consumers. An attendee spoke of the need to build new structures that match with the historic buildings. • Trail Connections – Attendees were interested in increasing the walking paths and trails to parks now that the Quarry Park is open to the public, especially along Saratoga Creek. • Concerns of building heights disrupting views of the hills. • Assess general growth of Silicon Valley and how that impacts the Village Next Steps –Staff will present at the December 16thCity Council meeting to update City Council. 18 Page 1 March 2016 City of Saratoga: 2015 Village Survey March 2016 19 Page 2 March 2016 Overview and Research Objectives The City of Saratoga commissioned Godbe Research to conduct a survey of local residents with the following research objectives: Gauge the residents’ satisfaction with quality of life and City’s provision of services; Assess residents’ perceptions of satisfaction with, and use of the Village; Understand the residents’ perceptions of the role of the Village and vision for the future; and Identify any differences in voter support due to demographic and/or voter behavioral characteristics. 20 Page 3 March 2016 Methodology Overview Data Collection Telephone and Internet Interviewing Universe 23,589 adults ages 18 and older in the City of Saratoga, with a subsample of registered voters (19,212) Fielding Dates January 7 through January 17, 2016 Interview Length 18 minutes Sample Size 655 Adults 18+ (316 online + 339 phone) 563 Registered voters Margin of Error ±3.78% Adults 18+ ±4.07% Registered voters Note: The data have been weighted by respondent age and ethnicity to reflect the actual population characteristics of the adult residents in the City of Saratoga (Based on 2014 ACS (American Community Survey). 21 Page 4 March 2016 Key Findings 22 Page 5 March 2016 Q1. Satisfaction With Overall Quality of Life in Saratoga Adult Residents (n=655) Very satisfied 58.1% Somewhat satisfied 36.6% Somewhat dissatisfied 3.2% Very dissatisfied 1.2% DK/NA/ [Not sure] 0.9% Total Sat = 94.7% Total Dissat = 4.4% Ratio Sat to Dissat = 21.7 23 Page 6 March 2016 Q1. Satisfaction With Overall Quality of Life in Saratoga Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 Very satisfied 380 177 204 58.1%56.0%60.0% Somewhat satisfied 240 124 116 36.6%39.5%34.0% Somewhat dissatisfied 21 8 13 3.2%2.5%3.9% Very dissatisfied 8 3 4 1.2%1.0%1.3% DK/NA/[Not sure]6 3 3 .9%1.0%.8% 24 Page 7 March 2016 Q1. Satisfaction With Overall Quality of Life in Saratoga Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 Very satisfied 380 39 32 84 121 103 2 58.1%60.2%47.1%58.1%57.2%63.3%44.8% Somewhat satisfied 240 26 33 50 80 49 2 36.6%39.8%48.5%34.9%37.6%30.2%55.2% Somewhat dissatisfied 21 0 1 7 7 6 0 3.2%.0%1.1%5.1%3.2%3.8%.0% Very dissatisfied 8 0 2 3 2 1 0 1.2%.0%3.3%2.0%.8%.6%.0% DK/NA/[Not sure]6 0 0 0 3 3 0 .9%.0%.0%.0%1.2%2.0%.0% 25 Page 8 March 2016 Q1. Satisfaction With Overall Quality of Life in Saratoga Geographic Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 Very satisfied 326 9 34 282 61.1%61.7%69.6%60.2% Somewhat satisfied 185 6 15 165 34.7%38.3%30.4%35.1% Somewhat dissatisfied 13 0 0 13 2.5%.0%.0%2.8% Very dissatisfied 3 0 0 3 .6%.0%.0%.7% DK/NA/[Not sure]6 0 0 6 1.1%.0%.0%1.3% 26 Page 9 March 2016 Q2. Satisfaction With Job City is Doing to Provide Services Adult Residents (n=655) Very satisfied 42.8% Somewhat satisfied 43.7% Somewhat dissatisfied 4.3% Very dissatisfied 3.2% DK/NA/ [Not sure] 6.0% Total Sat = 86.5% Total Dissat = 7.5% Ratio Sat to Dissat = 11.5 27 Page 10 March 2016 Q2. Satisfaction With Job City is Doing to Provide Services Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 Very satisfied 281 159 122 42.8%50.4%35.8% Somewhat satisfied 286 120 166 43.7%38.0%49.0% Somewhat dissatisfied 28 11 17 4.3%3.6%4.9% Very dissatisfied 21 10 11 3.2%3.3%3.1% DK/NA/[Not sure]39 15 24 6.0%4.7%7.1% 28 Page 11 March 2016 Q2. Satisfaction With Job City is Doing to Provide Services Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 Very satisfied 281 38 29 52 91 69 2 42.8%59.0%42.1%36.1%42.9%42.5%44.8% Somewhat satisfied 286 21 35 76 83 69 2 43.7%33.1%50.8%52.4%39.2%42.8%55.2% Somewhat dissatisfied 28 0 2 5 9 12 0 4.3%.0%2.8%3.7%4.3%7.3%.0% Very dissatisfied 21 0 3 4 9 6 0 3.2%.0%4.3%2.5%4.1%3.4%.0% DK/NA/[Not sure]39 5 0 7 20 7 0 6.0%7.9%.0%5.1%9.5%4.0%.0% 29 Page 12 March 2016 Q2. Satisfaction With Job City is Doing to Provide Services Geographical Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 Very satisfied 241 9 24 208 45.3%62.0%48.9%44.4% Somewhat satisfied 219 6 21 192 41.0%37.6%42.6%40.9% Somewhat dissatisfied 24 0 1 23 4.5%.0%2.0%4.9% Very dissatisfied 15 0 1 14 2.9%.0%1.9%3.1% DK/NA/[Not sure]34 0 2 31 6.3%.4%4.5%6.7% 30 Page 13 March 2016 Q3. Frequency of Visiting Downtown Saratoga (the Village) Adult Residents (n=655) Several times a day 1.5% Daily 6.2% A few times a week 14.1% Once a week 17.4% A few times a month 20.5% Once a month 12.5% A few times a year or less 25.9% Never visited 1.8% Once a week or more = 39.2% 31 Page 14 March 2016 Q3. Frequency of Visiting Downtown Saratoga (the Village) Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 Several times a day 10 5 5 1.5%1.5%1.5% Daily 40 30 11 6.2%9.4%3.1% A few times a week 93 46 47 14.1%14.5%13.8% Once a week 114 53 61 17.4%16.9%17.9% A few times a month 134 45 89 20.5%14.4%26.1% Once a month 82 42 40 12.5%13.3%11.8% A few times a year or less 170 92 78 25.9%29.1%23.0% Never visited 12 3 9 1.8%.9%2.7% 32 Page 15 March 2016 Q3. Frequency of Visiting Downtown Saratoga (the Village) Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 Several times a day 10 0 3 2 3 1 1 1.5%.0%4.8%1.6%1.3%.6%22.4% Daily 40 2 2 7 11 18 0 6.2%3.7%3.1%5.0%5.1%11.0%.0% A few times a week 93 14 2 16 27 32 0 14.1%22.1%3.3%11.2%12.9%20.1%.0% Once a week 114 1 39 27 34 12 0 17.4%1.8%56.8%18.7%16.2%7.7%.1% A few times a month 134 16 7 43 39 27 2 20.5%24.7%10.2%29.9%18.5%16.6%55.2% Once a month 82 17 9 9 36 10 0 12.5%26.5%13.6%6.6%17.1%6.1%.1% A few times a year or less 170 14 6 39 58 53 0 25.9%21.2%8.2%27.0%27.5%32.9%.0% Never visited 12 0 0 0 3 8 1 1.8%.0%.0%.0%1.5%5.0%22.3% 33 Page 16 March 2016 Q3. Frequency of Visiting Downtown Saratoga (the Village) Geographical Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 Several times a day 10 2 3 5 1.8%11.8%6.3%1.1% Daily 34 6 3 25 6.3%38.6%6.5%5.3% A few times a week 81 5 18 57 15.2%36.9%37.0%12.2% Once a week 62 0 9 53 11.6%.0%19.4%11.2% A few times a month 111 2 11 99 20.9%12.7%22.2%21.0% Once a month 81 0 4 77 15.2%.0%7.3%16.5% A few times a year or less 142 0 1 142 26.7%.0%1.4%30.2% Never visited 12 0 0 12 2.3%.0%.0%2.6% 34 Page 17 March 2016 Q4. Satisfaction With the Village Adult Residents (n=643) Very satisfied 21.1% Somewhat satisfied 36.6% Somewhat dissatisfied 26.1% Very dissatisfied 12.1% DK/NA/ [Not sure] 4.2% Total Sat = 57.7% Total Dissat = 38.2% Ratio Sat to Dissat = 1.5 35 Page 18 March 2016 Q4. Satisfaction With the Village Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 643 312 331 Very satisfied 135 65 70 21.1%20.9%21.2% Somewhat