Heritage Preservation ... AWS
Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission Joint Meeting Review of the Results of the Village Plan Community Outreach April 27, 2016
Village Plan Community Outreach Meeting Format 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Background – How did we get to this point? Staff Presentation of Community Outreach Results PC/HPC Questions of staff Public Comment PC/HPC Deliberations and Recommendation to City Council
Village Plan Community Outreach Background • City Council authorized Village Plan update under the 2015/16 CIP. • On September 2, 2015, City Council approved a work plan for a community outreach strategy & public input about the Village. • November 17, 2015, the PC/HPC hosted a kick-off meeting to review existing policy documents & initial public opinions about the Village. • Community Outreach Strategy was implemented between January 7 and April 5.
Village Plan Community Outreach Community Outreach Strategy • Village Plan dedicated website www.saratogavillageplan.org. • Godbe Research conducted resident poll on the Village January 7th thru 17th using telephone interviews and e-mail contacts. • Peak Democracy self-initated on-line survey fueled by social media outreach efforts conducted January 9 thru March 15th • Grassroots effort by staff at Library and Farmers Market in January thru early February. • Coordinated stakeholder outreach with Chamber of Commerce for meeting with Village Business Owners on March 15th • Stakeholder outreach meeting with Village Property Owners on April 5th.
Village Plan Community Outreach Community Outreach Strategy A total of 951 residents were surveyed and 27 Village business and property owners were engaged. (8.8% of Saratoga’s approximately 10,800 households responded to the outreach)
Godbe surveyed 655 residents. Peak Democracy, a self initiated City hosted on-line survey, totaled 296 responses. 16 Village Business Owners participated.
11 Village Property Owners participated.
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Survey • A scientific demographic representation of Saratoga community within margin error of 4%. • Using a hybrid of phone and email to contact residents. Phone more successful with older demographic. Email more effective with younger demographic.
• The survey took place between January 7th and January 17th.
Village Plan Community Outreach Peak Democracy Survey • Peak Democracy is City hosted social media platform specifically designed for public engagement. • Survey questions closely followed the Godbe Survey. • Survey is self initiated and therefore unscientific • Results vary from Godbe Survey Results. • All received comments available with results summary.
Village Plan Community Outreach Survey Results Godbe
Peak Democracy
Frequency of Visits • Once a week • Few times a month
39% 60%
56% 77%
Satisfaction w/Village
58% Satisfaction
40% Satisfaction
Why Residents v/Village
65% Dine 25% Coffee/Bank 23% Walking/Exercise
40% Dine 12% Walking/Exercise 10% Coffee
Why Residents Don’t v/Village
28% No Grocery Store 15% businesses not appealing
72% businesses not appealing 40% no grocery store 29% parking inconvenient
Village Plan Community Outreach Survey Results Godbe
Peak Democracy Parking Related
Motivators to visit more often
30% different/better retail 29% less expensive rest. 28% more retail 25% more parking 23% entertainment 22% movie theater
79% more parking 25% more convenient parking Restaurant Related 65% less expensive restaurants 59% more variety Retail Related 65% different/better shops (44% bookstore) 54% more shops
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Research Results Qualities of the Village valued most
Godbe
Peak Democracy
53% small town charm
69% close to home
40% close to home
68% Pedestrian friendly
35% Pedestrian friendly
67% Small town charm
28% historic character
48% historic character
26% preserve views
39% preserves views
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Survey Results Role of the Village in Community
Godbe
Peak Democracy
54% Place to dine
79% Place to dine
41% Gathering place
70% Place to hangout/relax
40% Place to meet
69% Place to meet
37% Place to hang out
62% Place to gather
35% Community events
52% Place to shop
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Survey Results Godbe
Peak Democracy
Preferred Infrastructure Improvements
45% More parking 23% Preserve historic character 22% Increase public plazas 21% Improve traffic circulation
51% More parking 45% Preserve historic character 44% Improve traffic circulation 42% Increase public plazas
Is Parking Convenient?
18% very convenient 36% somewhat convenient 16% very inconvenient 28% somewhat inconvenient
12% very convenient 43% somewhat convenient 9.9% very inconvenient 36% somewhat inconvenient
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Survey Results It is important to maintain the current look and feel of the Village Godbe
Peak Democracy
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
37% 28% 65%
23% 33% 56%
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Not Sure
13% 17% 5%
17% 27% ---
Village Plan Community Outreach Village Business Owners • Community Vision for the Village Destination vs. Resident Serving Business Owners favor a ‘Destination” strategy
• Parking More parking Parking management/enforcement
• Circulation Turn-around at end of BB Way
Village Plan Community Outreach Village Business Owners • Vibrant Street Presence Outdoor seating Public plazas
• Strategic Partnership Concerted effort with City as a partner to promote Village Promote the right business mix Encourage a more energetic business climate
Village Plan Community Outreach Village Property Owners • Parking More parking Better parking management/enforcement
• Circulation Turn-around at end of BB Way
• Vision for the Village Similar to Business Owners
Village Plan Community Outreach Village Property Owners • Village Promotion Would like City to be more of a partner
• Business Supportive Policy Policy statements that support an active downtown
• Active Street Presence Encourage mixed use
• Equal Footing Property Owners are blamed for vacancies Views are not on equal footings with Business and Residents
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • The physical scale and form of the Village works. Community likes “small town charm” Community likes historic character Community wants to preserve views Spends lots of time walking, hanging out, gathering, meeting.
• Changes expressed by the community are land use based. More vibrant business mix More street activity such as outdoor dining and use of public plazas. Broader choice of retail and restaurants Better parking and circulation
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • Implementation Plan vs. Policy Document Current Village Specific Plan is an Implementation Plan. Describes existing conditions Identifies changes to be made to the zoning code Identifies framework for the Village Design Guidelines Identifies desired public improvements.
The Village Plan has been substantially completed.
Moving forward a Policy Document is needed.
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations Land Use & Zoning • Rezone Village to CH-1 and CH-2 • Develop Village Design Guidelines
completed completed
Parking & Circulation • Install left turn lanes on Big Basin to Saratoga-LG Road • Install “Slow for Ped” signs
completed completed
o Ped Lighted crosswalk at Blaney Plaza o Ped Sign @ Buy&Save site o Bulbouts 3rd&4th Streets o Ped Sign @ 5th Street
• Signal/Stop Sign @ 4th Street
No traffic warrant
Village Plan Community Outreach Implementation Plan vs. Policy Document Parking & Circulation (cont’) • Construct Turnaround End of BB Way • Install Sidewalk on 4th St to Wildwood • Develop Parking District #3 • Develop Pedestrian access to parking • Install Parking Directional Signs • Study Parking In-lieu fee program • Enforce parking limits
Unfunded CIP completed completed ongoing completed completed (moratorium) complaint based
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations Parking & Circulation (cont’) • Develop public plazas Turkey Track Plaza (3rd Street) Public Plaza Install ornamental sidewalks Install street furniture Upgrade Street Trees Illuminate Street Trees
Not Done
completed completed completed completed
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • Saratoga’s General Plan and Village Design Guidelines are Policy Documents. Goal LU 1: Policy LU1.1: Policy LU1.2: Policy LU1.3: Policy LU1.4: Implementation: LU 1.a
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • The Village Plan has accomplished the majority of its goals. • Future policy development and implementation could be better implemented using the standard framework and structure of the: General Plan and its elements; Village Design Guidelines; and Zoning Ordinance
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations Major Areas to be Addressed: • Village Vision
Policy that clearly states the City’s objectives for the Village. Destination vs. Resident Serving Preserving the Historic Character of the Village Promotion of Economic Viability Promotion of the Community’s Social Gathering Place
• Parking
Can more public parking be added? Parking Management of existing parking
• Circulation
Turn-around at the end of BB Way
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • Village Scale, Volume, Density and Intensity of Uses Current policy and development regulations are working Changes in this area aren’t necessary to accomplish community’s goals Policy that reinforces “small town charm”
• Opportunity Sites Update the Design Guidelines to identify site specific policies for the redevelopment of the Saratoga Village Square property and other sites that are likely to be improved in the future.
