HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 430.3 RESOLUTION NO. 430.3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA
ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of this City has caused to be
prepared a revised Housing Element of the General Plan which addresses
the long-term housing need, and strategies for meeting that need, for the
City of Saratoga pursuant to Article 10.6 of Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the
Government Code of this State and pursuant to Article 6 of said Chapter
and Title, said Planning Commission has considered said Housing Element
and held noticed public hearings thereon and has heretofore adopted a
resolution approving said Element and recommending the same to the City
Council, and has transmitted said approved Element to this City Council,
and
WHEREAS, thereafter this Council has held noticed public hearings on
said Element as required by law, and has suggested certain modifications
and changes to certain portions of the Housing Element that had been con-
sidered by the Planning Commission during the course of its deliberations
on the Housing Element, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 the pro-
visions of Chapter 3, Title 14, Division 6 of the California Administrative
Code, and Resolution Series 653 of this City, a draft Environmental Impact
Report has been prepared and completed and a notice of completion thereof
filed with the Secretary of the Resources Agency of the State of California,
and more than forty-five (45) days expiring from the date of said filing,
on or about the 18th day of April, 1983, this Council having held a public
hearing on the proposed final Environmental Impact Report, and thereafter
said report having been certified by this Council as final, and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that adoption of the proposed
revised Housing Element of the General Plan will have significant effects
upon the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact
report, and hereby makes the following findings:
(a) Goals and Policies have been incorporated into the General
Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects as identified in the final EIR, including
the following:
(1) Loss of agricultural lands and open spaces --
the Goals and Policies of the General Plan to be acted
upon with appropriate ordinances and actions, will en-
courage renewal and discourage cancellation of Williamson
Act contracts, encourage the use of school sites for recrea-
tion, and require exactions from development to maintain
and preserve open space.
(2) Energy and natural resource use -- the goals and policies
of the General Plan, particularly the conservation element, will
encourage: the use of alternate forms of renewable energy sources,
building designs that conserve energy, use of natural passive
heating and cooling systems, tree preservation, minimize water
use and degradation, and minimize disruption to soil and topo-
graphy. These impacts will be further reduced by implementation
of existing codes and ordinances.
(3) Traffic increases -- goals and policies of the General Plan
encourage the use of energy efficient forms of transportation
and use of pedestrian and bicycle trails as alternative trans-
portation modes. There are policies to plan means of reducing
traffic impacts and addressing cumulative impacts of certain
heavily traveled roads.
(b) The General Plan contains goals and policies and land use desig-
nations for land within the sphere of influence of the City of Sara-
toga designed to mitigate adverse environmental effects of develop-
ment in that area. However, such lands are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara which, at the present
time, has adopted regulations consistent with the General Plan. Other
mitigation measures as contained in the General Plan should also be
adopted by the County of Santa Clara with respect to these lands.
(c) To the extent that significant environmental effects identified
in the final EIR have not been fully mitigated or avoided by the
Goals and Policies of the General Plan, such effects are unavoidable
since the mitigation of the cumulative impacts identified in the final
EIR depend on the actions of other agencies and jurisdictions in regu-
lating or requiring future development, particularly traffic congestion.
Thus, no feasible mitigation measures can be incorporated by the
General Plan for these impacts since Saratoga's contribution to these
impacts is relatively small and such mitigation measures are beyond
the scope of the General Plan, and
WHEREAS, after said public hearings hereinabove referred to, this
Council considered the final Environmental Impact Report in conjunction
with said Housing Element, and in evaluating said Housing Element and
each element of the General Plan, and deeming it in the best interests of
this City that said Housing Element be adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1: This Council hereby finds that due and legal notice of
public hearings on the hereinafter set forth Housing Element of the
General Plan and the hereinabove referred to Environmental Impact Report,
have been given as required by law and said public hearings on said Housing
Element of the General Plan both at the Planning Commission level and at
this Council level have been held according to law.
Section 2: The revised Housing Element of the General Plan consists
of the document noted as Exhibit "B" including:
(a) Final EIR incorporated as part of the General Plan
(b) Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures
(c) Text of the Housing Element in compliance with Article
10.6 of Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the Government Code of
the State of California.
(d) Appendices
(1) Initial Environmental Assessment.
(2) Comments and responses to the Draft General Plan/EIR.
Said Housing Element of the General Plan as above outlined be and the
same is hereby adopted as part of the General Plan of this City and all
previous Housing Elements and amendments and additions thereto, are de-
clared to be superseded by the within adopted Element.
The above and foregoing resultion was introduced at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 16th day of
May
, 1984, and thereafter was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Callon, Clevenger', Fanelli, Mallory and Mayor MDyles
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEPUTY CITY CLERK~ C~?
HOUSING ELEMENT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Saratoga, California
Adopted May 16, 1984
HOUSING ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ................... .. . . 1
SUMMARY: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .......... 2
HOUSING ELEMENT AND STATE LAW .............. 3
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ...... ~ ........... 4
EXISTING AND PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS .......... 5
Population Characteristics ............. 5
Housing Characteristics .............. 11
Income Deficiencies ................ 15
Housing Stock Condition .............. 18
Share of Regional Housing Needs - ABAG ....... 21
Distribution of Housing Needs by Income ....... 22
Rental Units and Demolition ............. 23
Sunland Park Survey ................. 23
Special Housing Needs ................ 25
Large Families and the Handicapped .......... 26
RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS ................ 28
Vacant and Partially Developed Land ......... 28
Available Public Facilities & Services ....... 32
Governmental Constraints .............. 33
Non-Governmental Constraints ............ 35
OPPORTUNIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION ........... 43
HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES .......... 44
Additional Housing Element Policies ......... 46
Objectives ..................... 47
ACTION PROGRAM 1984-1989 ................. 48
Current Housing Assistance Programs ........ 48
Five Year Implementation Program 1984-1989 ..... 48
t. Identify Adequate Housing Sites ...... 49
2. Assisting Low and Moderate Income ..... 49
Households
3. Mitigation of Government Constraints .... 49
4. Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock . 49
5. Equal Opportunity in Housing ........ 50
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................. 51
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
Significant Effects of the Proposed Housing Element . 51
Unavoidable Effects ................. 52
Mitigation Measures ................ 52
Alternatives to the Proposed Housing Element .... 52
Short Term Uses vs Long Term Productivity ..... 53
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes . . . 54
Growth Inducing Impacts . . .~ ........... 54
Discussion of Effects Not Considered Significant . . 55
END NOTES ........................ 56
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Initial Study
APPENDIX 2: Responses to the Notice of Preparation
and Comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report and Responses
INTRODUCTION
In 1956, the City of Saratoga incorporated as a minimum
service community made up primarily of low intensity residential
uses with a minimum of commercial-industrial development. Even
as the community has grown this philosophy has continued to be
important in guiding the City's future. The community character
created by this philosophy and its preservation are a major
component of the General Plan and the Housing Element.
During neighborhood meetings and public hearings on the 1983
General Plan revision, residents. of Saratoga expressed their
desire to maintain and preserve the existing single family res-
idential character of Saratoga. The General Plan Citizens Advi-
sory Committee (GPAC), considering these public comments,
suggested revised goals and policies for the Housing Element.
In 1980, changes in the State law under AB-2853 'required
more information in the Housing Element and mandated some provi-
sions which were previously advisory. Although the legislative
changes were intended to promote Statewide housing goals, the
City has limited resources to meet such goals. These limits are
described in this element as well as the City's strategies for
encouraging housing production.
Housing needs are changing in Saratoga as they are through-
out the State. Households are becoming smaller and older and
housing costs continue to rise. This document should not be
viewed as static since it may need to change as changes in
housing needs are identified. Housing strategies shall be adopt-
ed that are compatible with Saratoga's resources.
SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Upon completion of an initial study (Appendix 1), as re-
quired by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it was
determined that the proposed Housing Element might have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment and thus must have an Environ-
mental Impact Report (EIR) prepared. Many of the impacts and
issues addressed in the EIR for the Housing Element are addressed
in the General Plan EIR, which EIR is incorporated by reference.
Combining the EIR with the Housing Element allows the Hous-
ing Element, and thus the General Plan, to be modified as enviro-
nmental impacts are identified and mitigation measures are devel-
oped. The public made comments on the EIR through the Housing
Element public hearing process.
Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines requires a com-
bined EIR/General Plan (Housing Element) to address all the
points required by Article 9 of the EIR Guidelines and to identify
where in the document these points are covered. The description
of the environmental setting of the City is contained in the
Basic Data and Background Appendix of the General Plan. The
project description, for the purposes of CEQA, consists of the
goals and policies of the Housing Element as well as the
Implementing Action Program section. Environmental impacts,
mitigation measures, and alternatives are discussed in the Envi-
ronmental Assessment section of this element and the General
Plan.
HOUSING ELEMENT AND STATE LAW
Since 1971, the Government Code has required each city and
county to have a Housing Element as a component of its General
Plan. The 1971 legislation required that this mandatory element
include standards and plans for the improvement of housing, for
the provision of adequate sites for housing and provision for all
economic segments of the community. The first Housing Element
guidelines were broad in their direction and were intended and
used by local communities as a suggested approach. Housing
Elements prepared under those guidelines were not specifically
reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD).
In November 1977, new Housing Element guidelines were adopt-
ed by the State. These guidelines were considered to be
advisory as were the first guidelines. Many of these guidelines
were incorporated into AB 2853 (Sections 65580-65589 of the
Government Code) which was adopted by the legislature in 1980.
This mandated specific contents for all local Housing Elements
consistent with the State's goal of "...decent housing and a
suitable living environment for every California family ..... "
The most important changes require each locality to specifically
address regional housing needs and the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community. The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) was given the mandate of determining the
existing and projected housing need for the communities within
the region.