satisfied 235 115 121 36.6%36.7%36.5% Somewhat dissatisfied 168 77 91 26.1%24.6%27.5% Very dissatisfied 78 42 35 12.1%13.5%10.7% DK/NA/[Not sure]27 13 14 4.2%4.2%4.1% 36 Page 19 March 2016 Q4. Satisfaction With the Village Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 643 65 69 145 208 154 3 Very satisfied 135 24 7 31 37 36 1 21.1%37.3%9.7%21.3%17.7%23.6%28.8% Somewhat satisfied 235 19 34 45 74 60 2 36.6%29.6%49.7%31.4%35.7%39.1%71.1% Somewhat dissatisfied 168 15 21 48 53 30 0 26.1%23.8%30.3%33.3%25.6%19.4%.0% Very dissatisfied 78 3 7 17 34 17 0 12.1%3.9%10.3%11.7%16.4%11.0%.0% DK/NA/[Not sure]27 3 0 3 10 11 0 4.2%5.3%.0%2.2%4.6%6.9%.0% 37 Page 20 March 2016 Q4. Satisfaction With the Village Geographic Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 521 15 49 457 Very satisfied 129 5 23 100 24.7%34.6%47.8%21.9% Somewhat satisfied 195 8 18 169 37.3%53.2%36.8%36.9% Somewhat dissatisfied 110 1 5 103 21.0%7.8%10.4%22.6% Very dissatisfied 63 1 2 60 12.0%4.3%5.0%13.1% DK/NA/[Not sure]25 0 0 25 4.8%.0%.0%5.5% 38 Page 21 March 2016 Q5. Reasons for Satisfaction With the Village Adult Residents (n=616) 0%20%40% DK/NA/Unsure Other mentions Prefer Los Gatos/other downtown Lack of services Nice area/neighborhood Have what I need/leave it the way is Convenient/close to all Friendly environment/atmosphere No grocery store Just like it Small town charm Place for a younger crowd Lack of affordable family oriented restaurants Business don't appeal to me Restaurant/good variety Lack of vibrancy/need more activities Not enough parking/limited parking/hard to find parking Variety of stores/shops/diverse restaurants Lack of shops/stores/need more 8.0% 22.7% 2.1% 2.1% 2.5% 2.8% 2.8% 3.5% 3.8% 3.9% 4.1% 4.7% 6.8% 8.8% 9.1% 9.2% 10.9% 12.1% 17.5% Note: Issues that were mentioned by less than 2 percent of the residents have been added to the “Other mentions” category for chart ing purposes. 39 Page 22 March 2016 Q6. Primary Reason for Going to the Village Adult Residents (n=643) 0%20%40%60%80% DK/NA/[Not sure] Other Work Gas/auto repair/maintenance Dry cleaning/laundry Shopping [food, groceries, etc.] Mail/shipping Personal services [barber, beauty salon, etc.] Shopping [apparel, gifts, etc.] Meet friends Special events, parades, farmers market, etc. Walking/exercise/just to get out Coffee/dessert Banking/financial services Dining/eating out/have drinks 1.1% 4.8% 1.5% 3.3% 3.7% 7.1% 8.2% 9.6% 9.8% 17.8% 17.9% 22.8% 25.0% 25.1% 65.4% 40 Page 23 March 2016 Q6. Primary Reason for Going to the Village Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 643 312 331 Banking / financial services 161 72 90 25.1%23.0%27.1% Coffee / dessert 161 62 99 25.0%19.7%30.1% Dining / eating out / have drinks 421 214 207 65.4%68.4%62.6% Dry cleaning / laundry 24 15 9 3.7%4.9%2.6% Gas / auto repair / maintenance 21 14 7 3.3%4.5%2.1% Mail / shipping 53 32 20 8.2%10.4%6.1% Meet friends 114 48 67 17.8%15.3%20.1% Personal services [barber, beauty salon, etc.]62 22 40 9.6%6.9%12.1% Shopping [apparel, gifts, etc.]63 19 44 9.8%6.0%13.4% Shopping [food, groceries, etc.]45 18 27 7.1%5.9%8.1% Special events, parades, farmers market, etc.115 39 77 17.9%12.4%23.2% Walking / exercise / just to get out 147 69 78 22.8%22.0%23.5% Work 9 9 0 1.5%2.8%.1% Other (Please specify:) _______31 18 12 4.8%5.9%3.7% DK/NA/[Not sure]7 2 5 1.1%.7%1.6% 41 Page 24 March 2016 Q6. Primary Reason for Going to the Village Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 643 65 69 145 208 154 3 Banking / financial services 161 9 30 36 45 42 0 25.1%14.2%43.5%25.1%21.4%27.1%.0% Coffee / dessert 161 22 22 51 41 24 2 25.0%33.2%31.9%35.1%19.6%15.5%71.0% Dining / eating out / have drinks 421 48 55 96 135 87 0 65.4%74.2%79.8%66.4%64.7%56.5%.1% Dry cleaning / laundry 24 5 2 2 8 8 0 3.7%7.1%3.3%1.1%3.7%5.0%.0% Gas / auto repair / maintenance 21 7 2 4 8 0 0 3.3%10.8%2.2%2.8%4.0%.1%.0% Mail / shipping 53 0 22 11 7 13 0 8.2%.0%31.2%7.9%3.3%8.3%.0% Meet friends 114 8 5 35 41 23 2 17.8%13.0%7.5%24.1%19.7%15.0%71.0% Personal services [barber, beauty salon, etc.]62 8 5 12 21 15 0 9.6%12.7%7.0%8.2%10.2%10.0%.0% Shopping [apparel, gifts, etc.]63 9 2 14 16 22 0 9.8%13.7%2.2%10.0%7.9%14.0%.0% Shopping [food, groceries, etc.]45 2 3 13 11 15 0 7.1%3.8%5.0%9.2%5.5%9.7%.0% Special events, parades, farmers market, etc.115 9 26 32 35 14 0 17.9%13.7%37.8%22.2%16.8%8.8%.0% Walking / exercise / just to get out 147 9 26 44 32 34 3 22.8%13.6%37.6%30.2%15.2%22.0%99.8% Work 9 0 2 2 4 2 0 1.5%.0%2.2%1.3%2.0%1.2%.0% Other (Please specify:) _______31 2 3 10 8 7 0 4.8%3.7%5.0%7.0%3.7%4.5%.0% DK/NA/[Not sure]7 0 0 2 3 3 0 1.1%.0%.0%1.2%1.2%1.9%.0% 42 Page 25 March 2016 Q6. Primary Reason for Going to the Village Geographical Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 521 15 49 457 Banking / financial services 115 8 22 85 22.0%52.2%44.7%18.6% Coffee / dessert 104 8 13 83 20.0%52.8%26.6%18.2% Dining / eating out / have drinks 322 6 40 277 61.8%40.3%80.8%60.5% Dry cleaning / laundry 21 4 3 15 4.1%24.8%5.7%3.3% Gas / auto repair / maintenance 20 2 2 17 3.9%11.6%3.2%3.7% Mail / shipping 30 4 4 22 5.8%24.9%8.9%4.9% Meet friends 92 8 6 78 17.7%56.5%11.8%17.1% Personal services [barber, beauty salon, etc.]53 3 1 49 10.1%19.3%2.2%10.7% Shopping [apparel, gifts, etc.]58 2 8 47 11.1%16.3%17.1%10.3% Shopping [food, groceries, etc.]42 2 8 32 8.1%16.6%16.3%7.0% Special events, parades, farmers market, etc.78 3 7 68 14.9%17.4%14.0%14.9% Walking / exercise / just to get out 100 8 9 82 19.2%56.5%18.6%18.0% Work 5 3 1 0 .9%22.0%1.9%.1% Other (Please specify:) _______22 0 2 20 4.3%.0%4.7%4.4% DK/NA/[Not sure]7 0 0 7 1.4%.0%.0%1.6% 43 Page 26 March 2016 Q7. Reasons for Not Visiting the Village Adult Residents (n=12) 0%20%40%60% Other Parking is inconvenient Shop near work The businesses don't appeal to me No grocery store 56.5% 7.3% 8.7% 14.7% 27.5% 44 Page 27 March 2016 Q7. Reasons for Not Visiting the Village Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 12 3 9 The businesses Don't appeal to me 2 1 1 14.7%31.9%9.6% Parking is inconvenient 1 1 0 7.3%31.9%.0% Shop near work 1 0 1 8.7%.0%11.3% No grocery store 3 1 2 27.5%39.1%24.1% Other (Please specify:) ______7 1 6 56.5%28.9%64.7% 45 Page 28 March 2016 Q7. Reasons for Not Visiting the Village Age Comparisons Age Total 50-64 65+No age Total 12 3 8 1 The businesses Don't appeal to me 2 1 1 0 14.7%28.7%10.8%.0% Parking is inconvenient 1 0 1 0 7.3%.0%10.8%.0% Shop near work 1 0 1 0 8.7%.0%12.9%.0% No grocery store 3 2 1 0 27.5%71.3%13.6%.0% Other (Please specify:) ______7 1 5 1 56.5%28.7%62.8%100.0% 46 Page 29 March 2016 Q8. Other Local Destinations for Shopping, Eating Out or Meeting Friends Adult Residents (n=655) 0%20%40%60% DK/NA/[Not sure] Nowhere else Other Los Altos Santa Clara Stanford Mall Sunnyvale Mountain View Palo Alto Quito Village/Gene's Fine Foods El Paseo de Saratoga Valley Fair Mall Santana Row Argonaut Shopping Center/Safeway Campbell San Jose Cupertino Westgate Mall Los Gatos 3.2% 2.6% 5.4% 4.3% 5.2% 5.4% 6.0% 6.8% 7.9% 8.4% 9.9% 11.8% 12.3% 14.0% 15.4% 17.7% 20.4% 26.6% 41.6% 47 Page 