Saratoga Village Specific Plan Land Use & Zoning CH-1 & CH-2
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Date:
April 27, 2016
Application:
Saratoga Village Plan Update
Location/APN:
Saratoga Village
Staff Planner:
Kirk Heinrichs, Special Projects Manager
Saratoga Village
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission consider the community outreach information compiled to date and forward recommendations to the City on how best to proceed with the review and update of the Village Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The City Council authorized the initiation of the review and update of the Village Specific Plan as part of the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Administration Programs. The original Village Plan was adopted in 1988 establishing land use policy and development standards for the Village and there has not been a comprehensive update of the Plan since its adoption. On September 2, 2015, the City Council approved a work plan for implementing a community outreach initiative identified as the initial Phase of the Village Plan review and update process. It was the Council’s intention to gather as much community input possible on the Village prior to initiating any review of the Village Plan to better understand the community’s values and vision regarding the Village district. The work plan included six components: 1) retaining Godbe Research to conduct a scientific telephone and email based demographic survey of residents; 2) Creating a project based website (www.saratogavillageplan.org) to serve as the main portal and repository to access information about the update process; 3) utilizing Peak Democracy software platform to conduct a parallel self-initiated resident survey with the same questions; and 4) using the City’s social media resources (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter, City email databases, and the City website) to channel the public to the Peak Democracy website; 5) meeting with the Chamber and Village business owners; and 6) meeting with Village property owners. As a starting point for this effort, on November 17, 2015, a kick-off meeting with the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission was conducted including approximately 35 members of the general public in which staff presented the existing Saratoga Village Plan and Design Guidelines and summarized those implementation items from the Plan that had been accomplished thus far. The Commissions and public were provided an opportunity to voice their views, ideas and concerns regarding the Village which were recorded and posted on the Village Plan website at www.saratogavillageplan.org. A copy of that meeting summary is Attachment 1 of this report. COMMUNITY OUTREACH STRATEGY: Between January 4th and April 5th a community outreach effort was completed that included:
2
Godbe Research, completed a survey of 655 Saratoga residents that reflects a demographic representation of the community on their opinions, thoughts and views of the Village. The completion of an online survey hosted by Peak Democracy and accessed via the City’s Village Plan website at www.saratogavillageplan.org where an additional 296 residents took an online survey on the Village. A grass roots effort was made by setting up laptops at the Library and the Village Farmers Market. On March 15th a meeting with the Chamber and the Village business owners was held to discuss their views on how the City can better help facilitate the success of the Village; and On April 5, a meeting with Village property owners was held to better understand their perspective of how the City and its policies affect their stake holdings.
The information in this report and the recommendation the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission forwards to the Council is intended to provide guidance for the Council as it deliberates and decides how to proceed with the review and update of the Village Plan. DISCUSSION: This section of the report will provide a summary of the results of the resident surveys and the meetings with Village property and business owners. GODBE RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY: The City hired Godbe Research, a prominent professional polling firm to poll a demographic representation of the Saratoga residential community on their opinions of the Village. Understanding how the residents view the Village and what they value most in their downtown is a key element in helping to develop fully informed decisions . There were a total of 14 questions asked about the Village centered around:
Residents frequency of visiting the Village; Why or why not they visit the Village; What kinds of things they thought would motivate them to frequent the Village more often; What residents valued most about the Village ; and What kinds of improvements or changes residents would like to see implemented.
The survey was conducted through a hybrid of email and phone surveys. The survey is scientifically done to assure that the responses reflect an accurate demographic representation of 3
the community. Results are provided showing age and gender differences, as well as those living within close proximity of the Village. There were 655 residents polled and the Commissions should feel they can rely on the results reflecting the views of the community at large within a margin of error plus or minus 4%. A summary of the results of that survey is Attachment 2 of this report. The report in its entirety can be found at www.saratogavillageplan.org. Some of the results that came out of the survey are: Frequency of Visits: 39% of the community visits the Village once a week or more. Nearly 60% visit a few times a month or more. Resident Satisfaction with Village: 58% said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the Village; 38% dissatisfied; 4% unsure. Reasons for Going to the Village: 65% go to the Village to dine or for a drink; 25% for banking or coffee, and 23% for walking or exercise. Reasons for not visiting the Village: 27.5% said they don’t visit the Village because there is no grocery store and 15% because the businesses don’t appeal to them. Role of the Village in the Community: 55% said a place to dine; 40% said a gathering place or place to meet; and 37% said it was a place to relax or hang out. Qualities of the Village Valued Most: 53% said “Small town charm;” 40% said close to home; 36% said pedestrian friendly; 28% said historic character; and 26% said preserves views of hills. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements: 45% said more parking. 23% said preserve historic character; 22% said increase public plazas. Important to maintain the “look and feel” of the Village: 50% agree; 45% disagree; 5% undecided PEAK DEMOCRACY RESIDENT ON-LINE SURVEY In addition to the Godbe survey, the City employed the use of an on-line survey platform of Peak Democracy to further engage a larger segment of the resident population. The on-line survey closely followed the questions in the Godbe survey and was promoted through the social media platforms of the City including Facebook, Next Door and Twitter. And while staff also included a grassroots approach to the online survey including setting up lap tops in the library on 4
weekends and setting up at the farmers market, the use of social media was the key to a successful community response. The on-line survey was initiated on January 9th and ran through March 15th. The survey was taken by 296 people including five surveys that were submitted manually to the City via postal mail. Since the survey was open to all Saratoga residents, it does not reflect any scientific representation of the community. Users were not required to provide demographic information and in fact many choose not to. However, it did enable the City to engage a greater number of residents in the community outreach process. The combined survey responses to both the Peak Democracy on-line survey and the Godbe survey totaled 951. Attachment 3 of this staff report is a summary of the results of the survey. The entire survey results can be accessed at www.saratogavillageplan.org. The results differ from the Godbe survey in that Godbe surveyed a scientific representation of the resident population and the Peak Democracy survey is a self-initiated survey available to all residents. Some of the results of the survey include: Frequency of Visits: 56% of the community visits the Village once a week or more; 77% a few times a month or more. Resident Satisfaction with Village: 40% said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the Village; 60% were at least somewhat dissatisfied. Reasons for Going to the Village: 40% said they go to the Village to dine or for a drink; 25% for banking or coffee, and 23% for walking or exercise. Reasons for not visiting the Village: 72% of the respondents said they don’t go to the Village because the “businesses don’t appeal to them.” 40% of respondents said they don’t visit the Village because there is no grocery store and 30% because parking is inconvenient. Role of the Village in the Community: 79% said a place to dine; 70% said a place to relax; 69% said a place to meet; 62% said a gathering place; and 52% said a place to shop Qualities of the Village Valued Most: 69% said close to home; 68% said pedestrian friendly; 67% said small town charm; 48% said historic character. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements: 51% said more parking, 45% said preserving historic character, 44% said improved circulation and 42% said increased public plazas or gathering places. 5
Important to maintain the “look and feel” of the Village: 56% agree; 44% disagree. VILLAGE BUSINESS OWNER MEETING: A meeting with the Village Business Owners was conducted on March 15th in the Village to provide a forum for feedback on the kinds of the things the City could be doing to better facilitate a successful business environment in the downtown district. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Attachment 4. There were 15 business owners in attendance along with three Planning Commissioners (not as participants) and three staff members. There were some common threads that were repeated throughout the discussion. The major points of the discussion included:
Community Vision for the Village: It is important that the community decide on what the Village is going to be. More of a “Destination” shopping and dining district that includes restaurants, wine bars and uses that attract visitors, versus promoting local serving businesses such as a grocery store, pharmacy and other personal businesses. Many of the business owners feel that policies should favor the Village as a destination.