Although certain contents of the Housing Element have been
mandated by the State, the City must determine what "efforts are
required by it to contribute to the attainment of the State
housing goal" as long as the determination is compatible with
that goal and regional housing needs. Cities also need not
expend local revenues to construct housing, subsidize housing or
acquire land for housing. Therefore, the City has considerable
flexibility in developing strategies to meet identified housing
needs consistent with other goals of the General Plan and the
"economic, environmental and fiscal factors" the City must
consider.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Citizen involvement with the Housing Element actually began
during the General Plan revision early in 1981. There were
neighborhood meetings where citizens commented on the whole
General Plan and responded to a questionnaire. The General Plan
Citizens Advisory Committee used those comments to prepare
revised goals and policies for the plan, including the Housing
Element. However, the contents of the Housing Element were not
reviewed.
Thus, a new round of public hearings and exposure has been
required for this rather extensive revision of the Housing Ele-
ment. Public involvement has been encouraged through advertising
in the local newspaper and by extensive mailings. There are two
phases of noticing, one for the Planning Commission public hear-
ings and one for the City Council public hearings. Notices have
been sent to the following people:
1. Planning area representatives of the General Plan
Citizens Advisory Committee.
2. Presidents of local homeowners associations.
3. Senior citizens organizations.
4. Those people who indicated an interest in participating
in the last General Plan review.
5. Other interested community groups.
6. Former participants in the last Housing Element
workshops.
This provides a cross section of community interests in the
review of the Housing Element.
EXISTING AND PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
Population Characteristics
In 1980, Saratoga had a population of 29,261. This
represented an increase of 111 persons since 1975. However,
between 1975 and 1980 Saratoga added 1,016 dwelling units to its
housing stock. In 1970 the mean household size was 3.76 and in
1980 that was reduced to 3.1.
The age composition of the City changed considerably between
1975 and 1980. The 65 year and over age group increased from
6.2% of the population to 8.2%. The 35-64 year age group made
up 45.2% of Saratoga's 1980 population. Saratoga continues to
become a community of adults in their middle years when earnings
are at their peak and families are maturing. However, as the
population ages, households become smaller.
There were 1,080 single person households in Saratoga in
1980. Of these 554 were made up of people over 60 years in age
or 51.3% of all single person households. Nearly 2/3 of all
single person households were made up of women.
Four elementary schools have been closed in Saratoga since
the early 1970's because of decreases in the school age and the
potential school-age population (0-4) . Since 1975, the 0-4 age
group has decreased from 4% to 3.5% of the total population and
the 5-19 age group decreased from 35.9% to 29.2%.
From 1975 to 1980, the average size of a County household
declined 5.4% (2.92 reduced to 2.76). Saratoga's decline in
household size was twice as rapid in the same time period--10.95%
(3.76 reduced to 3.1). In 1980, there were 7,941 families out of
a total of 9,295 households or 85% of all households were family
households. This may change significantly as both the City and
County populations age.
Population growth is expected to be limited in Saratoga for
the next 20-25 years, which is the expected time of buildout. In
1982, the population of Saratoga was estimated by the Planning
Department to be about 30,000. Approximately 1,020 to 1,200
households or 3,200 to 4,200 people could be added to this total
by the projected time of City buildout.
With a median income of $47,700 estimated for Saratoga in
1981 (up from $41,143 in 1979) by the Santa Clara County Planning
Department, it appears likely that the residents of Saratoga are
more financially secure than other residents of the County. The
1981 median income is an increase of 80% over the 1974 median
income of $26,455. In 1979, 22.6% of the City's households
earned less than the County's median of $23,369 and 8.3% earned
less than 50% of the County median income.
Employment growth is not expected to be great with only 9
TABLE I
POPULATION AND HOUSING
SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND SARATOGA
C O U N T Y S A R A T O
G A
1970 1~5 1980 1970 ~ 1975
1980
Total Population 1,065,313 1,169,006 1,295,071 26,810 29,150
29,261
Pop. in Households 1,041,899 1,144,324 1,267,671 26,370 28,775
28,793
Pop. in Group Qtrs. 23,414 24,682 27,400 440 395
468
Tot. Housing Units 336,873 411,480 473,523 7,140 8,515
9,531
Occupied Housing Untis 322,870 392,401 458,519 7,090 8,270
9,295
Persons/Household 3.23 2.92 2.76 3.76 3.48
3.1
% of County Pop. 100% 100% 100% 2.5% 2.5%
2.3%
% Change in Pop. --- +9.7% +10.8% - +8.7%
+0.4%
Source: ABAG - Census ' 80 Data Profile
TABLE 2
TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE GROUPS
MAEE/FEMALE, 1980
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA
Age Groups Male Female Total % Male Female Total
%
All Groups 641,443 653,628 1,295,071 100.0 14,340 14,921 29,261
100.0
0-4 45,525 43,751 89,276 6.9 525 508 1,033
3.5
5-9 46,009 44,050 90,059 7.0 908 831 1,739
5.9
10-14 54,047 51,555 105,602 8.2 1,589 1,538 3,127
10.7
15-19 63,277 61,252 124,529 9.6 1,912 1,775 3,687
12.6
20-24 68,142 65,030 133,172 10.3 912 723 1,635
5.6
25-29 64,513 61,893 126,406 9.8 492 492 984
3.4
30-34 58,48~ 58,657 117,144 9.0 638 798 1,436
4.9
35-44 86,177 86,817 172,994 13.3 2,328 2,782 5,110
17.5
45-54 66,488 67,1/31 133,619 10.3 2,471 2,422 4,893
16.7
55-59 29,544 31,346 60,890 4.7 1,018 950 1,968
6.7
60-64 21,250 23,497 44,747 3.4 662 584 1,246
4.3
65+ 37,984 58,649 96,633 7.5 885 1,518 2,403
8.2
Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile
7
TABLE 3
HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD, 1980
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA
No'.~ Households Per Cent No. Households Per Cent
Total 458,519 100.0 9,295 100.0
1 Person 99,917 21.8 1,080 11.6
2+ Persons 358,602 78.2 8,215 88.4
Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile
TABLE 4
pERSONS 16 AND OVER
BY SEX AND LABOR FORCE STATUS, 1980
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA
Total Pop. 16+ Years 981,642 22,545
Armed Forces: 20
5,185
Male 0
394
Female
Civilian Labor Force: 8,856~
Male 391,967
Female 300,385 5,664
Employed: 8,650
375,357
Male 5,469
285,706
Female
Unemployed: 206
16,610
Male 195
14,679
Female
Not in Labor Force: 2,046
86,289
Male 5,979
203,001
Female
Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile
9
TABLE 5
HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
IN 1979
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA
NO. Households Per Cent No. Households Per
Cent
Total 458,914 100.0 9,343 100.0
Less than $2,500 11,527 2.5 109 1.2
$2,500 - 4,999 20,400 4.4 172 1.8
$5,000 - 7,499 21,026 4.6 154 1.6
$7,500 - 9,999 23,584 5.2 214 2.3
$10,000-12,499 29,375 6.4 262 2.8
$12,500-14,999 25,382 5.5 240 2.6
$15~000-17,499 29,125 6.3 238 2.5
$17,500-19,999 27,775 6.1 241 2.6
$20,000-22,499 31,637 6.9 370 4.0
$22 ~50~24,999 27,660 6.0 335 3.6
$25,000-27,499 29,281 6.4 319 3.4
$27,500-29,999 23,651 5.2 291 3.1
$30,000-34,999 43,785 9.5 790 8.5
$35,000-39,999 33,190 7.2 711 7.6
$40,000-49,999 40,830 8.9 1,526 16.3
$50,000-74,999 30,745 6.7 2,160 23.~1
$75,000+ 9,941 2.2 1,211 13.0
Median $23,370 $41,~43
Mean $26,593 $46,846
Source: AGAB - 1980 Census Area Profile
Data based on sample questionnaires used in 1980 census so total households
in this chart may vary slightly from totals on other charts.
acres of light industrial land and about 30 acres of commercial
land left to be developed. The Planning Department projects that
about 210 basic industry jobs and 908 service industry jobs could
be created between 1982 and 2005. This is based on the amount of
available industrial and commercial lands, the maximum building
coverage allowed, and the median square footage per employee
generated by existing commercial enterprises (600 square feet per
employee) and industrial uses (560 square feet per employee).
This estimated employment growth is greater than that
projected in ABAG's Pr0jections-83 which anticipated the creation
of a total of 711 jobs between 1980 and 2000. The City's job
estimates will change if some commercial lands are used
residentially.
The great majority (93.9%) 6f Saratoga residents in 1980
were classified as White. Minority groups include Chinese
(t.7%), Japanese (1.7%), Black (0.3%), Filipino (0.3%), and Amer-
ican Indian (0.2%), and 805 people (2.8%) identified as of Span-
ish origin are spread throughout the White, Black and other
racial categories. The community's racial composition has been
stable since 1970 and is not likely to change since population
growth is expected to be slow.
Housing Characteristics
In 1982, approximately 90.3% of Saratoga's housing stock was
in single-family units. Seven per cent of the housing stock was
in multi-family condominium units. Multi-family rental units
made up only 2.7% of the housing stock. Multi-family units
including condominiums increased from about 7% of the housing
stock in 1978 to almost 10% of the housing stock in 1982. In the
same time period, the number of multi-family units av.~lable for
rent increased 185% from 92 units to about 263 units There
are an additional 24 units rented to senior citizens in the
Saratoga Parkside condominium project which are bound by use
permit to remain as rentals until 1991. This reflects the City's
effort to bring more balance to its housing stock.
Saratoga had about 9,740 dwelling units in 1982, 56% of
which were built before 1965. In 1970, the percentage of units
built before 1965 was 78%. this means that, in an overall sense,
the City's housing stock is getting "newer". In 1979, it was
estimated that 1,045 units were over 30 years old.
The 1980 census measured Saratoga's vacancy rate at about
2.5%. The vacancy rate among all rental units, including single
family dwellings, was about 3.2% and was about 1% for all owner
occupied units. In March 1982, a City survey required by the
Condominium Conversion Ordinance revealed only a 0.7% vacancy
rate among rental apartments.