30 March 2016 Q9. Motivators to Visit the Village More Frequently Adult Residents (n=655) 0%20%40% DK/NA/[Not sure] Other More 20-minute parking Night club Parking closer to the shop/restaurant More play areas/parks for children Stores open longer hours More places for pre-teens/teens to hang out Restaurants open later in the evening Stores open later in the evening If there was more to do/other things to do Bookstore More community events More brand name shops More restaurants Different or better restaurants Movie theater Entertainment More parking More variety in restaurants More stores/shops Less expensive restaurants/options Different or better stores/shops 7.6% 10.6% 3.4% 5.2% 7.7% 9.0% 9.2% 9.2% 10.5% 10.7% 11.4% 13.6% 14.5% 17.6% 18.4% 19.3% 21.6% 22.6% 24.9% 26.7% 28.2% 28.6% 29.5% 48 Page 31 March 2016 Q9. Motivators to Visit the Village More Frequently Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 More parking 163 76 87 24.9%24.1%25.6% Parking closer to the shop / restaurant 50 28 23 7.7%8.7%6.7% More 20-minute parking 22 7 15 3.4%2.1%4.5% Different or better restaurants 126 51 75 19.3%16.2%22.2% Less expensive restaurants / options 187 89 98 28.6%28.4%28.8% More restaurants 120 56 65 18.4%17.7%19.0% More variety in restaurants 175 80 95 26.7%25.4%28.0% Restaurants open later in the evening 69 22 47 10.5%7.1%13.7% Bookstore 89 35 54 13.6%11.0%15.9% Different or better stores / shops 193 79 114 29.5%25.2%33.6% More stores / shops 185 78 107 28.2%24.6%31.5% Stores open longer hours 60 21 39 9.2%6.7%11.5% More brand name shops 115 46 69 17.6%14.5%20.4% 49 Page 32 March 2016 Q9. Motivators to Visit the Village More Frequently Gender Comparisons Continued Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 Stores open later in the evening 70 25 46 10.7%7.8%13.4% Entertainment 148 67 82 22.6%21.1%24.0% More community events 95 43 52 14.5%13.5%15.3% More places for pre-teens / teens to hang out 61 16 44 9.2%5.2%13.0% More play areas / parks for children 59 27 32 9.0%8.6%9.3% Movie theater 142 51 91 21.6%16.3%26.6% Night club 34 15 19 5.2%4.7%5.7% If there was more to do / other things to do 74 24 51 11.4%7.6%14.9% Other (Please specify:) ______70 39 31 10.6%12.2%9.1% DK/NA/[Not sure]50 24 26 7.6%7.6%7.5% 50 Page 33 March 2016 Q9. Motivators to Visit the Village More Frequently Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 More parking 163 10 10 50 59 33 2 24.9%15.0%14.3%34.7%27.7%20.2%55.2% Parking closer to the shop / restaurant 50 5 1 15 15 15 0 7.7%7.7%1.1%10.2%7.0%9.2%.0% More 20-minute parking 22 0 2 11 6 3 0 3.4%.0%2.8%7.6%2.7%2.1%.0% Different or better restaurants 126 14 14 41 39 19 0 19.3%21.0%21.0%28.3%18.4%11.6%.0% Less expensive restaurants / options 187 18 29 63 47 30 0 28.6%28.2%42.1%43.7%22.1%18.6%.0% More restaurants 120 15 14 35 39 18 0 18.4%23.0%20.3%23.9%18.5%11.1%.0% More variety in restaurants 175 17 13 55 61 29 1 26.7%25.7%18.2%38.4%28.7%17.8%22.4% Restaurants open later in the evening 69 5 5 23 27 8 0 10.5%7.9%7.6%15.9%13.0%5.0%.0% Bookstore 89 5 9 38 25 13 0 13.6%7.3%13.0%26.0%11.7%7.9%.0% Different or better stores / shops 193 12 28 58 58 37 0 29.5%18.6%41.0%40.0%27.6%22.8%.1% More stores / shops 185 22 10 40 74 38 0 28.2%33.7%15.1%27.7%35.2%23.5%.0% Stores open longer hours 60 4 5 22 17 13 0 9.2%5.8%6.6%15.0%8.0%8.2%.0% More brand name shops 115 9 26 29 31 19 0 17.6%14.7%37.9%20.2%14.8%11.7%.0% 51 Page 34 March 2016 Q9. Motivators to Visit the Village More Frequently Age Comparisons Continued Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 Stores open later in the evening 70 4 10 23 24 9 0 10.7%5.8%14.3%16.1%11.5%5.6%.0% Entertainment 148 19 30 35 51 11 2 22.6%30.1%43.6%24.4%24.0%6.6%55.2% More community events 95 12 9 37 27 7 2 14.5%19.0%13.4%25.8%12.7%4.5%55.1% More places for pre-teens / teens to hang out 61 5 3 31 22 0 0 9.2%7.7%3.7%21.1%10.6%.0%.0% More play areas / parks for children 59 2 30 21 5 1 0 9.0%3.6%42.9%14.4%2.4%.6%.0% Movie theater 142 16 28 41 42 12 2 21.6%24.7%41.2%28.2%20.0%7.6%55.2% Night club 34 10 2 7 10 6 0 5.2%14.9%2.6%4.9%4.8%3.4%.0% If there was more to do / other things to do 74 6 6 23 29 11 0 11.4%9.3%8.4%16.0%13.6%6.6%.0% Other (Please specify:) ______70 8 4 12 24 21 1 10.6%13.0%5.5%8.0%11.5%12.7%22.3% DK/NA/[Not sure]50 6 0 5 13 25 0 7.6%9.8%.0%3.7%6.3%15.2%.0% 52 Page 35 March 2016 Q9. Motivators to Visit the Village More Frequently Geographic Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 More parking 123 2 9 112 23.1%15.0%17.8%23.9% Parking closer to the shop / restaurant 38 0 3 36 7.2%.0%5.5%7.6% More 20-minute parking 14 0 2 12 2.6%.0%3.8%2.5% Different or better restaurants 101 3 7 91 19.0%20.5%15.3%19.4% Less expensive restaurants / options 126 3 12 110 23.6%22.7%24.7%23.5% More restaurants 102 3 10 90 19.2%20.6%19.4%19.1% More variety in restaurants 134 2 15 117 25.1%16.2%30.0%24.9% Restaurants open later in the evening 59 1 5 54 11.1%3.4%9.3%11.5% Bookstore 61 1 6 54 11.4%4.8%12.4%11.5% Different or better stores / shops 128 3 12 113 24.0%17.7%25.4%24.1% More stores / shops 153 3 15 135 28.7%20.0%30.5%28.8% Stores open longer hours 49 0 3 47 9.3%.0%5.8%9.9% 53 Page 36 March 2016 Q9. Motivators to Visit the Village More Frequently Geographic Area Comparisons Continued Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 More brand name shops 75 3 9 64 14.1%17.2%18.5%13.6% Stores open later in the evening 54 3 8 43 10.1%19.5%16.7%9.1% Entertainment 101 5 11 85 18.9%34.2%21.9%18.1% More community events 68 0 8 60 12.7%.0%15.7%12.8% More places for pre-teens / teens to hang out 37 0 5 32 6.9%.4%10.5%6.7% More play areas / parks for children 29 0 2 26 5.4%.0%4.6%5.6% Movie theater 88 2 6 80 16.5%10.3%13.1%17.0% Night club 23 3 3 17 4.3%19.6%7.0%3.5% If there was more to do / other things to do 56 0 5 51 10.5%.0%9.6%10.9% Other (Please specify:) ______62 1 6 54 11.6%9.8%12.2%11.6% DK/NA/[Not sure]48 2 3 43 9.0%12.1%6.9%9.1%54 Page 37 March 2016 Q10. Preferred Types of Restaurant-Related, Retail or Other Establishments/Stores Adult Residents (n=581) 0%20%40%60% DK/NA/Not sure Other mentions Nothing Music/night life/pub Coffee shop/cafe Book store Clothing store/men's/kids Trader Joe's Variety of restaurants/foods More bars/restaurants Brand names stores/retailers Family style restaurants Affordable/casual restaurants Movie theater/movies Grocery/Whole Foods Variety of stores/malls/shops More ethnic restaurants/foods 15.8% 43.0% 3.4% 3.5% 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 4.2% 5.7% 5.9% 6.8% 6.9% 7.4% 8.4% 10.5% 10.9% 11.4% Note: Items that were mentioned by less than 3 percent of the residents have been added to the “Other” category for charting purposes. 