Parking: More parking is needed. Parking enforcement needs to be implemented and better management of parking resources needs to occur. Several comments that business patronage is lost due to lack of parking. Many did not realize that valet parking was available to all businesses and not just certain restaurants.
Circulation: needs to be resolved providing an option or alternative to the current situation.
Vibrant Street Presence: The community needs to encourage and promote a more vibrant street presence that typically will attract more patrons. The right business mix generates an energetic synergy which breeds a more successful business climate.
Strategic Partnership: There needs to be a coordinated effort between the Village business owners, the Chamber of Commerce and the City to market and promote the Village, possibly hiring a marketing professional to design a marketing strategy and implementation plan.
Business Sensitivity: Any future public improvement plan needs to be sensitive to the adverse impacts on business during construction. The slim profit margins of small business are susceptible to interruptions such as construction that can discourage patronage. The time of day and the duration of construction are critical. 6
VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING: A meeting was conducted for the Village Property Owners to provide feedback on the issues that affect them as stakeholders in the Village. The meeting was held on April 5th in the City Council chambers. There were 11 property owners in attendance along with two Planning Commissioners who observed only. A summary of the comments from that meeting are contained Attachment 5. The main issues discussed were:
Parking: There needs to be more parking, and better management of existing parking resources including parking enforcement.
Circulation: The issue of circulation needs to be examined to determine what options are available for circulating traffic through the Village that helps patrons navigate the Village and minimize traffic snarls. Current situation creates significant constraints.
What is the Vision for the Village?: The community needs to decide whether the Village is going to be a “destination” consisting primarily of restaurants and specialty retail; or a resident serving downtown that includes services such as a grocery store, pharmacy, shoe repair, etc…
Active Street Presence: The needs to encourage an active streetscape with outdoor dining, public plazas and daytime activity to provide interest and street life.
Village Promotion: There needs to be a strategic partnership between business (business and property owners, and the Chamber) and the City to promote and market the Village.
Equal Footing: The perception is that the opinion and views of the property owners is not on equal footing with other stakeholders and are often blamed for business leaving the Village. Their hope is that the community will give equal consideration to their views and that they do more to retain tenants than they are given credit.
Business Supportive Policy: There needs to be clear policy that demonstrates a general support for more active businesses in the Village.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS: After a comprehensive review of the current Village Plan, reviewing the resident surveys and meeting with the Village business and property owners, the staff has compiled some observations to assist the Commissions with their recommendation and serve as a springboard from which the decision makers and the community can begin the review process. 7
No significant changes to those policies or ordinances addressing the scale, density or physical form of the Village appear necessary to achieve the desired objectives as stated by the stakeholders. In reviewing the resident surveys and from the discussions with property and business owners, staff did not see or hear, either directly or indirectly, a need or desire to change the physical scale, density or form of the Village in order to achieve the expressed changes for a more vibrant and civically successful Village. The Village Specific Plan addresses two major categories; the physical development of the Village, both on private property and within the public domain; and the use of private property. In the resident surveys, responses to questions regarding the physical appearance and scale of the Village were generally positive. The “small town charm,” the “historic character” and the “preserve view of hills” were qualities that resonated with the community. The high percentage of residents using the Village to walk, “hang out” and exercise suggests that the current physical environment is a desirable amenity that contributes to the value of the Village and the desire to experience it. The fact that these characteristics score well with the community leads staff to conclude that any update of City policy should reinforce these qualities. The priorities of the stakeholders include improving the economic success of the Village, creating a more active street view, attracting a more viable business mix, encouraging mixed use and seeing the City as more of a strategic partner in promoting and marketing the Village. Staff believes there is nothing stated in the Village Plan (or in the Village Design Guidelines) addressing building scale, height, form and density that would prevent the City from achieving the desired objectives. Implementation Plan vs. Policy Document: The current Village Plan is formatted more as an implementation plan rather than a policy document. What the Plan generally identifies as “Policy” is actually an action item to be implemented such as creating parking districts, rezoning property, replacing the street tree program or installing sidewalk. An implementation plan has a finite life. When the action items have been implemented or completed, the plan has fulfilled its usefulness. A policy document is a more enduring community statement that establishes ongoing formal goals and objectives with correlating strategies and polices to help achieve those objectives. In practice, the Village Design Guidelines and the zoning ordinance have been the documents used to determine whether a land use application in the Village is consistent with City policy. The Village Plan has not been as helpful given its format. 8
In 1988, the Village Plan may have served the community’s goals with respect to identifying existing conditions, developing a public infrastructure plan, and providing direction for establishing appropriate zoning districts and regulations. To the City’s credit, most of that implementation plan has been completed creating a foundation for how the Village has developed over the last 28 years. Moving forward, the community’s input in response to the outreach has primarily focused on maintaining the small town scale, the encouragement of business mix and diversity, a more active commercial district, improving parking and circulation, and the availability of public plazas and spaces for community gathering. These kinds of goals may best be addressed as specific policy statements within the General Plan and the Village Design Guidelines, and when appropriate, the City Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes the Saratoga Village Plan has served its useful life and may no longer be necessary in its current format and that moving forward with clear policy in response to the input from the community outreach is best served through specific amendments to the General Plan, the Village Design Guidelines and the City’s zoning ordinance. Major areas to be addressed: Staff has identified a few major areas that should get particular attention with new or updated policy. The Commissions may identify other areas as well. Village Vision: It will be important that policy be formulated that provides clear direction for what the Village is to be, and then craft a path as to how best to achieve that objective. Stakeholders have raised the question of whether the Village is to be a “destination” or should it be more “resident serving”. Parking: Is there an opportunity to create new parking? And if so, is there a feasible financing option? At minimum, there is an opportunity to create policy for managing existing parking resources more effectively and efficiently including an active parking enforcement program. The parking policy that is developed will have a direct affect on land use decisions and this may be best addressed by specific General Plan policies or Zoning Ordinance requirements. Circulation: The lack of circulation, with the current one way in and one way out of the Village on Big Basin Way, creates challenges managing traffic flow. The Village Plan identifies a solution of creating a turnaround at the end of Big Basin Way, which is less than optimal, but it may be the City’s only practical option which has already been thoroughly reviewed. Are there other options? Like parking, circulation has a direct affect on land use decisions, traffic impacts and the level of vibrancy the Village can tolerate. Specific physical changes or policies that may have the potential 9