In 1980, 2.3% of the residents of Santa Clara County lived
in Saratoga. Saratoga's housing stock was 2.08% of the County's
total housing stock which is less than the City's proportion of
11
TABLE 6
HOUSEHOLD POPULATION BY
RACE/ETHNICITY, 1980
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA
No. People Percentage No. People Percentage
Total 1,295,071 100.0 29,261 100.0
Caucasian/White 1,017,854 78.6 27,473 93.9
Black 43,716 3.4. 79 0.3
Japanese 21,907 1o7 491 1.7
Chinese 22,891 1.8 496 1.7
!Filipino 27,444 2.1 75 0.3
American Indian 8,312 0.6 58 0.2
Other2 129,462 10.0 339 1.1
Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile
1Data from ABAG did not use separate categories for Spanish speaking ethnic groups.
There are 226,611 (17.5%) people of Spanish/Latin origin spread throughout the racial/
ethnic categories listed above in the county and 805 (2.8%) people of Spanish/Latin
origin in Saratoga.
2The "Other" category includes Pacific Islanders, Eskimos and Aleuts.
12
TABLE 7
HOUSING UNITS AT ADDRESS
BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE, 1980
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA
No. Units Percentag~ No'. Units ~
Total 473,523 100.0 9,531 100.0
1 Unit1 340,614 71.9 9,020 ~4.6
2-9 Units 55,302 11.7 263 2.8
10+ Units 60,768 12.8 244 2.6
Other 16,839 3.6 0 0
Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile
iIncludes some condominium units and mobile homes
TABLE 8
HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE
AND VACANCY STATUS, 1980
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA
NO. UNITS PERCENTAGE NO. UNITS PERCENTAGE
Total Units 473,523'_ 100.0 9,1531 100.0
Total Occupied 458,519 96.8 9,295 97.5
Owner 273,561 8,335
Renter 184,958 960
Total Vacant 9,965 2.1 116 1.2
For Sale 3,739 85
,. For Rent 6,226 31
Other1 5,039 1.1 120 1.3
Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile
lIncludes units under construction or unknown units
14
the County's population (2.3%). This reflects the larger family
size of households in Saratoga compared with the County. In
1975, 7.4% of the households in the City were single person
households. This increased to 11.6% in 1980 which was due in
part to an increase in senior citizen housing units. This
increase is indicative of the attempts to meet the needs of
Saratoga senior citizens.
Although household size has been decreasing-in Saratoga
since 1970, housing costs have been increasing rapidly. The 1970
income on the other hand rose only 119% from $18,708 in 1970
to $41,143 in 1980. In other words, housing costs increased over
three times as fast as income in Saratoga between 1970 and 1980.
These increases are particularly significant since Saratoga's
1979 median income was nearly double the County's 1979 median
income ($23,370).
Land values in Saratoga can range from $250,000 to $500,000
per acre. These high values make it impractical for developers
to use this land for low or moderate income housing.
Existing houses have experienced a percentage increase in
value since 1975 which has surpassed the increase in value of new
homes in the same time period. Thus, this source of lower cost
housing for first time buyers or those with moderate incomes is
no longer available.
Data from the 1980 Census indicates that 40.8% of the owner
occupied, non-condominium and renter households in Saratoga were
overpaying for housing. (Overpaying is defined as paying more
than 25% of a household's gross monthly income for housing.)
Approximately 28% of all non-condominium homeowners overpaid and
approximately 54% of all renters overpaid in Saratoga in 1980.
Table 9 describes the number of low income households spending
more than 25% of their income on housing.
Census data from 1980 indicates that rental costs in Sarato-
ga have increased significantly since 1975. Median rent increas-
ed 33% from about $284 in 1975 to $378 in 1980. The mean rental
cost for vacant rental units was $445 in 1980. About 9.8% of the
renter households paid more than $400/month for housing in 1975
but in 1980 this increased to 42.3%. Saratoga's median rent was
22.7% higher than the County's and Saratoga's mean rent for
vacant units was 33.8% higher than the County's. these numbers,
combined with the fact that the mean income of rental households
in Saratoga in 1980 was $20,725, indicates that most renters in
Saratoga would pay more than 25% of their income to live in one
of the available vacant rental units.
Income Deficiencies
The 1980 Census defined poverty level as an annual income of
$3,479 for single persons 65 years old and older, $3,774 for
15
TABLE 9
ESTIMATE OF LOW INCOM~iHOUSEHOLDS SPENDING 25% OR MORE OF THEIR
INCOME ON HOUSING COST
Very Low
Income Low Income
2 3 2 4
($11,685 or less) (%) ($11,686-$18,696) (%) Total
OwAer
Occupied 310 40% 239 37% 549
Renter
Occupied 258 43% 136 28% 394
5
568 83% 375 65% 943
1. Estimated from 1980 census data (ABAG - 1980 Census Area Profiles
2. Annual Income
3. Percent of Very Low Income Households spending 25% or more of
their income on housing.
4. Percent of Low Income Households spending 25% or more of their
income on housing.
5. This represents about 67% of all Very Low and Low Income Households
in Saratoga in 1980.
6. ABAG's Census Handbook defines "Total Income" as the" ..... sum
of amounts reported separately for income from wages and salaries;
Non-farm self-employment, Farm self-employment; Interest; Dividends,
and Net Rental; Social Security; Public Assistance; and all other
sources."
16
TABLE 10
HOUSEHOLDS BY MONTHLY COST OF RENTAL
SHELTER, 1975/1980 - SARATOGA
No. 19 75 No. 19 80
Households Per Cent Households Per Cent
Less than $100 27 4.5 92 9.6
$100-149 60 10.0 67 7.0
$150-199 70 11.7 72 7.5
$200-249 81 13.5 50 5.2
$250-299 65 10.8 55 5.7
$300-399 109 18.2 125 13.0
$400-499 29 4.8 156 16.3
$500 or more 30 5.0 250 26.0
No cash rent 17 2.8 59 6.2
Unknown 112 18.7 34 3.5
TOTAL 600 100.0 960 100.0
1975 Median Rent n$284 + 10
1980 Median Rent $378
TABLE 11
BELOW POVERTY LEVEL HOUSEHOLDS IN
SARATOGA, 19801
Single
Person Family2
Households Households
Head of Household
under 65 years old 47 73
Head of Household
65 years old or over 70 37
117 110
1. ABAG - 1980 Census Area Profiles
2. Includes 61 families with children
TABLE 12
PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE, 19801
Under 55 years 439
55 to 59 years 10
60 to 64 years 56
65 + years 1322
1. ABAG - 1980 Census Area Profiles
2. Racial Breakdown: 95% white, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% Black
19
TABLE 13
HOUSEHOLDS BY MONTHLY COST OF RENTAL SHELTER,
1980 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY
No. 1980
Households Per Cent
Less than $100 4,168 2.3
$100 - 149 5,790 3.1
$150 - 199 14,432 7.8
$200 - 249 24,827 13.4
$250 - 299 35,113 19.0
$300 - 399 53,812 29.1
$500 - 499 25,962 14.0
$500 or more 13,635 7.4
No cash rent 2,728 1.5
Unknown 4,491 2.4
TOTAL 184,958 100.0
Median Rent - $ 308.00
20
the City would be providing urban services to this area rather
than San Jose which freed them to build more units. On May 11,
1982, the City Council adopted a Resolution No. 1068.1 which
revised the housing need number to 458 and indicated that the 200
units in Sunland Park should be credited to the City.
In July of 1983 ABAG submitted a revised housing need deter-
mination report which estimated housing need from 1980 to 1990 to
be a total of 1,073 units. The City adopted a resolution (Res.
No. 2097) in October 1983 requesting that the total need be
revised downward. This proposed revision was based on three
major factors:
1. The rate of production required to meet the projected
need was unrealistic considering existing rates of
production and market factors.
2. ABAG had incorrectly included Williamson Act Lands as
lands available for development prior to 1990.
3. Environmental constraints significantly affect the
amount of housing that can be produced in Saratoga
particularly in the Northwestern Hillsides.
After reviewing Saratoga's revision request ABAG rejected
it, indicating Williamson Act Land had been correctly considered.
About 138 units have been built in Saratoga since 1980 and,
as in the previous housing need determination, Saratoga should be
credited with the 200 units in Sunland Park which were annexed in
1981. This reduces Saratoga's total housing need as projected by
ABAG to 735 units.
The City will not be able to accommodate these 735 units of
unmet need by 1990 because of economic factors that are beyond
the control of the City (i.e., land costs, financing costs, and
construction costs). There are also environmental constraints
affecting most of the City's vacant land. These factors combined
have created a very low rate of housing production. The number of
units constructed in 1982 and 1983 were 11 units and 15 units
respectively. Thus, Saratoga cannot reasonably commit itself to
meeting the housing need projected by ABAG.
Distribution of Housing Need b1 Income
ABAG is required by State Law to determine how the total
housing need projected should be distributed among income groups
within Saratoga. The July 1983 version of the Housin~ Needs
Determination ~projected the income distribution of housing
need, using annual household income, as follows:
FIGURE 1
.980-1990 ~V LoW .... ~ Moderate Above
~al Projected InCome Low Income Income Mod. Incclr
!ousina Need. (11,685 or less)1 (11,686-18,696) (18,697-28,044) (28,045 +)
1,073 172
22 139 193 569
TABLE 14 SUNLAND PARK SURVEY OF ANNUAL INCOME
AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1983
ANNUAL INCOME
Less than $10,000- $17,500- $25,000- $35,000- $50,000
$10,000 $17,499 $24,999 $34,999 $50,000 or
more
1 person 2 1 1 2 4
0
2 persons 2 10 9 12 17
6
3 persons 1 2 1 6 10
10
4 persons - 1 0 12 11
0
5+ persons 0 " 0 1 3 3
1
Total No. of
HH Responding 5 14 12 35 45
17
% of HH
Responding 3.9 10.9 9.4 27.3 35.2
13.3
Source: Sunland Park Survey, City of Saratoga, Planning and Policy Analysis Department
24
The distribution described in the paragraph above only
pertains to the 128 households that responded to the survey.