55 Page 38 March 2016 Q11. Role of the Village in Community Adult Residents (n=655) 0%20%40%60% DK/NA/[Not sure] Other A place for children to play A place to run errands A place to shop A place for community events A place to relax/hang out A place to meet A gathering place A place to eat 5.4% 6.6% 16.9% 22.2% 33.0% 34.8% 36.9% 39.8% 40.8% 54.6% 56 Page 39 March 2016 Q11. Role of the Village in Community Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 A place for children to play 111 37 74 16.9%11.7%21.8% A place for community events 228 88 140 34.8%27.9%41.3% A place to eat 358 176 182 54.6%56.0%53.4% A gathering place 267 123 145 40.8%38.9%42.6% A place to meet 261 114 147 39.8%36.2%43.1% A place to relax / hang out 242 107 135 36.9%33.8%39.9% A place to run errands 146 56 89 22.2%17.8%26.3% A place to shop 216 87 129 33.0%27.7%37.9% Other (Please specify:) ______43 27 16 6.6%8.6%4.7% DK/NA/[Not sure]35 10 25 5.4%3.3%7.2% 57 Page 40 March 2016 Q11. Role of the Village in Community Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 A place for children to play 111 11 26 29 33 12 0 16.9%16.5%38.0%20.2%15.5%7.4%.0% A place for community events 228 18 36 65 65 42 2 34.8%27.7%52.0%44.8%30.9%26.2%55.1% A place to eat 358 32 50 90 114 69 2 54.6%50.1%73.0%62.4%54.1%42.4%55.3% A gathering place 267 26 51 64 82 43 2 40.8%39.7%74.6%44.3%38.6%26.3%55.2% A place to meet 261 19 50 78 74 39 0 39.8%29.9%72.9%54.1%35.1%23.8%.1% A place to relax / hang out 242 16 29 83 77 35 2 36.9%25.4%41.5%57.3%36.4%21.9%55.2% A place to run errands 146 12 43 32 33 25 0 22.2%18.1%62.7%22.4%15.8%15.4%.0% A place to shop 216 10 50 46 63 44 3 33.0%16.0%72.7%31.9%29.8%27.0%77.7% Other (Please specify:) ______43 6 2 4 14 17 0 6.6%9.3%3.5%2.6%6.8%10.3%.0% DK/NA/[Not sure]35 0 1 1 15 18 1 5.4%.0%.8%.5%7.3%10.8%22.3% 58 Page 41 March 2016 Q11. Role of the Village in Community Geographic Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 A place for children to play 79 0 12 67 14.7%.3%24.3%14.2% A place for community events 164 1 17 147 30.8%7.1%34.3%31.2% A place to eat 255 10 36 209 47.9%66.7%73.4%44.6% A gathering place 184 3 19 162 34.5%18.9%38.7%34.6% A place to meet 170 6 23 141 31.9%42.8%47.6%29.9% A place to relax / hang out 171 4 15 152 32.2%29.7%31.0%32.4% A place to run errands 86 2 12 72 16.2%16.1%25.2%15.3% A place to shop 141 4 12 124 26.4%27.8%24.6%26.5% Other (Please specify:) ______41 1 1 39 7.7%6.2%1.3%8.4% DK/NA/[Not sure]33 0 1 32 6.3%.4%1.9%6.9%59 Page 42 March 2016 Q12. Qualities of the Village Valued Most Adult Residents (n=655) 0%20%40%60% DK/NA/[Not sure] Other Leisure or recreation Community gathering place Variety of businesses Preserves views of hills Historic character Walkability/pedestrian friendly Close to my home Small town charm 5.6% 7.3% 14.8% 19.4% 21.2% 26.4% 28.4% 35.5% 40.2% 53.2% 60 Page 43 March 2016 Q12. Qualities of the Village Valued Most Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 Community gathering place 127 50 77 19.4%15.8%22.8% Close to my home 263 111 152 40.2%35.1%44.9% Historic character 186 82 104 28.4%26.1%30.5% Leisure or recreation 97 41 56 14.8%13.1%16.4% Small town charm 349 176 173 53.2%55.7%50.9% Preserves views of hills 173 66 107 26.4%20.9%31.4% Variety of businesses 139 64 75 21.2%20.3%22.0% Walkability / pedestrian friendly 233 101 132 35.5%32.1%38.7% Other (please specify:) _______48 25 23 7.3%8.0%6.8% (DON'T READ) DK/NA 37 15 22 5.6%4.7%6.5% 61 Page 44 March 2016 Q12. Qualities of the Village Valued Most Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 Community gathering place 127 7 9 46 37 27 1 19.4%11.4%13.6%31.7%17.4%16.7%22.5% Close to my home 263 23 53 69 77 41 0 40.2%35.0%77.3%47.7%36.6%25.3%.0% Historic character 186 9 29 67 42 37 2 28.4%14.6%42.5%46.2%19.7%22.9%55.2% Leisure or recreation 97 16 5 31 30 14 0 14.8%24.5%7.5%21.6%14.4%8.8%.0% Small town charm 349 24 32 103 117 73 0 53.2%37.0%46.1%71.1%55.5%44.9%.1% Preserves views of hills 173 5 43 63 41 21 0 26.4%7.5%62.0%43.4%19.4%13.1%.0% Variety of businesses 139 10 25 42 41 19 2 21.2%14.8%35.8%29.2%19.5%11.6%55.1% Walkability / pedestrian friendly 233 22 48 65 71 27 0 35.5%33.3%69.3%44.9%33.7%16.8%.0% Other (please specify:) _______48 2 2 1 26 18 0 7.3%3.6%2.4%.4%12.1%11.0%.1% (DON'T READ) DK/NA 37 4 2 4 8 19 1 5.6%5.6%2.6%2.8%3.7%11.7%22.3% 62 Page 45 March 2016 Q12. Qualities of the Village Valued Most Geographic Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 Community gathering place 102 5 7 90 19.2%30.7%15.0%19.3% Close to my home 188 11 24 153 35.3%72.0%49.0%32.6% Historic character 122 4 13 105 22.9%27.3%26.3%22.4% Leisure or recreation 84 3 10 71 15.8%19.6%20.1%15.2% Small town charm 265 10 30 226 49.8%66.1%60.2%48.2% Preserves views of hills 94 1 7 87 17.6%4.6%13.3%18.5% Variety of businesses 100 0 17 84 18.8%.0%33.8%17.9% Walkability / pedestrian friendly 149 2 24 123 27.9%12.0%48.5%26.3% Other (please specify:) _______45 0 3 42 8.4%.0%6.1%8.9% (DON'T READ) DK/NA 35 0 1 35 6.6%.0%1.4%7.4%63 Page 46 March 2016 Q13. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements Adult Residents (n=655) 0%20%40%60% DK/NA/[Not sure] Other Improved bike safety and amenities Improved pedestrian safety Improved traffic circulation Increase public plaza or gathering spaces Preservation of historic character More parking 15.7% 12.9% 11.8% 17.4% 21.3% 21.6% 23.2% 44.7% 64 Page 47 March 2016 Q13. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 Improved bike safety and amenities 78 39 39 11.8%12.4%11.4% Improved pedestrian safety 114 56 57 17.4%17.9%16.9% Improved traffic circulation 139 69 70 21.3%22.0%20.6% Increase the number of public plaza or public gathering spaces 141 63 78 21.6%20.1%22.9% More parking 293 124 169 44.7%39.2%49.8% Preservation of historic character 152 62 90 23.2%19.8%26.4% Other (please specify:) ________85 49 35 12.9%15.7%10.3% DK/NA/[Not sure]103 50 53 15.7%15.9%15.5% 65 Page 48 March 2016 Q13. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 Improved bike safety and amenities 78 2 10 26 28 11 0 11.8%3.7%14.7%18.3%13.2%6.6%.0% Improved pedestrian safety 114 2 23 40 28 19 1 17.4%3.5%33.9%27.7%13.4%11.8%22.4% Improved traffic circulation 139 10 27 52 34 15 0 21.3%16.0%39.3%36.1%16.2%9.5%.0% Increase the number of public plaza or public gathering spaces 141 15 10 43 49 22 2 21.6%23.9%15.0%29.5%23.1%13.7%55.2% More parking 293 26 29 79 102 55 2 44.7%39.5%42.2%54.7%48.2%34.1%55.2% Preservation of historic character 152 5 8 66 45 29 0 23.2%7.1%11.9%45.4%21.3%17.7%.0% Other (please specify:) ________85 6 3 9 32 34 0 12.9%9.5%4.8%6.1%15.2%21.1%.0% DK/NA/[Not sure]103 21 2 11 28 39 1 15.7%32.8%3.0%7.5%13.5%24.3%22.3% 66 Page 49 March 2016 Q13. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements Geographic Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 Improved bike safety and amenities 67 3 9 54 12.5%19.6%19.1%11.6% Improved pedestrian safety 68 4 4 60 12.7%25.6%7.8%12.8% Improved traffic circulation 86 3 8 75 16.2%19.6%16.6%16.0% Increase the number of public plaza or public gathering spaces 109 5 11 93 20.5%34.9%22.6%19.8% More parking 221 1 19 201 41.4%4.8%39.1%42.8% Preservation of historic character 111 6 12 93 20.8%37.7%24.6%19.9% Other (please specify:) ________80 2 11 67 15.0%13.3%22.1%14.3% DK/NA/[Not sure]97 4 9 84 18.2%29.3%18.3%17.9% 67 Page 50 March 2016 Q14. Preferred Business Improvements Adult Residents (n=655) 0%20%40%60% DK/NA/[Not sure] Other Providing services like dry cleaners or shoe repair Increase resident or local serving businesses Increase the diversity of restaurants Increase the diversity of retail stores 12.7% 10.9% 8.4% 21.5% 50.6% 51.6% 68 Page 51 March 2016 Q14. Preferred Business Improvements Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 Increase resident or local serving businesses 141 58 83 21.5%18.3%24.6% Increase the diversity of restaurants 331 154 177 50.6%48.9%52.1% Increase the diversity of retail stores 338 144 194 51.6%45.8%56.9% Providing services like dry cleaners or shoe repair 55 22 33 8.4%6.9%9.8% Other (please specify:) ______71 43 29 10.9%13.5%8.5% DK/NA/[Not sure]83 47 36 12.7%14.8%10.7% 69 Page 52 March 2016 Q14. Preferred Business Improvements Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 Increase resident or local serving businesses 141 10 16 40 51 23 2 21.5%15.0%23.3%27.5%24.0%14.2%55.2% Increase the diversity of restaurants 331 32 18 98 117 65 1 50.6%49.6%26.3%67.6%55.5%40.2%22.4% Increase the diversity of retail stores 338 31 36 91 112 67 0 51.6%48.6%51.8%63.0%53.0%41.7%.1% Providing services like dry cleaners or shoe repair 55 8 2 21 17 7 0 8.4%12.8%2.6%14.5%8.1%4.3%.0% Other (please specify:) ______71 2 18 7 22 21 0 10.9%3.5%26.6%4.8%10.6%13.2%.0% DK/NA/[Not sure]83 13 2 9 20 38 1 12.7%20.5%2.2%6.4%9.4%23.6%22.3% 70 Page 53 March 2016 Q14. Preferred Business Improvements Geographic Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 Increase resident or local serving businesses 114 5 10 99 21.3%33.4%20.5%21.0% Increase the diversity of restaurants 265 9 27 229 49.8%62.0%55.7%48.8% Increase the diversity of retail stores 264 8 32 224 49.5%50.7%65.2%47.8% Providing services like dry cleaners or shoe repair 37 0 5 32 7.0%1.0%9.4%6.9% Other (please specify:) ______48 0 2 46 8.9%.0%3.5%9.8% DK/NA/[Not sure]77 3 4 70 14.5%22.6%7.8%14.9% 71 Page 54 March 2016 Q15. Opinion on Convenience of Parking in the Village Adult Residents (n=655) Very convenient 17.8% Somewhat convenient 36.1% Somewhat inconvenient 27.9% Very inconvenient 15.7% DK/NA/ [Not sure] 2.5% Total Conv = 54.0% Total Inconv = 43.5% Ratio Conv to Inconv = 1.2 72 Page 55 March 2016 Q15. Opinion on Convenience of Parking in the Village Gender Comparisons Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 Very convenient 117 61 55 17.8%19.5%16.3% Somewhat convenient 237 103 133 36.1%32.8%39.2% Somewhat inconvenient 183 97 86 27.9%30.7%25.3% Very inconvenient 103 46 57 15.7%14.4%16.8% DK/NA/[Not sure]16 8 8 2.5%2.6%2.4% 73 Page 56 March 2016 Q15. Opinion on Convenience of Parking in the Village Age Comparisons Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 Very convenient 117 8 25 23 25 35 0 17.8%12.7%36.7%16.1%11.7%21.9%.1% Somewhat convenient 237 28 34 54 73 48 1 36.1%42.7%49.3%37.4%34.3%29.5%22.4% Somewhat inconvenient 183 25 5 42 75 36 0 27.9%38.8%6.6%29.3%35.3%22.3%.1% Very inconvenient 103 2 5 23 36 34 2 15.7%2.4%7.4%16.1%17.2%21.2%55.2% DK/NA/[Not sure]16 2 0 2 3 8 1 2.5%3.4%.0%1.1%1.6%5.2%22.3% 74 Page 57 March 2016 Q15. Opinion on Convenience of Parking in the Village Geographical Area Comparisons Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 Very convenient 87 7 5 75 16.4%48.8%10.5%16.0% Somewhat convenient 189 1 25 162 35.4%9.3%51.0%34.6% Somewhat inconvenient 157 2 12 143 29.4%14.9%24.6%30.4% Very inconvenient 84 0 7 78 15.8%.0%14.0%16.5% DK/NA/[Not sure]16 4 0 12 3.0%27.1%.0%2.6% 75 Page 58 March 2016 Q16. Agreement With Statement Adult Residents (n=655) Strongly agree 37.4% Somewhat agree 27.8% Somewhat disagree 16.7% Strongly disagree 12.9% DK/NA/ [Not sure] 5.2% “It is important to maintain the current look and feel of the Village in Saratoga” 76 Page 59 March 2016 Q16. Agreement With Statement Gender Comparisons “It is important to maintain the current look and feel of the Village in Saratoga” Respondent's Gender Total Male Female Total 655 315 340 Strongly agree 245 125 120 37.4%39.7%35.2% Somewhat agree 182 75 108 27.8%23.7%31.7% Somewhat disagree 109 59 50 16.7%18.8%14.8% Strongly disagree 84 51 33 12.9%16.2%9.8% DK/NA/[Not sure]34 5 29 5.2%1.7%8.5% 77 Page 60 March 2016 Q16. Agreement With Statement Age Comparisons “It is important to maintain the current look and feel of the Village in Saratoga” Age Total 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+No age Total 655 65 69 145 211 162 4 Strongly agree 245 15 28 54 79 66 2 37.4%23.3%41.0%37.6%37.4%40.8%55.2% Somewhat agree 182 17 9 54 54 46 2 27.8%26.6%13.4%37.5%25.6%28.3%44.7% Somewhat disagree 109 27 5 20 40 18 0 16.7%42.0%7.8%13.6%18.8%10.9%.1% Strongly disagree 84 5 8 15 33 23 0 12.9%8.2%11.3%10.6%15.6%14.1%.1% DK/NA/[Not sure]34 0 18 1 5 10 0 5.2%.0%26.5%.7%2.5%6.0%.0% 78 Page 61 March 2016 Q16. Agreement With Statement Geographic Area Comparisons “It is important to maintain the current look and feel of the Village in Saratoga” Geographic Area Total Village Adjacent to Village Other Total 533 15 49 469 Strongly agree 214 10 19 185 40.2%66.0%39.5%39.4% Somewhat agree 141 1 16 123 26.4%6.9%33.4%26.3% Somewhat disagree 90 3 8 78 16.9%22.7%16.6%16.7% Strongly disagree 72 1 3 69 13.6%4.4%6.0%14.7% DK/NA/[Not sure]16 0 2 14 3.0%.0%4.5%2.9% 79 Page 62 March 2016 Q17. Additional Comments Adult Residents (n=655) 0%20%40% DK/NA/[Not sure] Other mentions Parking could be improved Dining options/variety of restaurants Model after Los Gatos/look at surrounding communities Need more life to the area/don't live in the past Building need updated/modernization Variety/viable store/shops Nice/wonderful/love it/general positive mentions Need more vibrancy/activities/people into the community None/covered it all 21.6% 19.8% 3.3% 4.6% 4.8% 5.2% 5.9% 6.1% 6.3% 6.6% 33.5% Note: Comments that were mentioned by less than 2 percent of the residents have been added to the “Other mentions” category f or charting purposes. 80 All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM As with any public comment process, participation in Open Town Hall is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! 81 Introduction The Saratoga City Council is embarking on the update of the Saratoga Village Plan. The Village Plan was adopted in 1988 establishing land use and development policy for the Village and has not been updated since. The first step in the Village Plan update process is soliciting community input from Saratoga residents on their views of the Village. This survey will help the Council understand what residents like and dislike about the Village, what they value about the Village and where they believe improvements can be made. Please register so that the City can keep you updated and engaged in the Village Plan process as it progresses throughout the year. The results of the survey will be presented to the City Council in May. All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 2 of 790 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! 82 As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM, this forum had: Attendees:658 On Forum Responses:291 Hours of Public Comment:30.7 This topic started on January 19, 2016, 9:08 AM. All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 3 of 790 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! 