to impact overall Citywide traffic patterns are best addressed within the context of the General Plan and/or the Circulation Element. Building Scale, Volume, and Density: This process presents an opportunity to better address what might be considered the most sensitive component of the Village, its physical development. As stated earlier in this report, staff believes goals and objectives expressed in the community outreach segment can be accomplished without changing the current policy in that regard. In fact, this will present an opportunity to reinforce those “small town charm” values expressed by the community by providing clear policy direction for all stakeholders. Opportunity Sites: There is a section in the Village Design Guidelines called “Opportunity Sites” where criteria is listed indicating what is desired by the community on those properties. There was some discussion by the property and business owners about what the long range plan is for the Saratoga Village Center commonly known as the “Buy and Save” site. The property is a 1950’s style strip mall located within the first block of the Village. This property is seen as an opportunity to inject new life into the Village. The redevelopment of this property provides a significant opportunity to achieve some of the objectives raised in the surveys and by the other stakeholders by creating new retail/restaurant opportunities, the incorporation of a public plaza and the opportunity to provide an active street presence that is currently void in that section of Big Basin Way. Over the years there have been discussions about redeveloping the property to a more appropriate pedestrian oriented format that brings retail up to the street. However, the property has also created potential controversy due to the lack of clear policy needed to assure the community that an appropriate development within the context of the “small town scale” as expressed by the community will be accomplished. This process provides the community the opportunity to develop site specific policy in the Village Design Guidelines related to the kind of development it would like to see on this property. By adopting such site specific policy, the stake holders, including the property owners, the development community, the decision makers and the residents have a clear understanding of what the community desires on this key parcel, and maybe more importantly, what is not desired. The community may determine there are other sites within the Village that fall into this category as well.
10
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from the November 17, 2015 Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission Village Plan Kick-off meeting. 2. Summary of Godbe Resident Survey 3. Summary of Peak Democracy Survey 4. Minutes from Village Business Owner meeting 5. Minutes from Village Property Owner meeting 6. Comparison of Godbe and Peak Democracy survey results
11
Joint Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Village Plan
April 27, 2016
Questions/comments from PC/HPC
Maintain the small town character Preserve early period Saratoga Provide guidelines applicants and explain the process clearly What can the city do to better facilitate the process? Encourage reasonably priced restaurants The city has a problem with businesses holding on the location under current CUP’s, does not attract a variety of businesses. Should create a balance of serving residents and creating a destination Encourage specialty retail/restaurants/grocery store Business and property owners are confused what the vision for the community is. Public wants the Village to be more vibrant There is a perception to limit vibrant businesses? Can the city promote the Village to encourage daytime destinations? Increase the height limit of buildings? Create and implement a policy to encourage mixed use Promote the Village as family friendly Create healthy alternatives Safe pathways for pedestrians and bikes
Public Comments Natasha Kuo-Minicakes by Tasha Wants to know if raw data from the Godbe survey is available to be able to analyze further Wants to focus on the respondents not satisfied with the village. Those who are satisfied do not need to see a change. Those who are dissatisfied need to see the change. Would like to see a satisfied vs dissatisfied breakdown of the survey and do her own analysis of the data. What do dissatisfied people think about the Village? Jill Hunter-Saratoga Village Development Council The amount of retail locations are dwindling. Now only 11 shops. The Village is primarily restaurants Need to encourage retail and mom/pop shops Highlight what is walkable maintain the small town charm Maryanne Sanders-Skin Prophecy Boutique It is a challenge to attract mom/pop shops Preserve/market the Village Branding 1|P a g e
Brand/advertise the qualities of Saratoga across the valley and feeder cities Careful planning and a better vision What types of retail do we want? Coffee houses? Restaurants?
Laurel Perusa Loves the village Is able to find what she needs in the village and tries to educate people on what is there Feels the City needs to better inform and educated people of what Saratoga Village has to offer Create a marketing campaign in the greater Bay Area to attract people Jeremy and Angelica Levitt Several empty store fronts. Wants to know why? The city needs to make the Village more attractive for businesses Banks and Starbuck are successful Attract chains- those are comfortable for and draw people Update the look and feel of the Village many shops not well maintained and run down. Contributes to the look of decay and lack of vitality. Lack of vitality The Village can serve as a destination and resident serving-You can have BOTH Parking issues Is there a parking shortage or lack of signage? Add bike parking Walkable city Useful Safe Comfortable Interesting
Paul Hernandez Agrees with Commissioner Hlava’s comments about the village and the City’s role The City’s policies need to establish a framework and vision as a destination City should not dictate what businesses come in or don’t. Businesses “should hang out their shingles and see if they can survive”.
Our society is capitalist not a socialist-yet!
HPC Discussion and Recommendations
What is the historic definition of the Village? Do not limit to a single historic period The community likes the historic character. How do we protect that? Every building should be assessed individually What projects/applications should be considered? Case by case basis All projects to be seen by HPC Add all buildings on Big Basin way to the inventory 2|P a g e
Motion 1.
Recommend all applications for projects affecting buildings that facing Big Basin Way, to be reviewed by the HPC. 5-1 vote (No-Cappello), Conrado-absent
2.
Recommend that the City Council support a partnership with the chamber of commerce to promote the city as Heritage Tourism based on the historic aspects. 6-0 vote, Conrado-absent
3.
Recommend that the Village Specific Plan be determined retired or completed and that further updates to Village land use and development policy be provided in an update to the General Plan, Village Guidelines, and the zoning ordinance where necessary. 6-0 vote, Conrado-absent
Planning Commission Discussion and Recommendations
Hold workshops on the major topics noted in the subsection of “Major areas to be addressed” under the “Staff Observations” section of the staff report;
There was general discussion in the areas of:
Traffic Parking Uses in downtown & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) policies Historic Nature Give staff direction to come up with a plan Bring in professionals in for the parking, circulation and land use workshops. Motion
1. Acknowledge that the Village Specific Plan has been completed and should be retired and that policy updates in the areas identified in the “Major areas to be addressed” subsection of the “Staff Observations” section of the staff report and presentation should be provided in an update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, the Village Design Guidelines and if appropriate, the Zoning Code. 6- 0 Vote, Almalech-absent
2. That the City Council look at the issue of improved marketing and promotion of the Village 6- 0 Vote, Almalech-absent
3|P a g e
3. That the City Council look at the current boundaries of the “Village” and consider expanded boundaries (e.g. Neale’s Hollow, Saratoga Federated, Historic Museum, Blaney Plaza, etc.)