This represents 64% of the total (200) number of housing units
in Sunland Park. If the proportions described in the paragraph
above were applied to all 200 units, the distribution would be: 30
very low income households, 34 low income households, and 70
moderate income households.
In its review of Saratoga's Draft Housing Element dated June
14, 1983, the State indicated that the income distribution for
Sunland Park should be recalculated using the current County
median income rather than the projected 1985 County median income.
The City has chosen to use the projected 1985 County median
income (estimated by ABAG in 1981) since that date will be closer
to the actual adoption and implementation of this element than
the 1981 annexation of Sunland Park. This income distribution
seems to reflect the existing situation in Sunland Park. The
projected 1985 median income for Santa Clara County is about
$34,772.
Special Housing Needs
Senior citizens were identified as a group with special
housing needs in the Senior Citizens Housing Needs Analysis
Report (SCHNAR) (a City sponsored report) completed in 1977.
That report indicated that by 1980, about 500 senior citizens
would need various types of housing based on 1975 census data.
The task force report estimated that 9% of the people in Saratoga
would be 60+ years of age by 1980. The 1980 census shows that
actually 12.5% of the people in Saratoga were 60+ years of age.
Saratoga's population has become and is becoming significantly
older and the housing needs of senior citizens have increased.
Since 1977, a 150 unit HUD financed senior citizen rental
complex has been built on the site of the Saratoga IOOF home.
The City adopted a Planned Residential Development Ordinance to
encourage more senior citizen housing. A 72 unit senior citizen
(defined as 55+ years for that project) complex (including 24
rental units for a period of 10 years) was built. The rental
units were filled quickly which indicates that demand for rental
units by seniors is high.
The SCHNAR identified two different groups of seniors
needing some sort of alternative housing: 1) seniors forced to
leave Saratoga because of an inadequate supply of affordable
housing and increasing economic pressure; 2) seniors who owned
homes that were considered "overhoused" and had to remain in that
situation since there were no alternative housing types
available.
The report prioritized the housing types and styles that
would meet the housing needs of seniors as follows:
1. Rental - Apartment/Duplexes
2. Retirement Inn/Hotel
25
Other alternatives were identified as Senior Citizen Community,
Condominium/Townhouse, Residential Care Facility, and single-
family residences that are part of a planned community
development project.
The report estimated that in 1976 from 20 to 50 seniors were
in need of less expensive housing (i.e. these people were paying
more than 25% of their income toward shelter costs). Another 30-
100 seniors in 1976 were identified as needing some financial
assistance, particularly in terms of property taxes, or lower
cost housing. The problem of property taxes may have been alle-
viated by the passage of Proposition 13. The report underesti-
mated the rise in housing values in Saratoga and that need could
have been significantly underestimated. Most of these households
are likely to be made up of elderly women on fixed incomes which
could have more serious financial problems than their male coun-
terparts.
Prior to 1977, 20 units of subsidized housing for senior
in existe ce (Saratoga Court). Of 93 rental
citizens was already ~
apartments (non-subsized) 25% were rented by senior citizens.
In 1981, 41% of the City's condominium units were occupied by
households where at least one member was 60 years of age or
older. The following group quarters have provided housing for
seniors: Odd Fellows Home of California - capacity 200, Westmore-
land Convalescent Hospital - capacity 17, and our Lady of Fatima
- capacity 85.
Large Families and the Handicapped
When the State reviewed the City's Draft Housing Element it
requested an analysis of the special. housing needs of large
families and the handicapped. There were 52 units in Saratoga
which could be considered overcrowded (1.01 person/room). This
represents less than 0.6% of all the City's households.
Regardless of family size, overcrowding is not a significant
problem in Saratoga.
A large fa~ly is defined as 5 or more persons. In 1980
there were 1,52 households of 5 or more personsin Saratoga.
Of these, 66 units were renter occupied. Since renters, in
general, have lower incomes than homeowners, renters with large
families may find it difficult to afford the larger housing units
they need. Fifteen of the 52 overcrowded units mentioned above
were renter occupied.
There is no specific data currently available to the City
which relates household size to overcrowding so any housing need
for large families in Saratoga can only be estimated.
Overcrowded households are a very small proportion of all the
households in Saratoga, so the needs of large families are being
met. It should be noted that the mean number of rooms in units
available for year round occupancy is 7.23 units. House sizes in
Sa[atoga are sufficient to meet the needs of large families.
26
RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS
Vacant and Partially Developed Land
Approximately 1,142 acres or about 15% of Saratoga's land
area is vacant and another 454 acres are partially developed
(i.e., could be more densely developed). These lands are broken
down in Tables 15, 16 and 17 by current use and zoning. 427
acres (191 dwelling units) of the City's vacant lands have final
subdivision or building site approval. Of the partially devel-
oped lands, about 62 acres (29 dwelling units) also have final
subdivision or building site approval. A total of about 178
acres of vacant and partially developed land is under Williamson
Act contract and will not be available for development in the
near future.
Total vacant land available for further residential
development (not already approved) is 518 acres and total
partially developed land available is about 301 acres. 445 acres
of this vacant land are contained in hillside areas primarily
designated slope conservation in the General Plan. These areas
are characterized by steep topography, some drainage problems,
limited circulation and have the highest potential for landslides
and other geotechnical problems. The remaining 73 vacant acres
are located in the flatter portions of the City which are easier
to develop and have better access to urban services. About 212
acres of the partially developed lands are in steep hillside
areas or are marginal lands with potential flooding problems,
poor access, or high development costs. These areas will only be
able to support lower density types of development. This leaves
about 89 acres of partially developed.land that would be easier
to develop.
If all the existing vacant and partially developed parcels
residentially zoned were to be developed, the total number of new
dwellings that could be constructed, at present allowed
densities, would be about 950. This would increase to about
1,050 units if Williamson Act lands are included. This number
could be further supplemented by commercial lands.
Saratoga has sufficient vacant or partially developed land
designated for residential development to accommodate the City's
total housing need as projected by ABAG for 1990.
Tables 16 and 17 illustrate how vacant and partially
developed lands are broken down by zoning district. These tables
show that most of Saratoga's vacant land is in the NHR and HC-RD
zoning districts which cover most of the City's hillside areas.
These are areas that are environmentally and geologically
sensitive, lack urban services, and are generally difficult to
develop. The densities allowed in these two zoning districts are
low because of these constraints.
28
TABLE 15
VACANT AND PARTIALLY DEVELOPED
LAND IN SARATOGA, 1982
VACANT LAND ACREAGE
I. Commercial/Industrial Land 40 Ac
II. State Right-of-Way 20 Ac
III. Open Space Land 41 Ac
a 96 Ac
V. Residential Land with Final Building
Site or Subdivision Approval 427 Ac
VI. Remaining Residential Land
A. Residential Land with Significant
Physical Constraints (i.e., hillside 445 Ac
lands and flood plains)
B. Residential Land with Few Constraints 73 Ac
Total Vacant Land 1142 Ac
PARTIALLY DEVELOPED LAND
I. Commercial Land 9 Ac
82 Ac
III. Residential Land with Final Building Site
or Subdivision Approval 62 Ac
IV. Remaining Residential Land
A. Residential Land with Significant
Physical Constraints 212 Ac
B. Residential Land with Few Constraints 89 Ac
Total Partially Developed Land 454 Ac
lIncludes future residential lands designated on the General
Plan Land Use Map. These lands will not be available for
development prior to 1994.
29
TABLE 16
ZONE ACRES DU/AC2 YIELD
Residential
NHR 704 0.1-0.5 311
HC-RD 80 0.1 - 0.5 39
R-1-40,000 115 1.1 93
R-1-20,000 14 2.2 23
R-1-15,000 1 2.9 3
R-1-12,500 12 3.5 32
R-1-10,000 15 4.3 50
R-M-5000 PC 3 8.7 22
Total 9''4'4 573
Commercial/Industrial
M 9 N/A N/A
P-A 23 14.5 279-315
C-N 5 14.5 57
C-V 3 14.5 30-39
Total 40 366-411
Open Space3 ' 4
A 41 0.2 6
NHR 96 0.1-0.5 40
Total k~ 46
Right-of -Way
A 8 0.2 2
R-l-10,000 7 4.3 22
R-1-12,500 5 3.5 15
Total 2~ 39
1Does not include land in the County within City's urban service
area.
2Dwelling units per acre.
3Does not include park lands.
4Includes future residential lands as designated on the General
Plan Land Use Map. These lands will not be available for
development prior to 1994.
30
TABLE 17
PARTIALLY DEVELOPED LAND BY ZONING
DISTRICT IN SARATOGA- 1983
RESIDENTIAL LAND
Max. Additional DU
Zone Acres Density Yield
NHR1 120 .1-.5 DU/AC 48
R-1-40,000 218 1.1 DU/AC 142
R-1-20,000 41 2.2 DU/AC 56
R-1-15,000 4 2.9 DU/AC 4
R-1-12,500 31 ~3.5 DU/AC 73
R-1-10,000 31 4.3 DU/AC 98
Total 445 421
COMMERCIAL LAND
C-N 5.5 - -
C-V 3.5 - -
Total 9.0
lIncludes 82 acres of Williamson Act lands representing about
30 DU.-
31
A key item to be noted in Table 16 is the potential residen-
tial yield of the City's commercial lands. Currently, the City
allows multi-family residential use in its commercial districts
through the conditional use permit process. If these lands were
to be used residentially, or in a mixed use combination, a signi-
ficant contribution to meeting the City's housing need could be
made. The use of these commercial lands will depend on the
changing economic situation and the individual decisions of the
property owners involved.