83 Responses 1. Generally speaking are you ___________ with the job Saratoga is doing to provide City services? %Count Very satisfied 23.2%67 Somewhat satisfied 56.7%164 Somewhat dissatisfied 17.0%49 Very dissatisfied 3.1%9 2. How often do you visit Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village? %Count Several times a day 2.4%7 Daily 17.2%50 A few times a week 24.7%72 Once a week 12.0%35 A few time a month 20.6%60 Once a month 8.2%24 A few times a year or less 14.8%43 3. Overall are you __________ with the Village? %Count Very satisfied 6.9%20 Somewhat satisfied 33.0%96 Somewhat dissatisfied 39.9%116 Very dissatisfied 20.3%59 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 4 of 790 84 4. Why is that? Answered 262 Skipped 29 businesses do downtown enough few gatos go good grocery like los love more much need needs nice options out parking people place places restaurants retail s saratoga see shopping shops small so some store stores t too town very village 5. What is the primary reason for going to the Village? %Count Banking/financial services 6.9%20 Coffee/dessert 10.0%29 Dining/eating out/ have drinks 40.3%117 Dry cleaning/laundry 2.1%6 Mail/shipping 1.4%4 Meet friends 3.4%10 Personal services (barber, beauty salon, etc.) 5.2%15 Shopping (food, groceries, etc.)0.3%1 Special events, parades, farmers market, etc. 2.8%8 Walking/exercise/just to get out 11.7%34 Work 2.4%7 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 5 of 790 85 %Count Other 13.4%39 6. Why don’t you visit the Village? %Count The businesses don’t appeal to me 72.3%185 Parking is inconvenient 29.3%75 Shop near work 1.2%3 No grocery store 39.5%101 No medical or dental services 3.5%9 Other 19.5%50 7. Other than the Village, where do you go locally when you want to go shopping, go out to eat, meet friends, get coffee or dessert, or some other activity? Cities you shop at: %Count Campbell 54.0%156 Cupertino 40.8%118 Los Altos 15.6%45 Los Gatos 85.1%246 Mountain View 27.3%79 Palo Alto 24.9%72 San Jose 39.4%114 Santa Clara 11.4%33 Sunnyvale 13.1%38 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 6 of 790 86 Other shopping areas you shop at: %Count Argonaut Shopping Center/Safeway 74.0%214 El Paseo de Saratoga 68.5%198 Quito Village/Gene’s Fine Foods 51.9%150 Santana Row 39.4%114 Stanford Mall 24.6%71 Valley Fair Mall 51.9%150 Westgate Mall 69.6%201 Other 10.7%31 8. What would motivate you to go to the Village more often? Parking-related: %Count More parking 79.3%146 Parking closer to the shop/restaurant I want to visit 24.5%45 More 20-minute parking 11.4%21 Restaurant-related: %Count Different or better restaurants 39.4%106 Less expensive restaurants/options 65.4%176 More restaurants 30.9%83 More variety in restaurant 58.7%158 Restaurants open later in the evening 29.0%78 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 7 of 790 87 Retail-related: %Count Bookstore 44.0%120 Different or better stores/shops 64.8%177 More stores/shops 53.8%147 Stores open longer hours 26.0%71 More Brand Names shops 41.4%113 Store open later in the evening 28.6%78 Other reasons you would go to the Village more often: %Count Entertainment 57.1%156 More community events 39.6%108 More places for pre-teens/teens to hang out 24.2%66 More play areas/parks for children 15.8%43 Movie Theater 56.0%153 Night club 13.9%38 If there was more to do/other things to do 45.1%123 Other 17.2%47 9. In terms of restaurants/retail stores/entertainment what types of restaurants/retail stores/entertainment would you like to see in the Village that aren’t currently there? Answered 234 Skipped 57 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 8 of 790 88 - bar brand breakfast casual clothing etc family food good great grocery like los mexican more movie need nice options people pizza place places restaurant restaurants retail s saratoga see shop shops small some store stores t theater variety village What do you think the role of the Village is in the Saratoga community? %Count A place for children to play 16.4%47 A place for community events 49.8%143 A place to eat 78.7%226 A gathering place 61.7%177 A place to meet 69.0%198 A place to relax/hang out 70.4%202 A place to run errands 35.9%103 A place to shop 51.6%148 Other 11.1%32 11. What qualities of the Village do you value most? %Count Community gathering place 25.5%73 Close to my home 69.2%198 Historic character 47.6%136 Leisure or recreation 17.5%50 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 9 of 790 89 %Count Small town charm 66.8%191 Preserves views of hills 38.8%111 Variety of businesses 25.2%72 Walkability/pedestrian friendly 67.5%193 12. What infrastructure improvements would you like to see in the Village? %Count Improved bike safety and amenities 17.7%47 Improved pedestrian safety 24.2%64 Improved traffic circulation 44.2%117 Increase the number of public plaza or public gathering spaces 41.9%111 More parking 50.9%135 Preservation of historic character 44.9%119 13. What business improvements would you like to see in the Village? %Count Increase resident or local serving businesses 38.8%108 Increase the diversity of restaurants 75.9%211 Increase the diversity of retail stores 76.3%212 Providing services like dry cleaners or shoe repair 14.7%41 Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 10 of 790 90 14. Is it __________ to park in the Village? %Count Very convenient 12.0%34 Somewhat convenient 42.6%121 Somewhat inconvenient 35.6%101 Very inconvenient 9.9%28 15. Do you ______________ with the statement, “it is important to maintain the current look and feel of the Village in Saratoga”? %Count Strongly agree 23.4%67 Somewhat agree 32.9%94 Somewhat disagree 26.6%76 Strongly disagree 17.1%49 16. Do you have any other comments about the Village? Answered 185 Skipped 106 - also business businesses campbell could do don downtown feel from gatos historic just like look los love make more need needs old out parking people restaurants retail s saratoga small so some store stores t they think town village Downtown Saratoga We want your feedback about Downtown Saratoga, also known as the Village! All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 14, 2016, 9:43 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3351 Page 11 of 790 91 City of Saratoga | Village Plan Update Village Plan Update Business Owners’ Meeting – Meeting Summary March 15, 2015 Florentine Trattoria Moderators: Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director and Kirk Heinrichs, Special Projects Manager Event Summary The Business Owners’ meeting was held on Tuesday, March 15th at the Florentine Trattoria from 8:30 to 930 AM. The purpose of the meeting was to gather input from businesses on what the City of Saratoga does or could do better to ensure their success. In addition to City staff and three Planning Commissioners, 15 representatives from Village businesses attended the event. Business Owners’ Comments ·Parking is an issue. People