6- 0 Vote, Almalech-absent
4|P a g e
Village Plan Community Outreach Meeting Format 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Background – How did we get to this point? Staff Presentation of Community Outreach Results PC/HPC Questions of staff Public Comment PC/HPC Deliberations and Recommendation to City Council
Village Plan Community Outreach Background • City Council authorized Village Plan update under the 2015/16 CIP. • On September 2, 2015, City Council approved a work plan for a community outreach strategy & public input about the Village. • November 17, 2015, the PC/HPC hosted a kick-off meeting to review existing policy documents & initial public opinions about the Village. • Community Outreach Strategy was implemented between January 7 and April 5.
Village Plan Community Outreach Community Outreach Strategy • Village Plan dedicated website www.saratogavillageplan.org. • Godbe Research conducted resident poll on the Village January 7th thru 17th using telephone interviews and e-mail contacts. • Peak Democracy self-initated on-line survey fueled by social media outreach efforts conducted January 9 thru March 15th • Grassroots effort by staff at Library and Farmers Market in January thru early February. • Coordinated stakeholder outreach with Chamber of Commerce for meeting with Village Business Owners on March 15th • Stakeholder outreach meeting with Village Property Owners on April 5th.
Village Plan Community Outreach Community Outreach Strategy A total of 951 residents were surveyed and 27 Village business and property owners were engaged. (8.8% of Saratoga’s approximately 10,800 households responded to the outreach)
Godbe surveyed 655 residents. Peak Democracy, a self initiated City hosted on-line survey, totaled 296 responses. 16 Village Business Owners participated.
11 Village Property Owners participated.
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Survey • A scientific demographic representation of Saratoga community within margin error of 4%. • Using a hybrid of phone and email to contact residents. Phone more successful with older demographic. Email more effective with younger demographic.
• The survey took place between January 7th and January 17th.
Village Plan Community Outreach Peak Democracy Survey • Peak Democracy is City hosted social media platform specifically designed for public engagement. • Survey questions closely followed the Godbe Survey. • Survey is self initiated and therefore unscientific • Results vary from Godbe Survey Results. • All received comments available with results summary.
Village Plan Community Outreach Survey Results Godbe
Peak Democracy
Frequency of Visits • Once a week • Few times a month
39% 60%
56% 77%
Satisfaction w/Village
58% Satisfaction
40% Satisfaction
Why Residents v/Village
65% Dine 25% Coffee/Bank 23% Walking/Exercise
40% Dine 12% Walking/Exercise 10% Coffee
Why Residents Don’t v/Village
28% No Grocery Store 15% businesses not appealing
72% businesses not appealing 40% no grocery store 29% parking inconvenient
Village Plan Community Outreach Survey Results Godbe
Peak Democracy Parking Related
Motivators to visit more often
30% different/better retail 29% less expensive rest. 28% more retail 25% more parking 23% entertainment 22% movie theater
79% more parking 25% more convenient parking Restaurant Related 65% less expensive restaurants 59% more variety Retail Related 65% different/better shops (44% bookstore) 54% more shops
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Research Results Qualities of the Village valued most
Godbe
Peak Democracy
53% small town charm
69% close to home
40% close to home
68% Pedestrian friendly
35% Pedestrian friendly
67% Small town charm
28% historic character
48% historic character
26% preserve views
39% preserves views
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Survey Results Role of the Village in Community
Godbe
Peak Democracy
54% Place to dine
79% Place to dine
41% Gathering place
70% Place to hangout/relax
40% Place to meet
69% Place to meet
37% Place to hang out
62% Place to gather
35% Community events
52% Place to shop
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Survey Results Godbe
Peak Democracy
Preferred Infrastructure Improvements
45% More parking 23% Preserve historic character 22% Increase public plazas 21% Improve traffic circulation
51% More parking 45% Preserve historic character 44% Improve traffic circulation 42% Increase public plazas
Is Parking Convenient?
18% very convenient 36% somewhat convenient 16% very inconvenient 28% somewhat inconvenient
12% very convenient 43% somewhat convenient 9.9% very inconvenient 36% somewhat inconvenient
Village Plan Community Outreach Godbe Survey Results It is important to maintain the current look and feel of the Village Godbe
Peak Democracy
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
37% 28% 65%
23% 33% 56%
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Not Sure
13% 17% 5%
17% 27% ---
Village Plan Community Outreach Village Business Owners • Community Vision for the Village Destination vs. Resident Serving Business Owners favor a ‘Destination” strategy
• Parking More parking Parking management/enforcement
• Circulation Turn-around at end of BB Way
Village Plan Community Outreach Village Business Owners • Vibrant Street Presence Outdoor seating Public plazas
• Strategic Partnership Concerted effort with City as a partner to promote Village Promote the right business mix Encourage a more energetic business climate
Village Plan Community Outreach Village Property Owners • Parking More parking Better parking management/enforcement
• Circulation Turn-around at end of BB Way
• Vision for the Village Similar to Business Owners
Village Plan Community Outreach Village Property Owners • Village Promotion Would like City to be more of a partner
• Business Supportive Policy Policy statements that support an active downtown
• Active Street Presence Encourage mixed use
• Equal Footing Property Owners are blamed for vacancies Views are not on equal footings with Business and Residents
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • The physical scale and form of the Village works. Community likes “small town charm” Community likes historic character Community wants to preserve views Spends lots of time walking, hanging out, gathering, meeting.
• Changes expressed by the community are land use based. More vibrant business mix More street activity such as outdoor dining and use of public plazas. Broader choice of retail and restaurants Better parking and circulation
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • Implementation Plan vs. Policy Document Current Village Specific Plan is an Implementation Plan. Describes existing conditions Identifies changes to be made to the zoning code Identifies framework for the Village Design Guidelines Identifies desired public improvements.
The Village Plan has been substantially completed.
Moving forward a Policy Document is needed.
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations Land Use & Zoning • Rezone Village to CH-1 and CH-2 • Develop Village Design Guidelines
completed completed
Parking & Circulation • Install left turn lanes on Big Basin to Saratoga-LG Road • Install “Slow for Ped” signs
completed completed
o Ped Lighted crosswalk at Blaney Plaza o Ped Sign @ Buy&Save site o Bulbouts 3rd&4th Streets o Ped Sign @ 5th Street
• Signal/Stop Sign @ 4th Street
No traffic warrant
Village Plan Community Outreach Implementation Plan vs. Policy Document Parking & Circulation (cont’) • Construct Turnaround End of BB Way • Install Sidewalk on 4th St to Wildwood • Develop Parking District #3 • Develop Pedestrian access to parking • Install Parking Directional Signs • Study Parking In-lieu fee program • Enforce parking limits
Unfunded CIP completed completed ongoing completed completed (moratorium) complaint based
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations Parking & Circulation (cont’) • Develop public plazas Turkey Track Plaza (3rd Street) Public Plaza Install ornamental sidewalks Install street furniture Upgrade Street Trees Illuminate Street Trees
Not Done
completed completed completed completed
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • Saratoga’s General Plan and Village Design Guidelines are Policy Documents. Goal LU 1: Policy LU1.1: Policy LU1.2: Policy LU1.3: Policy LU1.4: Implementation: LU 1.a
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • The Village Plan has accomplished the majority of its goals. • Future policy development and implementation could be better implemented using the standard framework and structure of the: General Plan and its elements; Village Design Guidelines; and Zoning Ordinance
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations Major Areas to be Addressed: • Village Vision
Policy that clearly states the City’s objectives for the Village. Destination vs. Resident Serving Preserving the Historic Character of the Village Promotion of Economic Viability Promotion of the Community’s Social Gathering Place
• Parking
Can more public parking be added? Parking Management of existing parking
• Circulation
Turn-around at the end of BB Way
Village Plan Community Outreach Staff Observations • Village Scale, Volume, Density and Intensity of Uses Current policy and development regulations are working Changes in this area aren’t necessary to accomplish community’s goals Policy that reinforces “small town charm”
• Opportunity Sites Update the Design Guidelines to identify site specific policies for the redevelopment of the Saratoga Village Square property and other sites that are likely to be improved in the future.
