HomeMy WebLinkAbout101-Staff Report.pdf SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 4, 2011 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Christopher Riordan, AICP DIRECTOR: Christopher Riordan, AICP
SUBJECT: Amendments to Sections 7-20.220, 14-70.080, 16-17.160 and Various Sections
of Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the City Code
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the attached ordinance adopting various clean up amendments to Sections 7-20.220
(concerning horses), 14-70.080 (concerning voluntary mergers), 16-17.160 (concerning
driveways) and various sections of Chapter 15 of the City Code (Zoning Regulations) of the
Saratoga City Code.
REPORT SUMMARY:
During the daily review and implementation of the City Code, Community Development
Department staff occasionally identifies code sections which are inconsistent with other sections,
are difficult to interpret, or have been preempted by changes to California law. Staff maintains a
list of proposed changes and periodically proposes clean up amendments to these provisions. At
its annual retreat, the City Council requested that staff prepare a clean-up ordinance for 2011.
Changes to the City’s zoning regulations must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The
Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance at their March 13,
2011 and recommended approval.
The proposed amendments are not intended to make substantive changes to the code. The table
below summarizes the amendments in the order they appear in the ordinance and the City Code.
The full text of the ordinance showing specific changes is attached.
Topic Current Approach and
Problem
Proposed Changes
Commercial/Community
Stables
City Code Section 7-20.220
concerns the keeping of horses in
Saratoga. The Code does not
specifically include “training” and
“breeding” as purposes for which
horses may be kept.
Staff is proposing to add the words
“training” and “breeding” to the
definition of both Commercial Stable
and Community Stable to clarify how
horses may be kept.
Voluntary Merger The wording of City Code Section 14-70.080 assumes that a lot Staff is proposing to add text that states that a merger of contiguous
Topic Current Approach and
Problem
Proposed Changes
merger will be followed by a
resubdivision. In some cases, such as the recent Thunder Ranch annexation, parcels are merged and there is no resubdivision.
parcels under common ownership is
authorized with only staff review if no resubdivision is requested and may be accomplished by simple recordation of a deed of merger.
Change the word
Adjacent to Abutting
and related clarifications
There are frequent uses of the
word “adjacent” in the City Code
when referring to properties
sharing a common property line.
The Zoning Code does not include
a definition for “adjacent”.
However, section 15-06.020 of the
Zoning Code defines “Abutting” as
having property lines or district
lines in common. Recent case law
has held that the word “adjacent”
means “nearby” but not necessarily having a common property line.
Staff is proposing to replace the word
“adjacent” with “abutting” in those
code sections where the use of the
word “adjacent” refers to a property
sharing a common property line. In
addition, staff is proposing to replace
“adjacent” with “immediately
adjacent” in code sections where the
term abutting would not be
appropriate.
Change QPF (Quasi-
Public Facility) to CFS
(Community Facility)
During the 2007 update to the
City’s Land Use Element of the
General Plan, the name of the
Quasi-Public Facilities (QPF)
General Plan Designation was
changed to Community Facilities
(CFS). References to the QPF
designation still exist in the Code.
Staff is proposing to replace QPF with
CFS in the various code sections
where QPF is still referenced.
Solar Panels City Code Section 15-80.030(f)
states that with the approval of the
Community Development Director,
solar panels not exceeding six feet
in height may be located with a
rear setback.
Staff is proposing to remove the height
and setback restriction from the
Zoning Code as recent changes to
State law preempt Zoning Code
requirements limiting installation of
solar panels. (Health & Safety Code
section 17959.1.) This same State law
also restricts cities and counties from
requiring Design Review approval or
Conditional Use Permits for solar
panels. However, this exemption from
regulations is not applicable if the
Building Official has a good faith
belief (based on written standards,
policies, or conditions) that the solar
energy system could have specific,
adverse impact upon public health or
safety. In such cases discretionary
review would be allowed in
accordance with the law.
Topic Current Approach and
Problem
Proposed Changes
Appeal Time Limits City Code Section 15-90.050(a)
(Appeals) states that 10 calendar days is the time limit for filing an appeal to the Planning Commission decision. However, City Code Section 15-45.065(c) states that a
decision of the Community
Developer is appealable to the
Planning Commission within 15
calendar days.
Staff is proposing to correct this
inconsistency by modifying the appeal period specified in City Code Section 15-90.050(a) from 10 days to 15 days.
Driveways During the 2009 Code Clean-up
the City amended the standards for
driveways to add required widths
for driveways: A minimum 12 foot
wide driveway for driveways that
service one parcel and a 14 foot
wide driveway with one foot shoulder on each side for driveways that service more than one parcel. A greater width may be required by the Fire department.
This change was inadvertently
deleted during the 2010 update to
the Building Code.
Staff is proposing to include the
driveway standards as they were
adopted in 2009.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The proposed amendments and additions to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section
15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant
effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to
CEQA. In this circumstance, Staff is recommending amendments to the existing City Code and
related sections and additions of provisions to the existing Code; the amendments and additions
would have a de minimis impact on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There are no negative fiscal impacts associated with approval of the proposed ordinance.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Code would continue to be inconsistent with recent changes in State law and be
difficult to interpret for both staff and the public.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Decline to adopt the proposed ordinance and provide staff with direction.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation of the City of Saratoga within 15 days after its adoption.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s website in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENT: Proposed Ordinance