Available Public Facilities and Services
Most of the vacant land in the City is located in hillside
areas. These areas tend to be further away from urban services,
have limited access, and have geological and other environmental
constraints on development. The Northwestern Hillsides Specific
Plan (where most of the vacant hillside land is located) calls
for the formation of a water assessment district before further
development can occur in some of the areas covered by the plan
for adequate fire protection. New sewer and storm drainage
systems will be required for development in the hillsides. Con-
trol of runoff is especially critical in hillside areas to pre-
vent erosion and flooding.
Circulation is also a significant problem in hillside areas.
Currently there is only one arterial (Pierce Road) to serve the
entire Northwestern Hillsides and few collectors. Pierce Road
road is narrow and needs improvements. The Specific Plan for the
area calls for a new arterial road to serve a portion of the area
as well as other improvements to circulation especially for
emergency access. However, funding is not yet available for the
construction of this road and other improvements. Public
transportation is not available in hillside areas.
Only 73 acres of the vacant lands without previous tentative
map approvals in the City do not have the urban service con-
straints characteristic of the hillside areas. Most of the
parcels in that group are already surrounded by existing develop-
ment and could be classified as infill lands. Providing services
to these parcels would be relatively easy since they are close to
existing utility systems and would require only minimal extension
of such systems. Police and fire protection and access to
schools are easier for these parcels than hillside areas since
the distances to be covered by emergency or public vehicles is
significantly less. These infill parcels are also better served
by public transportation since many of them are within walking
distance of a bus route.
Of the partially developed lands without previous tentative
map approval available, about 50 acres are in hillside areas with
the same constraints as vacant lands in hillside areas. Another
162 acres could be considered marginal lands that have poor
access, difficult topography, are subject to flooding or are
otherwise difficult to develop. The remaining 89 acres are
infill parcels which are in the same situation as the vacant
32
infill parcels in terms of the availability of urban services.
Governmental Constraints
One governmental constraint on producing housing in Saratoga
is the low densities that are permitted in the City's General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In particular, when the City adopted
the Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan, as mandated by the
voters, the density allowed in that area was reduced from a
maximum density of .91 dwelling units/acre to a maximum of .5
dwelling units/acre. Prior to adoption of the Specific Plan,
there were two moratoria, each of one year duration, that
prevented development in the Northwestern Hillsides until the
plan and its implementing ordinances were completed. This played
a significant role in reducing the amount of housing Saratoga
produced from 1980-1982.
The density reduction and other changes were approved by the
residents when they adopted Measure A in April 1980. The
Specific Plan addressed the issues in Measure A which indicated
that density should be reduced for environmental reasons. These
reasons included: actual and potential geological hazards, the
traffic impacts on the single arterial in the area (Pierce Road),
the cost of providing public services and facilities, and the
potential aesthetic impacts. Therefore, lower densities are
appropriate based on the environmental constraints in hillside
areas.
The City's southern hillside areas have similar development
constraints. The Sargent-Barrocal fault may act as a constraint
on development in the southern hillsides particularly in
conjunction with other geological hazards. The Monte Vista
fault, which is considered potentially active by the U.S.G.S.,
could be a constraint on development. This fault has been
partially mapped in the northern section of the City.
Concern has also been expressed that higher densities or
intensities of residential development will strain the planned
capacity of city streets. The General Plan EIR states that:
"Traffic impacts are significant primarily in a regional sense
since Saratoga will be contributing to the traffic congestion of
the region but it may also be significant to specific neighbor-
hoods." As an example, Quito Road was identified as being at
Service Level "E" which means further traffic additions would
exceed its capacity without further improvements. Also,
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road may exceed
their capacities by 1995 unless some alternate transportation
systems are used. In addition to the impacts on these State
Highways, there is citizen concern about the traffic levels on
other arterials, particularly the West Valley College and commu-
ter traffic on Saratoga Avenue, Fruitvale Avenue, Allendale
Avenue, Prospect Road and Cox Avenue. Additional development
along these roads and others should be carefully examined for
potential significant traffic impacts. Potential aesthetic and
noise impacts will also have to be carefully considered.
33
Another vital consideration is the desire to keep densities
low to maintain neighborhood character. Allowing higher densi-
ties on infill parcels creates incompatible uses when they are
substantially surrounded by low density single family develop-
ment. One of the major reasons Saratoga incorporated in 1956 was
to preserve its low density character.
Costs, in terms of time and money, attributed to
governmental processing of development applications also act to
constrain the development of housing. All projects in Saratoga
are processing within the time limits set forth by AB-884, CEQA,
and the Subdivision Map Act. But even while meeting these
deadlines, it generally costs more to build a project from the
time it is initially proposed to the time it is approved.
Direct development costs due to governmental processes in-
clude permit and application fees, park and recreation fees,
improvement bonds, public works improvement fees, and environmen-
tal review fees. The fees charged in Saratoga are comparable to
the fees charged by other local governments in the County and the
rates were established to cover most of the costs incurred by the
City to process an application. This became necessary when City
funds were reduced due to the passage of Proposition 13 and
because the City receives a smaller amount of property tax reve-
nues due to the City's very low tax rate that was in effect when
Proposition 13 was passed. In order for the City to continue to
process applications and not have other City services suffer,
those who use the development processing service were required to
pay for more of it. City permit and processing fees add about
$5,000 to the cost of a detached single family unit (see Table
18). Since Saratoga's median housing value is high, fees charged
by the City make up a proportionally. smaller percent of the
overall cost of the unit than in other communities.
Site improvement requirements and building code requirements
of the City are tied to public health, safety, and welfare. The
cost of meeting those requirements is necessary. Such
requirements could make it more difficult to rehabilitate existing
older homes.
The Uniform Building Code (1982) the City uses is created by
the International Conference of Building Officials (I.C.B.O.) and
promulgated by the State. City staff will be encouraged to
monitor changes in construction techniques and material to
determine if changes to existing building code requirements
should be recommended.
The City will also investigate the use of the State Historic
Building Code in terms of reducing the cost of conserving and ·
rehabilitating older, low cost housing.
34
Non-Governmental Constraints
By far the most significant constraint on developing new
housing in Saratoga is the overall cost of housing including land
costs, construction costs, and financing costs. Construction
costs and financing costs also affect the ability of people to
maintain or improve their homes. These costs can be traced to
the real estate "boom" in the State and especially in the Bay
Area during the 1970's. Many residents in Saratoga have
indicated that if they had not bought their homes 10 or more
years ago, they could not afford to buy them today. The City has
no control over these costs.
Land and construction costs are reflected in the value of
housing. The 1980 census was used to prepare Tables 19 and 20
which indicate that Saratoga contains some of the most expensive
housing in the region. Over 60% of Saratoga's detached single
family residential housing units are valued at over $200,000+
while only about 10% of the County's units and only 24% of the
units in the western Santa Clara County market area, as defined
by ABAG, are so valued (See Tables 19 and 20).
A scarcity of easily developable land, combined with great
demand, indicates that housing costs are likely to remain high in
the future. Continued inflation in the cost of building
materials will also contribute to high housing costs.
For most potential homebuyers, the most significant con-
straint is getting affordable financing once a suitable home has
been found. ABAG has indicated that due to the high cost of
housing in Saratoga no moderate, low or very low income house-
holds (based on a regional median income) can afford homeowner-
ship in Saratoga. Early in 1982, ABAGIestimated that the median
house price in Saratoga was $234,554. Assuming a 15% down pay-
ment, and 12% interest rate for a 30 year fixed loan, a family
would have to have $2,295/month available for home purchase.
Assuming that ony 25% of a household's income should be devoted
to housing costs (i.e., affordable housing), this means annual
household income would have to be about $110,160 to afford a
house in the median price range.
Assuming that in 1985 a very low income household will be
making $17,387 or less, and that this household will use 25-35%
of its income for shelter costs (including mortgage payments,
insurance, and utilities), the maximum monthly payment for
shelter should range from $362-507 per month. About 70% of this
cost would be devoted to mortgage payments (this is based on
conversations with several homeowners in the region.) Using
these factors and assuming a 15% down payment, a 12% interest
rate and a 30-year fixed loan,~ then maximum housing prices would
range from $29,243 to $40,968. As of 1980, there were only about
33 homes in Saratoga with a value of $40,968 or less. Most of
the existing lower valued homes are occupied by low income
households which are not likely to make room for other lower
income households, particularly if they are senior citizen
35'
TABLE 18
PERMIT PROCESSING COSTS
SARATOGA, 1982
SUBDIVISION FEES* CQST
Tentative Map Fee $1,500.00
Environmental Assessment Fee 75.00
Public Noticing Fee 200.00
Final Map Fee 600.00
Plan Check and Inspection Fee 6~900.00
TOTAL $9,275.00
Cost per lot 927.50
INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMIT* COST/LOT
Design Review $ 400.00
Storm Drainage Fee 600.00
Park Fees 1,300.00
Building Permit Fee 525.00
Plan Check Fee 341.00
Construction Tax ($0.50/sq.ft.) 1.000.00
$4,166.00
Total Permit Fee Cost Per Dwelling Unit '$5,093.50
* Based on a typical 10 lot subdivision in the R-1-10,000
zoning district and the construction of a 1,600 sq. ft.
dwelling with a 400 sq. ft. garage.
36
TABLE 19
VALUE OF OWNER OCCUPIED 'SINGLE =FAMILY
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL' UNITS BY NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
County Saratoga-
# Units % # Units %
Less than $10,000 219 0.10 2 .03
10,000 - 14,999 322 .15 3 .04
15,000 - 19,999 500 .23 3 .04
20,000 - 24,999 737 .33 3 .04
25,000 - 29,999 730 .33 6 .08
30,000 - 34,999 872 .39 8 .11
35,000 - 39,999 902 .40 6 .08
40,000 - 49,999 2,984 1.34 21 .28
50,000 - 79,999 34,257 15.43 163 2.20
80,000 - 99,999 55,199 24.86 353 4.,77
100,000 - 149,999 75,716 34.10 962 12.99
150,000 - 199,999 26,190 11.79 1,288 17.40
$20~,000+ 23,423 10.55 4,586 61.94
Total 222,051 100.00 7,404 100.00
County Median - $109,000~'
Saratoga Median- $200,~00'
,
The 1980 census counted value for homes over $200,000 as $200,~00
so the actual median value is not known.