Saratoga Village Specific Plan Land Use & Zoning CH-1 & CH-2
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Date:
April 27, 2016
Application:
Saratoga Village Plan Update
Location/APN:
Saratoga Village
Staff Planner:
Kirk Heinrichs, Special Projects Manager
Saratoga Village
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission consider the community outreach information compiled to date and forward recommendations to the City on how best to proceed with the review and update of the Village Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The City Council authorized the initiation of the review and update of the Village Specific Plan as part of the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Administration Programs. The original Village Plan was adopted in 1988 establishing land use policy and development standards for the Village and there has not been a comprehensive update of the Plan since its adoption. On September 2, 2015, the City Council approved a work plan for implementing a community outreach initiative identified as the initial Phase of the Village Plan review and update process. It was the Council’s intention to gather as much community input possible on the Village prior to initiating any review of the Village Plan to better understand the community’s values and vision regarding the Village district. The work plan included six components: 1) retaining Godbe Research to conduct a scientific telephone and email based demographic survey of residents; 2) Creating a project based website (www.saratogavillageplan.org) to serve as the main portal and repository to access information about the update process; 3) utilizing Peak Democracy software platform to conduct a parallel self-initiated resident survey with the same questions; and 4) using the City’s social media resources (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter, City email databases, and the City website) to channel the public to the Peak Democracy website; 5) meeting with the Chamber and Village business owners; and 6) meeting with Village property owners. As a starting point for this effort, on November 17, 2015, a kick-off meeting with the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission was conducted including approximately 35 members of the general public in which staff presented the existing Saratoga Village Plan and Design Guidelines and summarized those implementation items from the Plan that had been accomplished thus far. The Commissions and public were provided an opportunity to voice their views, ideas and concerns regarding the Village which were recorded and posted on the Village Plan website at www.saratogavillageplan.org. A copy of that meeting summary is Attachment 1 of this report. COMMUNITY OUTREACH STRATEGY: Between January 4th and April 5th a community outreach effort was completed that included:
2
Godbe Research, completed a survey of 655 Saratoga residents that reflects a demographic representation of the community on their opinions, thoughts and views of the Village. The completion of an online survey hosted by Peak Democracy and accessed via the City’s Village Plan website at www.saratogavillageplan.org where an additional 296 residents took an online survey on the Village. A grass roots effort was made by setting up laptops at the Library and the Village Farmers Market. On March 15th a meeting with the Chamber and the Village business owners was held to discuss their views on how the City can better help facilitate the success of the Village; and On April 5, a meeting with Village property owners was held to better understand their perspective of how the City and its policies affect their stake holdings.
The information in this report and the recommendation the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission forwards to the Council is intended to provide guidance for the Council as it deliberates and decides how to proceed with the review and update of the Village Plan. DISCUSSION: This section of the report will provide a summary of the results of the resident surveys and the meetings with Village property and business owners. GODBE RESEARCH RESIDENT SURVEY: The City hired Godbe Research, a prominent professional polling firm to poll a demographic representation of the Saratoga residential community on their opinions of the Village. Understanding how the residents view the Village and what they value most in their downtown is a key element in helping to develop fully informed decisions . There were a total of 14 questions asked about the Village centered around:
Residents frequency of visiting the Village; Why or why not they visit the Village; What kinds of things they thought would motivate them to frequent the Village more often; What residents valued most about the Village ; and What kinds of improvements or changes residents would like to see implemented.
The survey was conducted through a hybrid of email and phone surveys. The survey is scientifically done to assure that the responses reflect an accurate demographic representation of 3
the community. Results are provided showing age and gender differences, as well as those living within close proximity of the Village. There were 655 residents polled and the Commissions should feel they can rely on the results reflecting the views of the community at large within a margin of error plus or minus 4%. A summary of the results of that survey is Attachment 2 of this report. The report in its entirety can be found at www.saratogavillageplan.org. Some of the results that came out of the survey are: Frequency of Visits: 39% of the community visits the Village once a week or more. Nearly 60% visit a few times a month or more. Resident Satisfaction with Village: 58% said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the Village; 38% dissatisfied; 4% unsure. Reasons for Going to the Village: 65% go to the Village to dine or for a drink; 25% for banking or coffee, and 23% for walking or exercise. Reasons for not visiting the Village: 27.5% said they don’t visit the Village because there is no grocery store and 15% because the businesses don’t appeal to them. Role of the Village in the Community: 55% said a place to dine; 40% said a gathering place or place to meet; and 37% said it was a place to relax or hang out. Qualities of the Village Valued Most: 53% said “Small town charm;” 40% said close to home; 36% said pedestrian friendly; 28% said historic character; and 26% said preserves views of hills. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements: 45% said more parking. 23% said preserve historic character; 22% said increase public plazas. Important to maintain the “look and feel” of the Village: 50% agree; 45% disagree; 5% undecided PEAK DEMOCRACY RESIDENT ON-LINE SURVEY In addition to the Godbe survey, the City employed the use of an on-line survey platform of Peak Democracy to further engage a larger segment of the resident population. The on-line survey closely followed the questions in the Godbe survey and was promoted through the social media platforms of the City including Facebook, Next Door and Twitter. And while staff also included a grassroots approach to the online survey including setting up lap tops in the library on 4
weekends and setting up at the farmers market, the use of social media was the key to a successful community response. The on-line survey was initiated on January 9th and ran through March 15th. The survey was taken by 296 people including five surveys that were submitted manually to the City via postal mail. Since the survey was open to all Saratoga residents, it does not reflect any scientific representation of the community. Users were not required to provide demographic information and in fact many choose not to. However, it did enable the City to engage a greater number of residents in the community outreach process. The combined survey responses to both the Peak Democracy on-line survey and the Godbe survey totaled 951. Attachment 3 of this staff report is a summary of the results of the survey. The entire survey results can be accessed at www.saratogavillageplan.org. The results differ from the Godbe survey in that Godbe surveyed a scientific representation of the resident population and the Peak Democracy survey is a self-initiated survey available to all residents. Some of the results of the survey include: Frequency of Visits: 56% of the community visits the Village once a week or more; 77% a few times a month or more. Resident Satisfaction with Village: 40% said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the Village; 60% were at least somewhat dissatisfied. Reasons for Going to the Village: 40% said they go to the Village to dine or for a drink; 25% for banking or coffee, and 23% for walking or exercise. Reasons for not visiting the Village: 72% of the respondents said they don’t go to the Village because the “businesses don’t appeal to them.” 40% of respondents said they don’t visit the Village because there is no grocery store and 30% because parking is inconvenient. Role of the Village in the Community: 79% said a place to dine; 70% said a place to relax; 69% said a place to meet; 62% said a gathering place; and 52% said a place to shop Qualities of the Village Valued Most: 69% said close to home; 68% said pedestrian friendly; 67% said small town charm; 48% said historic character. Preferred Infrastructure Improvements: 51% said more parking, 45% said preserving historic character, 44% said improved circulation and 42% said increased public plazas or gathering places. 5
Important to maintain the “look and feel” of the Village: 56% agree; 44% disagree. VILLAGE BUSINESS OWNER MEETING: A meeting with the Village Business Owners was conducted on March 15th in the Village to provide a forum for feedback on the kinds of the things the City could be doing to better facilitate a successful business environment in the downtown district. The minutes from that meeting are contained in Attachment 4. There were 15 business owners in attendance along with three Planning Commissioners (not as participants) and three staff members. There were some common threads that were repeated throughout the discussion. The major points of the discussion included:
Community Vision for the Village: It is important that the community decide on what the Village is going to be. More of a “Destination” shopping and dining district that includes restaurants, wine bars and uses that attract visitors, versus promoting local serving businesses such as a grocery store, pharmacy and other personal businesses. Many of the business owners feel that policies should favor the Village as a destination.