visiting the Village early are fine, but in the evening there are not enough parking spaces. Businesses have received comments that parking has led to them losing customers. Some potential customers don’t come in on Sundays because parking is horrible. ·Loading and unloading goods is also an issue. ·Valet parking services have used free public parking spaces at the expense of parking for other businesses. People don’t know valet parking service is open to all. ·Could we develop city parking garages in the Village? Could we replicate what Los Gatos and Campbell did for parking? For example, Los Gatos has parking enforcement team that prohibit employees to park in prime spots around downtown. ·There is no business diversity, mostly restaurants, hair salons and tasting bars. No clothing stores, no super markets. People come in to get their hair done or eat and then they leave. ·There are concerns the City is turning commercial buildings into office, limiting retail opportunities. It is hard to get buildings occupied, but this practice has left the Village with not a lot to shop for. ·The City should encourage retail to come in. Perhaps provide money to help owners renovate their spaces. One business owner was booted from her building because it was condemned, and the City did not help her. ·There are concerns that if buildings are sold then the businesses will have to leave. 92 ·Rent is high. Where rent is reasonable the building is old, the business doesn’t have hot water, no bathroom, the roof leaks, electricity is unreliable, but since the rent is reasonable they stay. ·We need public bathrooms, we need a supermarket, a hardware store. We desperately need public bathrooms. ·Most of us rent our spaces, not own. ·Property values are super expensive, and property taxes are huge, so rent is more viable than buying. ·Retail is very viable here, but there is no draw to bring people to Saratoga. No anchor store that can feed customers to other retail stores. Density is not great to attract a bigger store. ·Parking is bad. ·Saratoga has to realize what kind of identity it has. Retail and restaurant destination? What do we want to be? We need to maintain an identity. ·Retail doesn’t works here. Business owners have seen many stores fail because there is no foot traffic. Retail spaces do not survive when rents go up. ·We’ve lost the drug store, the hardware store. However, it is uncertain whether those kinds of stores are viable anymore. We need to step back and look at what we are successful at, and use that to leverage extra foot traffic that might draw retail. We are great at restaurants, wineries, not everyone can do that. That can be our draw. There is a wonderful opportunity to leverage that. ·We do not have an anchor store, we could have one, or we could create a central hub, some feature that would drive people. Space is an issue, but if we had a central plaza surrounded by restaurants, open air, wine tasting, outdoor dining we could draw, it becomes a gathering place and attract foot traffic. It is not realistic to think we can have a successful village with small mom-n-pop shops. ·We’ve been looking to lease for nine months and are yet to find a space. It is a challenge to identify a space that will be there forever. ·We need to control motorcyclists that go through here. We need a turnaround. 93 ·We have a city in a ravine because we have a creek. The park by the creek could be an attraction to people outside the city. We are not going to get Cartiers here as anchor stores, so the park and the creek are one of the biggest attractions here and they are hard to get to. ·There are garbage containers along the street on their way down to the creek. Take them out, have a central garbage collection point that will help people save on their trash collection. ·People just drive through, they don’t come here for retail. ·We need parking, and have some potential spaces. Oak Street School parking could be used in the weekends if we need. Traffic, turnaround, and use the creek. ·Parking is an issue. City Council has discussed the need for sidewalk improvements and a turnaround, left turning lanes on Big Basin, and taking speed bumps out. The previous construction almost devastated downtown, we can’t have that any more. Any new construction has to be planned to not hurt businesses. Campbell improved their sidewalks in a weekend. We need to make improvements but they cannot affect businesses too much. ·Closing Big Basin for the car show and parades is great for foot traffic. ·Will the Village be a destination or resident-serving? We need to decide what the Village will be, and then figure out the issues of parking and circulation. ·The City’s process for submitting applications is odd structured and confusing. ·The City needs to promote the Village, bring someone with a vision who can get us out there. People come here for dinner and then they go to Los Gatos. People need to rediscover Saratoga. ·We need to hire a professional that takes advantage of the available amenities. We need to spotlight the Village. Perhaps via car advertisement or TV commercials subsidized by the City. ·Community newsletter has a two page calendar of events, some people are doing a little bit to promote the Village. The Chamber is very helpful. ·Advertising to build awareness, but most important is for the Village to represent what it is good at already. ·Destination Saratoga works, but it features only wine and concerts, and a quiet nice village. It is embarrassing when visitors come here and ask where they can get an 94 aspirin and we have to say to go to the gas station. That is not the vision of the Village we want to promote. ·Redevelop without covering the hills. We do not want to be Santana Row. ·Saratoga Market is an office now, it has been rehabbed, but still is an office. ·Sand Hill, who is developing Vallco, is a Saratoga business. Perhaps there is a connection there we can leverage. ·There was a plan and public meeting five years ago where people did not want to approve a mixed use project. The last plan had subterranean parking. The problem with that is there is a contaminated lot and is on a water bed. Dig a lot of waste, use federal money to clean for hazardous materials, and build a three-story garage. ·What is the Village going to be? Cities can do a lot but the market will ultimately decide what comes in. Bring a retail strategist to say what is doable or not or realistic, and help the community figure out what can be successful. ·Need more parking, better parking management, and circulation improvements. Once we decide which direction we are going figure out advertising. ·Retail is not going to work at all. Los Gatos and Santana Row are too big a competition. People may come here for a restaurant. ·There is a lack of dining options and activities for kids. ·Retail must feed off of dining. ·People who work here need places to eat. ·We need to create some sort of center that can become the core. Diversity of businesses might come after dining picks up. ·Retail captures the activity that dining establishes. ·There is a Village map advertising businesses, give them to restaurants and create awareness of the businesses that are already here. ·32 years ago the Village used to open the Friday evening after Thanksgiving, up to last year and the previous last years is advertised as the wine stroll and not about the Open Village. It’s a shame. 