37
TABLE 20
HOUSING VALUE
COMPARISON WITH MARKET AREA CITIES
(WESTERN SANTA CLARA COUNTY)
Western Santa Clara County Saratoga
No. Units Per Cent No. Units Per Cent
Less than $10,000 20 .19 2 .03
$10,000 - 14,999 14 .14 3 .04
$15,000 - 19,999 19 .19 3 .04
$20,000 - 24,999 25 .24 3 .04
$25,000 - 29,999 20 .19 6 .08
$30,000 - 34,999 34 .33 8 .11
$35,000 - 39,999 29 .28 6 .08
$40,000 - 49,999 104 1.01 21 .28
$50,000 - 79,999 854 8.32 163 2.20
$80,000 - 99,999 1,848 18.00 353 4.77
$100,000 - 149,999 3,357 32.70 962 12.99
$150,000 - 199,999 1,476 14.38 1,288 17.40
$200,000+ 2,467 24.03 4,586 61.94
TOTAL 10,267 100.00 7,404 100.00
Source: ABAG- Census '80 Data Profile
1 Western Santa Clara County is defined as Campbell, Chemeketa Park,
Redwood Estates, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga ( from ABAG ' s
Housing Activity Report- May 1982, pg. 11).
2
Saratoga is excluded from these numbers for this comparison
3 The data on this chart was collected in 1980 so these numbers and percentages
may have changed substantially in the past four years.
38
households. These homes may also increase significantly in value
by 1985, thus further reducing the number of lower cost units
available. Nonetheless, this lower valued housing stock is an
important asset and its preservation is a major goal of the
General Plan.
Considering the cost of land in Saratoga and increase con-
struction costs, it will be extremely difficult to have lower
cost ownership housing in Saratoga. Ownership costs can be only
indirectly influenced by the actions of the City and are primari-
ly the result of market factors beyond the control of the City.
The cost of flat land parcels in Saratoga can range from
$250,000 - $500,000 per acre (based on conversations with
development companies and certain land appraisals). Land costs
can range from $58,000 - $115,000 for a standard 10,000 sq. ft.
lot which is the smallest single family residential lot allowed
in Saratoga.
Construction costs can run from $60-$100 per square foot
for detached single family residences. Saratoga's Building
Department currently uses a valuation of about $79/square foot
for new construction in determining permit fees. However, even
assuming a low construction cost of $60/square foot and no land
cost, a 1,200 square foot unit with a two car garage (400 square
feet at $20/square foot) would cost $80,000 which is beyond the
means of the very low and low income groups (based on 1985 County
median income). Only units with living space from 488 to 682
square feet or less become affordable, but again, this does not
include land cost. (If land costs are included, unit cost would
range from $87,000 to $146,000.)
Multi-family residential construction (again minus land
costs) is estimated at $45/square feet minimum. A 620 square
foot unit would cost about $31,900 including a 200 square foot
single car garage. For these units to be affordable for very low
income households, land costs would have to range from $0 to
$9,000 per unit. Tables 21 and 22 show the relationships between
land cost, construction cost, financing cost, and density under
certain multi-family construction assumptions. These charts
indicate that even under the most optimistic conditions the
densities required for affordable lower income housing would be
unreasonable. These densities are so high that there would be
significant adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods
and on the character of the City.
Considering these factors, it is highly unlikely that
Saratoga will be able to provide lower cost housing for purchase
by very low to low income households. Rental units would be able
to accommodate the housing needs of this group, but as discussed
above these units may not be available in sufficient numbers.
Even in the case of moderate income households affordability
at moderate densities is tenuous because of the optimistic assum-
ptions in Tables 21 and 22. The financing assumption of a 12%
3¸9
fixed interest rate is probably the most subject to fluctuation.
A more reasonable assumption may be 13%. Income probably will
not reach the projected 1985 level and in any case 35% rather
than 25% of the household's income would have to be spent on
housing. The smallness of the units assumed (620 - 1000 sq. ft.)
may not meet the needs of most moderate income households.
Larger units and increased construction cost would require consi-
derably higher densities. Land costs are probably closer to
$500,000/acre than $250,000/acre.
40
TABLE 2 1
SARATOGA HOUSING NEED MATRIX - NO. 1
Household Income Level
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE ABOVE MODERATE
No. Units Needed 172 139 193 569
1980-1985 per ABAG
Annual HH 1980511,685 or Less $11,686-$18,696 $18,697-$28,044 $28,045+
Income 1985517,386 or Less $17,387-$27,818 $27,819-$41,726 $41,727+
Monthly Housing 19805340 or Less $340 - $545 $545-$818 $818+
Cost (35% of
Income ~9855507 or Less $507-$811 $811-$1217 $1217+
Max. Purchase 1980~ $23,346 $37,422 $56,168 $56,168+
Price1 ~1985 $34,813 $55,687 $83,565 $83,565+
Density (DU/AC) !
Required (Land ' fl 0 45 + 10 or less
, 98 .... 10 +
Cost: $250,000/AQ?
!1985 85+ i0+ 5+ 5 or less
Density (DU/AC) i
Required (Land 19807 -- 90+ 20+ 20 or less
cost: $500,000/Aq?
1985 171+ 21+ 10+ 10 or less
DenSity (DU/AC) i
Required (Land ~1980': .... 79+ 79 or less
Cost: $250,000/AC~i3
I
.~19'85 -- 93+ 8+ 8 or less
DenSity (DU/AC)
Required (Land i1980 .... 158+ 158 or less
cost: $S00,000/ACi3'
!1985 __ 186+ 16+ 16 or less
Current Rate of
Production (units/Year) 0 0 0 20-'+
1. Assumes 15% downpayment; 12% interest on a 30 year loan
2. Also assumes a 620 square fo~t unit costing "$45/sq. ff. and one covered p~king' '~'a~e
.(200 sq, ft.).._at $20/sq. ft. for a total construction cost of $31,900/DU.
3. Also assumes a 1000 square foot unit costing $45/sq. ft. and two covered parking spaces
(400 sq. ft.) at $20/sq. ft!..fOr a total construction cost .of $53,000/DU
-- Signifies that household could not afford to pay for the loan just covering
construction costs.
TABLE 2 2
SARATOGA HOUSING NEED MATRIX ' No. 2
'VERY LO~ LOW MODERATE ABOVE MODERATE
Density (DU/AC ] 1980~ ...... 19+ 19 or less
Required (Land
Cost: $250,000/AC)t~ ! 1985' -- 19+ 6+ 6 or less
Density (DU/AC) ] 1980~ .... 37+ 37 or less
Required (Land 1
CoSt: $500,000/AC) .~ 1985i -- .. 39+ 12+ 12 or less
Density (DU/AC) 1980 =: ...... ?
Required (Land
Cost: $250,000/AC)2 ~-+1985~ .... 20+ 20 or less
Density (DU/AC
Required (Land
Cost: $500,000/AC)2 i 1985i .... 40+ 40 or less
-- Signifies that household could not afford to pay for the loan just covering construction
costs.
1, .~lso assumes a 620 square foot unit costing $60/sq. ft. and one covered Darkina ~Dace
(200 sq. ft.)'at $28/sq. ft. for a total construction cost of $42,800/DU.
.Z Also assumes a 1000 square foot unit costinq $60/sc/ft/and two covered Darking spaces'
(400 sq. ft..)'at $28 sq. ft. for a total construction cost of $71,200/DU.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Part of the goal of creating affordable housing is creating
energy efficient housing. Reducing energy costs allows low to
moderate income families to spend scarce financial resources on
other necessities. But energy conservation is also essential for
higher income households as well. As energy use declines,
demands for new energy sources drop and so do the costs of energy
thus benefiting everybody. Saratoga is committed to energy
conservation as can be seen by examining housing goal H.4.0 and
its supporting policies.
However, much needs to be done to encourage energy
conservation and uses of alternative energy sources, particularly
solar energy systems. The City should provide information to
homeowners and developers on energy conservation techniques. An
energy information center with pamphlets and bibliographies on
energy conservation would be appropriate.
City Ordinances need to be revised to encourage energy
conservation and use of non-polluting sources of energy.
Currently the City's Design Review Ordinance requires City review
of the impact a new structure or addition may have on the solar
access of adjacent properties. Also, all subdivisions, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, are required to assess
passive and natural heating and cooling opportunities available
to lots in the subdivision. Generally speaking, many of the lots
in Saratoga are large enough so that solar access is not a
problem.
The City uses SHARP funds to provide insulation in
rehabilitated homes for low and moderate income households. This
program could be expanded to include other homes, occupied by low
and moderate income households, that do not need other
rehabilitation work.
The City could encourage cluster type development to promote
energy conservation. Ordinances should be revised to encourage
proper orientation for heating and cooling. Variations in ordi-
nance standards to accomplish energy conservation should also be
seriously considered by the City.
43
ACTION PROGRAM 1984-1989
The following sections describe the actions the City of
Saratoga is taking and intends to take between 1984-1989 to
ensure that the goals and policies of the Housing Element are
implemented or modified to meet new needs as they arise.
Current Housing Assistance Program
The City has used federal funds to implement the Saratoga
Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) which has
consisted primarily of a home improvement loan subsidy program
for low and moderate income homeowners to repair and bring their
homes up to code standards. Units eligible for this program are
primarily concentrated in three areas: Saratoga Gardens, the
Quito area and the Elva-Paul-Springer area which are the oldest
areas of the City. The purpose of this program is to
rehabililtate deteriorating housing units thus maintaining a
housing stock for low to moderate income housholds. Thus far the
program has rehabilitated approximataely 50 units.