Parking: More parking is needed. Parking enforcement needs to be implemented and better management of parking resources needs to occur. Several comments that business patronage is lost due to lack of parking. Many did not realize that valet parking was available to all businesses and not just certain restaurants.
Circulation: needs to be resolved providing an option or alternative to the current situation.
Vibrant Street Presence: The community needs to encourage and promote a more vibrant street presence that typically will attract more patrons. The right business mix generates an energetic synergy which breeds a more successful business climate.
Strategic Partnership: There needs to be a coordinated effort between the Village business owners, the Chamber of Commerce and the City to market and promote the Village, possibly hiring a marketing professional to design a marketing strategy and implementation plan.
Business Sensitivity: Any future public improvement plan needs to be sensitive to the adverse impacts on business during construction. The slim profit margins of small business are susceptible to interruptions such as construction that can discourage patronage. The time of day and the duration of construction are critical. 6
VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING: A meeting was conducted for the Village Property Owners to provide feedback on the issues that affect them as stakeholders in the Village. The meeting was held on April 5th in the City Council chambers. There were 11 property owners in attendance along with two Planning Commissioners who observed only. A summary of the comments from that meeting are contained Attachment 5. The main issues discussed were:
Parking: There needs to be more parking, and better management of existing parking resources including parking enforcement.
Circulation: The issue of circulation needs to be examined to determine what options are available for circulating traffic through the Village that helps patrons navigate the Village and minimize traffic snarls. Current situation creates significant constraints.
What is the Vision for the Village?: The community needs to decide whether the Village is going to be a “destination” consisting primarily of restaurants and specialty retail; or a resident serving downtown that includes services such as a grocery store, pharmacy, shoe repair, etc…
Active Street Presence: The needs to encourage an active streetscape with outdoor dining, public plazas and daytime activity to provide interest and street life.
Village Promotion: There needs to be a strategic partnership between business (business and property owners, and the Chamber) and the City to promote and market the Village.
Equal Footing: The perception is that the opinion and views of the property owners is not on equal footing with other stakeholders and are often blamed for business leaving the Village. Their hope is that the community will give equal consideration to their views and that they do more to retain tenants than they are given credit.
Business Supportive Policy: There needs to be clear policy that demonstrates a general support for more active businesses in the Village.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS: After a comprehensive review of the current Village Plan, reviewing the resident surveys and meeting with the Village business and property owners, the staff has compiled some observations to assist the Commissions with their recommendation and serve as a springboard from which the decision makers and the community can begin the review process. 7
No significant changes to those policies or ordinances addressing the scale, density or physical form of the Village appear necessary to achieve the desired objectives as stated by the stakeholders. In reviewing the resident surveys and from the discussions with property and business owners, staff did not see or hear, either directly or indirectly, a need or desire to change the physical scale, density or form of the Village in order to achieve the expressed changes for a more vibrant and civically successful Village. The Village Specific Plan addresses two major categories; the physical development of the Village, both on private property and within the public domain; and the use of private property. In the resident surveys, responses to questions regarding the physical appearance and scale of the Village were generally positive. The “small town charm,” the “historic character” and the “preserve view of hills” were qualities that resonated with the community. The high percentage of residents using the Village to walk, “hang out” and exercise suggests that the current physical environment is a desirable amenity that contributes to the value of the Village and the desire to experience it. The fact that these characteristics score well with the community leads staff to conclude that any update of City policy should reinforce these qualities. The priorities of the stakeholders include improving the economic success of the Village, creating a more active street view, attracting a more viable business mix, encouraging mixed use and seeing the City as more of a strategic partner in promoting and marketing the Village. Staff believes there is nothing stated in the Village Plan (or in the Village Design Guidelines) addressing building scale, height, form and density that would prevent the City from achieving the desired objectives. Implementation Plan vs. Policy Document: The current Village Plan is formatted more as an implementation plan rather than a policy document. What the Plan generally identifies as “Policy” is actually an action item to be implemented such as creating parking districts, rezoning property, replacing the street tree program or installing sidewalk. An implementation plan has a finite life. When the action items have been implemented or completed, the plan has fulfilled its usefulness. A policy document is a more enduring community statement that establishes ongoing formal goals and objectives with correlating strategies and polices to help achieve those objectives. In practice, the Village Design Guidelines and the zoning ordinance have been the documents used to determine whether a land use application in the Village is consistent with City policy. The Village Plan has not been as helpful given its format. 8
In 1988, the Village Plan may have served the community’s goals with respect to identifying existing conditions, developing a public infrastructure plan, and providing direction for establishing appropriate zoning districts and regulations. To the City’s credit, most of that implementation plan has been completed creating a foundation for how the Village has developed over the last 28 years. Moving forward, the community’s input in response to the outreach has primarily focused on maintaining the small town scale, the encouragement of business mix and diversity, a more active commercial district, improving parking and circulation, and the availability of public plazas and spaces for community gathering. These kinds of goals may best be addressed as specific policy statements within the General Plan and the Village Design Guidelines, and when appropriate, the City Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes the Saratoga Village Plan has served its useful life and may no longer be necessary in its current format and that moving forward with clear policy in response to the input from the community outreach is best served through specific amendments to the General Plan, the Village Design Guidelines and the City’s zoning ordinance. Major areas to be addressed: Staff has identified a few major areas that should get particular attention with new or updated policy. The Commissions may identify other areas as well. Village Vision: It will be important that policy be formulated that provides clear direction for what the Village is to be, and then craft a path as to how best to achieve that objective. Stakeholders have raised the question of whether the Village is to be a “destination” or should it be more “resident serving”. Parking: Is there an opportunity to create new parking? And if so, is there a feasible financing option? At minimum, there is an opportunity to create policy for managing existing parking resources more effectively and efficiently including an active parking enforcement program. The parking policy that is developed will have a direct affect on land use decisions and this may be best addressed by specific General Plan policies or Zoning Ordinance requirements. Circulation: The lack of circulation, with the current one way in and one way out of the Village on Big Basin Way, creates challenges managing traffic flow. The Village Plan identifies a solution of creating a turnaround at the end of Big Basin Way, which is less than optimal, but it may be the City’s only practical option which has already been thoroughly reviewed. Are there other options? Like parking, circulation has a direct affect on land use decisions, traffic impacts and the level of vibrancy the Village can tolerate. Specific physical changes or policies that may have the potential 9