95 ·The Village needs to be cognizant about what the wine stroll might entail in terms of safety for pedestrians and drivers. I like it, but we need to be mindful. ·There is nothing to do here. Rents are high but there is no reason to invest that much money. Perhaps invite entrepreneurs to open businesses here and start creating a draw? Chicken and egg issue, bring people or draw first. ·If we want to be reactive we need to motivate people to take the risk to discover Saratoga. This is a high risk area for retail businesses. Perhaps establish and entrepreneur fund. We need to support those people who want to come here. ·Two hour parking in Los Gatos is perfect for restaurants. Maybe let’s implement a three- hour parking limit to give people the option to explore a little bit after eating. ·Public Works has a parking map we can use to determine how the spaces are utilized, the time of day, and employee parking. 96 Village Property Owners Meeting Minutes April 5, 2016 Saratoga City Council Chambers 10:00 AM to 11:30 AM Attendance:11 Property Owners 2 Planning Commissioners (observation only) Staff met with Village property owners to discuss their ideas, opinions and concerns with respect to the Village moving forward. The following are the categories and issues raised by property owners: Parking ·Need more parking, better parking management and parking enforcement. Not using current parking efficiently. ·Better parking directional signage. ·Perhaps a small parking structure near creek? Parking issue must be addressed. ·Managing employee parking; night time concerns ·Underground parking inquiry, rather than structured parking ·There are limited parking options given financing constraints. ·Parking and circulation constraints limits Village growth ·How much growth will be allowed? ·Campbell built parking structure before businesses came. Circulation ·Lack of circulation creates traffic problems/limits growth. ·What is plan to address circulation? ·No circulation for cars is huge problem. ·Circulation more significant than the parking. ·There are no simple solutions. ·Folks buy property on Oak Street, then get upset about noise and traffic. If you’re close to commercial zone, should be prepared for that. ·Big Basin Way roundabout only a band aid; must be addressed in the plan. P:\Village Plan Update\Village Property Owners Meeting 4-5-16 97 Community Vision for Village ·Community needs to decide what it wants the Village to be. ·There needs to be a unified vision with all stakeholders “pulling on the rope in the same direction.” ·Destination (restaurants and specialty shops) vs. Resident serving (grocery store, pharmacy, shoe repair, etc..) ·Is residential/mixed use allowed or encouraged downtown? ·Opportunity with the “Buy and Save” property. ·Current Buy & Save is not the quality we want. ·Retail ground/office space above ·What is community philosophy, and what does the community want? 1950’s was nice but it’s not practical. ·Demographics have changed – destination place. Are residents happy with the Saratoga Village? ·Don’t believe our opinions are on the same level as the residents. ·Community says it will support these business, but it doesn’t happen. ·Key element to work: the infrastructure, redesign roundabouts, planned in a strong way. ·We need to be a unified voice. ·Need to bring people here, can’t survive on just Saratoga residents. ·As a consumer and resident, I enjoy walking the Village; shops, cafes, parks. College students really enjoy also, it’s coming along. ·There needs to be more things to do. ·We need more lunch places; high end Delis. ·Does the City still discourage brand names/franchises? Took Starbucks 10 years. Village Marketing/Promotion ·There needs to be a marketing strategy that includes a partnership among businesses, property owners and the City. ·There was discussion of “Destination Saratoga” from a couple years ago. Group of business owners; booklet of notes were acquired. Out of it came people contributing funds, talking about Saratoga, some amazing revelations. Promoting wine; wineries popped up. Montalvo and Mountain Winery are two great venues. ·There are periods of excitement, that then it fizzle out. P:\Village Plan Update\Village Property Owners Meeting 4-5-16 98 ·We could set up music in Blaney Plaza. General comments ·The Village needs more daytime energy/activity on the street including more outdoor dining. ·If center dividers in street not installed – pop-outs could have been extended providing for more opportunities for outdoor seating ·Need wider sidewalks ·River Rock/Trail near creek? Any discussion on this topic? General comments to use creek/park as an amenity. ·Permit processing is lengthy and expensive. ·Process should be more encouraging for new businesses in Village. ·Would a Facebook page for property owners be helpful? P:\Village Plan Update\Village Property Owners Meeting 4-5-16 99 Comparison of Godbe and Peak Democracy Key Survey Questions Godbe Peak Democracy Residents visiting Village at least a few times a month or more. 60% 77% Residents generally satisfied with the Village 58% 40% Primary reason for going to the Village Dining 65% Dining 40% Banking or Coffee 25% Walking 12% Walking/Exercise 23% Coffee 10% Reasons for Not going to the Village. No Grocery Store 28% No Grocery Store 40% Businesses Don’t Businesses Don’t Appeal to them 15% Appeal to them 72% Parking is Parking is Inconvenient 7% inconvenient 29% What would motivate you to visit the Village. Better retail options 30% Parking related more often Less expensive rest. 29% more parking 80% More shops 28% Restaurant related More parking 25% less expensive options 65% Retail related more diverse retail 65% 100 Godbe Peak Democracy What is the role of the Village? A place to dine 55% A place to dine 79% A gathering place 41% a place to relax/hang out 70% A place to meet 40% a place to meet 69% Qualities of the Village valued the most. Small town charm 53% Close to home 69% Close to home 40% Pedestrian friendly 68% Pedestrian friendly 35% Small town charm 67% Historic character 28% Historic character 48% Preferred infrastructure improvements. More parking 45% More parking 51% Preserve historic Preserve historic character 45% Character 23% Improved traffic circul. 44% More public plazas 22% More public plazas 42% Improved traffic Circulation 21% It is important to maintain the look and Strongly Agree 37% Strongly Agree 23% feel of the Village? Somewhat Agree 28% Somewhat Agree 33% Strongly Disagree 13% Strongly Disagree 17% Somewhat Disagree 17% Somewhat Disagree 27% Opinion on convenience of parking Convenient 54% Convenient 55% Inconvenient 44% Inconvenient 45% Not sure 2% 101