Recently the program has been used for street and draingaae
improvements in two areas (Quito and Paul Ave.) as a means of
improving the environment where many of these low to moderate
income units are located. The City intends to continue this
program, but the objectives will have to be scaled down due to
declining federal monies and the loss of a program staff member.
The City of Saratoga has authorized the Santa Clara Housing
Authority to operate within the City. The City will continue to
support, to the extent feasible, existing Section 8 units.
The City adopted a condominium conversion ordinance in 1976
as a result of the continued loss of rental units that displaced
many lower income households. This ordinance prevents conversion
of apartments unless more than 2% of the City's housing stock is
in rental units and the apartment vacancy rate is over 3%.
A Planned Residential Ordinance was adopted by the City in
1977 to allow greater flexibility in developing residential
projects and higher density for senior citizen housing projects.
This ordinance is tied to the Planned Development (P-D) General
Plan Designation which was developed to meet the goals of the
1974 Housing Element.
Five Year Implementation Program 1984-1989
State law requires each community to develop a five year
schedule of actions it is undertaking or will undertake to
implement the Housing Element. In addition to the continuation
of the programs listed above the City of Saratoga intends to
accomplish the following:
48
1. Identify Adequate Housing Sites
The City currently has sufficient land to accomodate the
needs of the above moderate income households projected by ABAG
for 1990. Land costs and other economic factors require
densities that would be highly impractical for the City to
maintain to provide affordable housing for otherincome groups
especially the very low and low income households. Some in these
groups will be housed in second units once a second unit
ordinance is adopted.
The City does have 31 acres of commercial land which could
be used for multi-family housing, either ownership or rental,
upon receipt of a use permit. These commercial lands represent
potentially 366-411 dwelling units which could provide some of
the low to moderate income housing needs projected by ABAG.
This could happen if market conditions favored the use of
this land for residential purposes. The City has no way of
accurately predicting how this land will be used but it is
available for multi-family residential purposes.
2. Assisting Low and Moderate Income Households
The City will continue to particpate with the Santa Clara
County Housing Authority in the Section 8 Rental Program. As an
incentive to create additional rental units, the City will
maintain its policy of not interfering with free market rental
practices.
3. Mitigation of Government Constraints
The City will encourage staff to monitor construction
techniques and materials to determine if the building code needs
amendment to allow innovative cost saving techniques consistent
with safety. Within the constraints of State law the City will
allow for focused E.I.R.'s and mitigated Negative Declarations
whenever possible in lieu of full E.I.R.'s. The Community
Development Department will have the primary responsibility in
carrying out this program.
4. Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock
The City of Saratoga will continue its housing
rehabilitation program as long as federal funds are available.
The primary focus of the program will continue to be the
preservation of the existing older housing stock available to low
and moderate income households. The City will continue to seek
funds to improve this housing stock and its environs. The
primary responsibility for this will fall to the City Manager's
Office and the HCD Coordinator.
5. Equal Opportunity in Housing
Currently there is no evidence of discrimination based on
race, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, color or marital
status.
The City will encourage fair housing practices by coopera-
ting with non-profit housing and citizen organizations. The City
will also encourage citizen participation from all segments of
the community in identifying and discussing housing issues.
Where appropriate, the City has used available HCDA funds to
preserve existing low to moderate income projects in the past and
may consider using HCDA funds in the same manner in the future.
50
(maximum) of 1150 units; 943 single family units and 207
multifamily units) and a worst case situation of an ambient
temperature of 35 degrees A and a vehicle speed of 20 mph. In a
cumulative regional sense, these additional pollutants may have a
significant impact when combined with other development projects
in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. The solution to that
problem is beyond the scope of this EIR. However, the City is
encouraging the use of some alternative forms of transportation
in the General Plan's Goals and Policies to reduce this impact
(see Mitigation Measures).
CAL-TRANS has calculated the 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide
concentrations likely to occur on Saratoga's most heavily
traveled arterial (Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd.) using the CALINE 3
model. The 1-hour concentration was calculated at a maximum of
6.5 ppm by the year 2000. Neither of these concentrations exceed
current State standards for 20 ppm for 1 hour and 9 ppm for 8
hours. These calculations assumed: 3500 trips at peak hour,
20 mph average speed, 6 hours D stability class at 17 gm/mile
emission factor and 2 hours F stability class at 29 gm/mile, 1
hour peak ambient of 6 ppm, and a variety of wind angles. It
should be noted that CALINE 3 has only been validated for freeway
conditions, not stop and go traffic. However, the assumptions
used in this calculation appear to suit Saratoga's situation the
best.
UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
The discussion on unavoidable effects of the General Plan/EIR of
Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference and made part of
this Housing Element/EIR.
The most significant unavoidable effect is the irreversible
commitment of agricultural and open space lands (some of which
provide wildlife habitat) to residential uses. The size and value
of the agricultural parcels indicates that their use
agriculturally will not remain economical. Implementation of
certain policies of the General Plan could mitigate traffic,
freeway use and resource use impacts, but such impacts cannot be
eliminated entirely. Disruption to the physical environment can
also be partially mitigated, by minimizing grading and directing
increased runoff into planned drainage systems as required by
City code, but permanent placement of housing units is
inevitable.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The discussion on mitigation measures of the General Plan/EIR of
Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference and made part of
this Housing Element/EIR.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT
A. No project (i.e., no amendment to the existing Housing
Element): without the pr6'posed amendment low to moderate income
52¸
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES:
The discussion on significant environmental changes of the
General Plan/EIR of Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference.
Use of remaining vacant parcels for residential purposes involves
an irretrievable commitment of land which, with only 15% of the
City undeveloped, is a scarce resource. Residential construction
will require greater use of energy and natural resources.
The irreversible commitment of these resources would result from
meeting the State's goal of providing housing.
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The discussion on growth inducing impacts of the General Plan/EIR
of Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference.
Excluding the vacant parcels in the hillsides which are primarily
dealt with in the Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan, the
remaining vacant parcels in the City would be developed as infill
projects which will not require the significant extension of
urban services. No agency providing basic services such as
sewage treatment, water, fire protection, electricity, gas, etc.,
has indicated that these services cannot be provided. The
infrastructure outside the Northwestern/Hillside Area will not be
significantly changed other than street improvements to serve
individual projects on parcels of 10 acres or less in size.
Growth Projections
The discussion on growth projections of the General Plan/EIR of
Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference.
A. Residential Population
The General Plan/EIR projected that approximately 1,020-1,200
units based on the densities in that plan would be constructed at
buildout in addition to the 9,740 units already in the City.
3,200-4,200 people could be added to the City's estimated popula-
tion of about 30,000. Even with those increases, the total
population of Saratoga would be under the 35,000 person carrying
capacity originally established in the 1974 General Plan.
B. Traffic Growth
The General Plan/EIR projected that 25.6% of the future traffic
of the City or about 10,000 - 11,000 ADT (Average Daily Trips)
will be generated by residential use at buildout. In general
terms, those increases were not determined to have an adverse
impact when spread over the City. With increased densities, 85-
127 additional units could be construacted in excess of the 1020
DU anticipated in the General Plan/EIR. This represents an
increase of 498-762 ADT over that projected in the General Plan/
EIR or about a 1-2% increase in the total projected increased
54
traffic for all uses.
This increase is not substantial based on current or projected
ADT figures. However, individual roadways such as Quito Road,
with poor service levels, could be impacted.
DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT
No housing units will be located in severe geologic hazard areas.
The major hazard areas are located in the hillside areas which
require geotechnical and soil studies prior to development.
Further information on these hazards can be found in the EIR for
the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan and the EIR's for
specific subdivisions in the hillsides.
Some soil disruption and vegetation removal is necessary with any
project involving construction. Saratoga has a very stringent
grading ordinance and development review procedure which tends to
significantly reduce such impacts. The City's tree ordinance
prohibits removal of any tree over 12 inches in diameter
measuring 2 feet above grade. Erosion control plantings are
required for hillside subdivisions. (See above referenced EIR's
for further information).
'55
END NOTES
1Data based on apartment surveys done by Planning Department
staff from 1978-1982.
2ABAG
3A high correlation has been established in other communities
between visible exterior physical problems and similarily
extensive problems on the interior.
4Based on a 1980 Santa Clara County Median Income of $23,370
50% of median = Very Low Income
50-80% of median = Low Income
80-120% of median= Moderate Income
120%+ of median = Above Moderate Income
5Draft Interim Housing Element, dated June 26, 1981, Pg. 2.
6ABAG - Census '80 data bulletins
56¸
APPENDIX 1
FORM EIA-lb
CITY OF SARATOGA
CRITERIA FOR DETEP~INING
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY)
PROJECT: Revised Housing Elen~/nt FILE NO: GPA 83-1
LOCATION: City Of Saratoga
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Propone.'&: .City Of Saratoga
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 13777 Fruitvale Avenue~
Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867-3438
3. Date of Checklist Submitted: 12/3/82
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City Of Saratcg_a
-- -. 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: ...P]OL1Si/lg Element
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe"answers are required on attached
sheets.)
YES MAYBE
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-
crowding of the soil?
Hi.qher densities might require greater.
disruptions to soil.
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
YES MAYBE N
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? X
Increased runoff from hiqher density development
- Could increase erosion.
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of a lake?
g. Exposure of people Or property to geologic hazards
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar hazards? X
'- Geologic hazard similar to other areas in
_region. Mitigating policies are in General Plan.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? X
-but-that-amDunt_would h~ ~ll ~m a r~nm~l sense.
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or region-
ally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currentS, or the course or direction of
water movements in fresh water?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X
Higher densities could increase the arepunt of
impe~Q~$ surface thus increasinq runoff.