to impact overall Citywide traffic patterns are best addressed within the context of the General Plan and/or the Circulation Element. Building Scale, Volume, and Density: This process presents an opportunity to better address what might be considered the most sensitive component of the Village, its physical development. As stated earlier in this report, staff believes goals and objectives expressed in the community outreach segment can be accomplished without changing the current policy in that regard. In fact, this will present an opportunity to reinforce those “small town charm” values expressed by the community by providing clear policy direction for all stakeholders. Opportunity Sites: There is a section in the Village Design Guidelines called “Opportunity Sites” where criteria is listed indicating what is desired by the community on those properties. There was some discussion by the property and business owners about what the long range plan is for the Saratoga Village Center commonly known as the “Buy and Save” site. The property is a 1950’s style strip mall located within the first block of the Village. This property is seen as an opportunity to inject new life into the Village. The redevelopment of this property provides a significant opportunity to achieve some of the objectives raised in the surveys and by the other stakeholders by creating new retail/restaurant opportunities, the incorporation of a public plaza and the opportunity to provide an active street presence that is currently void in that section of Big Basin Way. Over the years there have been discussions about redeveloping the property to a more appropriate pedestrian oriented format that brings retail up to the street. However, the property has also created potential controversy due to the lack of clear policy needed to assure the community that an appropriate development within the context of the “small town scale” as expressed by the community will be accomplished. This process provides the community the opportunity to develop site specific policy in the Village Design Guidelines related to the kind of development it would like to see on this property. By adopting such site specific policy, the stake holders, including the property owners, the development community, the decision makers and the residents have a clear understanding of what the community desires on this key parcel, and maybe more importantly, what is not desired. The community may determine there are other sites within the Village that fall into this category as well.
10
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from the November 17, 2015 Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission Village Plan Kick-off meeting. 2. Summary of Godbe Resident Survey 3. Summary of Peak Democracy Survey 4. Minutes from Village Business Owner meeting 5. Minutes from Village Property Owner meeting 6. Comparison of Godbe and Peak Democracy survey results
11
Joint Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Village Plan
April 27, 2016
Questions/comments from PC/HPC
Maintain the small town character Preserve early period Saratoga Provide guidelines applicants and explain the process clearly What can the city do to better facilitate the process? Encourage reasonably priced restaurants The city has a problem with businesses holding on the location under current CUP’s, does not attract a variety of businesses. Should create a balance of serving residents and creating a destination Encourage specialty retail/restaurants/grocery store Business and property owners are confused what the vision for the community is. Public wants the Village to be more vibrant There is a perception to limit vibrant businesses? Can the city promote the Village to encourage daytime destinations? Increase the height limit of buildings? Create and implement a policy to encourage mixed use Promote the Village as family friendly Create healthy alternatives Safe pathways for pedestrians and bikes
Public Comments Natasha Kuo-Minicakes by Tasha Wants to know if raw data from the Godbe survey is available to be able to analyze further Wants to focus on the respondents not satisfied with the village. Those who are satisfied do not need to see a change. Those who are dissatisfied need to see the change. Would like to see a satisfied vs dissatisfied breakdown of the survey and do her own analysis of the data. What do dissatisfied people think about the Village? Jill Hunter-Saratoga Village Development Council The amount of retail locations are dwindling. Now only 11 shops. The Village is primarily restaurants Need to encourage retail and mom/pop shops Highlight what is walkable maintain the small town charm Maryanne Sanders-Skin Prophecy Boutique It is a challenge to attract mom/pop shops Preserve/market the Village Branding 1|P a g e
Brand/advertise the qualities of Saratoga across the valley and feeder cities Careful planning and a better vision What types of retail do we want? Coffee houses? Restaurants?
Laurel Perusa Loves the village Is able to find what she needs in the village and tries to educate people on what is there Feels the City needs to better inform and educated people of what Saratoga Village has to offer Create a marketing campaign in the greater Bay Area to attract people Jeremy and Angelica Levitt Several empty store fronts. Wants to know why? The city needs to make the Village more attractive for businesses Banks and Starbuck are successful Attract chains- those are comfortable for and draw people Update the look and feel of the Village many shops not well maintained and run down. Contributes to the look of decay and lack of vitality. Lack of vitality The Village can serve as a destination and resident serving-You can have BOTH Parking issues Is there a parking shortage or lack of signage? Add bike parking Walkable city Useful Safe Comfortable Interesting
Paul Hernandez Agrees with Commissioner Hlava’s comments about the village and the City’s role The City’s policies need to establish a framework and vision as a destination City should not dictate what businesses come in or don’t. Businesses “should hang out their shingles and see if they can survive”.
Our society is capitalist not a socialist-yet!
HPC Discussion and Recommendations
What is the historic definition of the Village? Do not limit to a single historic period The community likes the historic character. How do we protect that? Every building should be assessed individually What projects/applications should be considered? Case by case basis All projects to be seen by HPC Add all buildings on Big Basin way to the inventory 2|P a g e
Motion 1.
Recommend all applications for projects affecting buildings that facing Big Basin Way, to be reviewed by the HPC. 5-1 vote (No-Cappello), Conrado-absent
2.
Recommend that the City Council support a partnership with the chamber of commerce to promote the city as Heritage Tourism based on the historic aspects. 6-0 vote, Conrado-absent
3.
Recommend that the Village Specific Plan be determined retired or completed and that further updates to Village land use and development policy be provided in an update to the General Plan, Village Guidelines, and the zoning ordinance where necessary. 6-0 vote, Conrado-absent
Planning Commission Discussion and Recommendations
Hold workshops on the major topics noted in the subsection of “Major areas to be addressed” under the “Staff Observations” section of the staff report;
There was general discussion in the areas of:
Traffic Parking Uses in downtown & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) policies Historic Nature Give staff direction to come up with a plan Bring in professionals in for the parking, circulation and land use workshops. Motion
1. Acknowledge that the Village Specific Plan has been completed and should be retired and that policy updates in the areas identified in the “Major areas to be addressed” subsection of the “Staff Observations” section of the staff report and presentation should be provided in an update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, the Village Design Guidelines and if appropriate, the Zoning Code. 6- 0 Vote, Almalech-absent
2. That the City Council look at the issue of improved marketing and promotion of the Village 6- 0 Vote, Almalech-absent
3|P a g e
3. That the City Council look at the current boundaries of the “Village” and consider expanded boundaries (e.g. Neale’s Hollow, Saratoga Federated, Historic Museum, Blaney Plaza, etc.)
6- 0 Vote, Almalech-absent
4|P a g e