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
-2-
YES MAYBE
d. Change in the amount of surface water or any
water in any water body? X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
See 3(g) abov~
i. Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
j. Significant changes in'the temperature, flow, or
~ chemical conte~t of surface thermal springs? ]{
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
ao Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass
crops, and aquatic plants)?
MDre ~getation could, be removed with higher
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants?
None known
-3-
YES MAYBE
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
Some orchard space will be lost as parcels are
developed but most development will occur in areas
~l~ady d~s'i~b=d fu~ d~v~iupn~nt.
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of animals (birds, land animals includ-
ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? X
k~ ]and is aeve_l~oped ~la]~ fe habifat will be lost.
b.' Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals? X
0. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat?
See
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X ......
~q~_r~ry nnnq~n~Cf~n n~q~ w~ll have ~nn~, inpact
b.. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. L~.~ht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light
or glare?
-4-
YES ~t~YBE
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area? X
~igher densities on sc~e sites could be necessary to
impleTent the Housing Element.
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? X
Construction, in cumulative sense, increases use
of natural resources.
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource? X
In conjunction with regional devel_opment, fossil
10. RiSk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
11. POpqlati0~, Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? X
Higher ~ensities would create larger population.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? X
~n,~n~ Rl~m~_nf_q w~ l l ~nen~a~e_ main~Pnance of
~ ~ r~ nn~ 1 n~.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result
in:
a. ~neration of substantial additional vehicular
movement? X
~fic. ~s~ ~uld ~ s~s~al for se
~~s.
-5-
YES MAYBE
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand
for new parking? X
Tnc~ n~_~mher Of resi~a-en~_~ that shop~ ~n
c. SUbstantial 'impact upon existing transportation
systems ? X
Traffic ~~es ~ld ha~ ~ct on ~s~
s~eet ~s~. .
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
Increase in traffic may make use of major thoroughfares,
14. PUblic Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools ?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? . X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
f. Other governmental services? X
Development of v~cant parcels will require the
increase of fire and police services but only
minimally especially since infill parcels will
be focus for hi~qher density. New roads and
jalca~a3sed traffic will increase need for maintenance.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
_Incn~ nlm~_r of people: fr~ff~, w~'l l in~ase
__ ef ener~. ~ .......
~ m~ e~ e~lci~[.
YES MAYBE Nf
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development of
new sources of energy? X. --
T3kely increase in fossil fuel demand. CuTulative impact
~th develoFment in other jurisdictions may recg,~re develop-
16. Util~rP~.Of~ ~/~csal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communications systems? X
c. water? X
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? ..... X __
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
Higher densities will occur in flatland infill
sites that will require no significant extension
of 'urban services. Slightly higher ~opulation
will increase demands on these services.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health) ?
t b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
~'~On of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ........ ~
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon
the hd'ality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities? X
Some recreaticn opportunities will be lost if school
sites or City property are developed for housing.
YES MAYBE
20.Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
21. Mandatory Finding.s ~f Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish'or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? X
Project ~ould potentia_ll_v reduce c~,~a]~ty_ add
n,~nf~fv ~f w-i]a]~ fe bahif_at.
Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
Over long term some existing open space
areas will be developed and will not be
available for other use.
-8-
YES MAYBE
c- Does the project have impacts which are indivi-
dually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the e. ffect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant. ) X
Project will have cumulative impact on energy
resources and other natural resources. Contribution
to regional traffic problem.
d. Does the project have environmental effects which
'~ will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? X
Increased traffic [air .po.llution), water use,
and sewage treatment may have adverse cumulative
impacts when combined with other projects in the
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
~he proposed project is the adoption of a new Housing Element
for the General Plan of S~ratoga. The most sign~ ficant impact
will be increased residential densit~ es necessary. to
the Rl~m~n~_ Th~.q cionla incr~a.~e fn~m~l~t]_ve ~mpact~ re_lat~
r~e ~h~ ~m~__~f n~ l~n~ ~v~l~hl~ ~=nr n~n ~r~n~ There_
~i!1 ~1~0 ~ ~n in~en3ed a3_~ for ~,~b~_ se~.,ices but no
~aI ~1~ ~ ~e ~g ~1~ ~ ~ni~oa
-9~
IV. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:-
O I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
O I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLAPATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
"'Q I find the proposed project MAy have a significant effect on the
. environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
-10- (rev. 5/16/80)
APPENDIX 2
LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES
COMMENTING ON DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT/E.I.R.
1. State of California -- Office of Planning and Research
(Letter dated April'iS, 1983)
2. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department
(Letter dated March 22, 1983)
3. Santa Clara Valley Water District
(Letter dated March 21, 1983)
4. County Sanitation District No. 4
(Letter dated January 13, 1983)
GOVERNOR'$ OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
I~ TENTH STREET "'
SACRAMENTO 958 ~ 4
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
GOVERNOR
(916/44~0613)
Michael Flores AD'ril 18, 1983
City of Saratoga RECEIVED '
13777 Fruitvale Avenue Ar~ i ~: ~
Saratoga, CA 95070
P-LANNING POLICY ANALYSIS
Subject= Housing Element, SCH #82121411
Dear Mr. F1 ores:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental doct~nent to
selected state agencies for review. The.review period is closed and none of
the state agencies have comments.
This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requir~nents for draft environmental docunents, pursuant to the
California Envirormlental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines, Section 15161.5). Where
applicable, this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional
authority or title interests of the State of California.
The project my still require approval from state agencies with permit
authority or jurisdiction by law. If so, the state agencies will have to use
the environmental doctrent in their decision-making. Please contact them im-
mediately after the document is finalized with a copy of the final doc.u~ent,
the Notice of Determination, adopted mitigation measures, and any statements
of overriding considerations.
Once the document is adopted (Negative Declaration) or certified (final EIR)
and if a decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination
must be filed with the County Clerk. -If the project requires discretionary
approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must also be filed
with the Secretary for Resources (EIR Guidelines, Sections 15083 (f) and
15085 (h)).
Sincerely,
s
Director
inghouse
"" TO ' ,' FROM
ii~/,/v : ~ ,/
,~j ~ Houston Sgt. Marburg ~'~
~' T
t DATE
CITY 0~ ~AEATOGA g~igO~KCA~ IH~ACT gg~O~T 3-22-83
This report is primarily concerned' with commercial and [ousing unit in-
creases and their impact upon the city of Saratoga for the next' five years.
Based on the industrial and commercial lands available it is projected that
210 basic industry and 908 service industry jobs will be created between
1982 and 2005. It is likely most of these jobs will be filled by people
who do not reside within the city.
A Housing Needs Determination Report submitted by ABAG in 1981 indicated
that Saratoga would need 469 new housing units by 1985. After some revision
of the report and aquisition of the Sunland Park area through annexation by
the city, it has been suggested that only 258 housing units are necessary.
Traffic growth has been projected at iO,O00 to 11,000 average daily trips
per day: The report indicates the increase in traffic will not have an ad-
verse impact over all. A 1-2% increase in traffic for all uses spread out
over the whole city is anticipated.
Impact on Public Services Statement:
"Development of vacant parcels will require the increase of Fire
and Police services but only minimally especially since infill
parcels will be a focus for higher density. New roads and in-
creased traffic will increase need for maintenance."
Goals and.Policies as established by the General Plan Citizens Committee in
chapter 2 of Appendix 3, refers to some particular actions that should be
taken by the city that may affect the Sheriff's Department but only to a
minor degree, such as; parking, bicycle lane ordinances, etc..
All areas that I believe to be of concern to the Sheriff's Department have
been tabbed with an orange metal tab.
In summary, the overall impact upon the Sheriff's Department should be mini-
mal and can be absorbed by the existing Patrol force. The greatest impact
will be upon the traffic units.
FM:jg
REo~aoE!.e CODE N0. 963077
e)2B-A REV 2/~'5
5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY O
SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95118
TELEPHONE {408) 265.26D0
~.larch 21, 1933 MAN ,U
Nr. R. S. ':Robjason,
Director of Planning and
Policy Analysis
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Subject: Draft Housing Element and Environmenatal Impact Report
We have reviewed the above subject matter and it does not appear
that implementation of the housing element will kave significant
effect on flooding or on District facilities.
Sincerely yours,
· Dr. Bernard H. Goldnet
Environmental Specialist
Project Development Branch
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER .
~.. ::!~: ·
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
CITY 0;' CAMPBEI, I.
OF ANTA CLARA COUNTY
CITY OF MONTE SIRENO
CItY OF SAN JOSE
I O0 East Sunnyoaks Avenue CITY OF SANTA CI,ARA
' ~mpb~lt, California 95008 CITY OF SARAI~A
;'=. ~:~"~one 37B-2407 UNINCOR~RATED AREA
January 13, 1983
City of Saratoga
Planning Department
Attn Mr. Michael Flores
RE Housing Element
Gentlemen
In 1981, the staff of this office studied the potential for
growth within Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga,
with the assistance of the staffs of these cities. At that
time, it was determined that the portion of Saratoga within
Sanitation District 4 had a growth potential of 619 additional
residences. In short telephone conversations with Mr. Michael
Flores of your office I was informed this may be increased by
20% or approximately 120 units.
The 1981 study indicated the overall growth potential for all
the cities was 5,000 residential units, over the next 20 years.
Treatment plant capacity for the area is being purchased on
the basis of that estimate. Another 120 units, however, is
not consequential; as no one expected the estimate to be
within 2%.
Very truly yours,
Preston R. Nichols
Assistant District Engineer
PN/ch
RESPONSES TO LETTERS COMMENTING ON THE
DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT/E.I.R.
1. State of California -- Office of Planning and Research
No response required.
2. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department
Comment of minimal impact on Sheriff's Department noted; no
response required.
3. Santa Clara Valley Water District
Comment of minimal impact on flooding or District facilities
noted; no response required.
4. County Sanitation District No. 4
Comment of minimal impact on treatment capacity noted; no
response required.