Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101-Staff Report.pdfPage 1 of 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cynthia McCormick, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Review of site coverage requirements and impervious surface definition RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff regarding the preferred approach to revising site coverage requirements and impervious surface definition among one or more of the following options which are discussed later in more detail: 1. Create an exception process that would allow the Planning Commission to approve variations from the site coverage standards upon making specific findings (similar to the process for grading standards). 2. Change the definition of “impervious surface” to exclude specified types of surfaces such as artificial turf, gravel, or driveways. As a variation on this option the Code could exclude specific types of surfaces in specific zoning districts, such as the current exclusion for driveways in the Agricultural district. 3. Seek to address the goals of the site coverage requirements with a different approach such as a landscape ordinance. REPORT SUMMARY: In January 2010 the City Council held their annual retreat and discussed a work program for the Community Development Department. At that time, the Council discussed considering ordinance amendments affecting the City’s site coverage/impervious surface requirements. Council noted that there have been considerable advances in technology concerning products that allow water to penetrate through them such as pavers and pervious concretes and that the city’s current definition may need updating to address the new materials. At the retreat the Council also separately discussed an update to the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance as required by the recent state legislation being administered by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). This update is scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on March 24th. Once recommended by the Planning Commission, the proposed ordinance will be brought to the Council for consideration. One of the options discussed below relates to the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance update. Page 2 of 4 BACKGROUND: The General Plan sets site coverage limits for all residential and commercial/office areas in the City. The Plan describes impervious coverage as being “any structure or constructed surface that disrupts the aesthetics of the landscape.” (General Plan Land Use Element, p.11.) The Zoning Code implements the General Plan with a more specific definition for “impervious surface”: “any structure or constructed surface that disrupts the natural aesthetic of the landscape, including, but not limited to, solid surface decks and patios, accessory structures, swimming pools, recreational courts, paved driveways and parking areas, and surfaces composed of gravel, decomposed granite, clay, and bricks with sand or concrete.” (Saratoga City Code section 15-06.370.) The Code then uses the term “impervious surface” in setting standards for determining site coverage. Site coverage is defined as: “the percentage of net site area covered by impervious surfaces including all structures, open or enclosed, or projections of structures.” (Saratoga City Code section 15- 06.620(f).) These standards are implemented through the design review process, conditions of approval, and plan check prior to issuance of building permits. Since the General Plan’s impervious coverage limits were first adopted, state and federal regulations have been adopted that impose strict limits on local development to protect water quality and to promote water conservation. These include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements imposed by the federal Clean Water Act administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the more recent requirements by the State of California for an updated Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. These rules set a minimum standard with which all local governments must comply. Cities and counties are permitted to adopt more restrictive standards that provide greater protection. While state and federal rules address water quality and conservation objectives of the site coverage policies, those rules do not address the aesthetics of the landscape. As a result, some projects, especially in the hillsides, have found that while it is possible to satisfy applicable water quality and other environmental protection goals, it is not possible to satisfy the City Code’s site coverage requirements with a home of the size and amenities often found in the area. This has led to requests to modify the site coverage requirements in the City Code (see attachment 1). DISCUSSION: Staff has identified three general approaches to addressing the issues related to lot coverage. Council may direct staff and Planning Commission to pursue one of these approaches or a combination. Regardless of the option selected all projects in the City would continue to be required to comply with the minimum standards set by federal and state water quality and conservation rules. 1. Create an exception process that would allow the Planning Commission to approve variations from the site coverage standards upon making specific findings. Page 3 of 4 The first approach would amend the City Code to establish an exception process. The process would allow the Planning Commission to approve variations from site coverage standards if the Commission could make specified findings. This approach is currently used with respect to grading standards. The City’s standard is that combined cut and fill grading shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards but a larger amount may be approved by the Planning Commission upon making certain findings. If Council elects to proceed with this approach staff would work with the Planning Commission to determine appropriate criteria to be used in evaluating requests for a variation form standards (e.g., effect on natural landscape, visibility, additional environmental protection benefit, etc.). 2. Change the definition of “impervious surface” to exclude specified types of surfaces such as artificial turf, gravel, or driveways. As a variation on this option the Code could exclude specific types of surfaces in specific zoning districts, as provided for driveways in the Agricultural district. This approach would consider revising the definition of impervious surface in the City Code. For example, the existing definition (quoted above) includes gravel and decomposed granite as being an impervious surface. The new State of California Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance, in contrast, considers these materials to be “mulch”. Furthermore, it has been suggested that gravel, sand, and/or decomposed granite should not be considered “impervious” because these materials allow some percolation of water into the ground. The State of California Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance defines “pervious” as any surface or material that allows the passage of water through the material and into the underlying soil. This suggests that the City could redefine impervious surface “as any surface or material that does not allow the passage of water through the material and into the underlying soil”. Although this is not required by the state law, a revision along these lines would reduce confusion on the part of applicants and would make it more likely that any project in compliance with the state law would also be in compliance with the City’s site coverage requirements. As a variation on this approach, the City could consider revising the site coverage requirements in some zoning districts to exclude specific types of surfaces such as artificial turf, gravel, clay, sand, decomposed granite, and/or driveways. Currently, the Agricultural District excludes access driveways and necessary turnaround areas from determining site coverage. This approach recognizes that various surfaces may be more or less appropriate in different zoning districts depending on aesthetics, functionality, water usage, etc. 3. Seek to address the goals of the site coverage requirements with a different approach such as a landscape ordinance. This approach would involve replacing the current site coverage requirements with a landscaping ordinance focused on protecting natural aesthetics. The current definition for “impervious surfaces” appears to have been intended to protect water quality and to also preserve the aesthetic quality of a property (by not allowing gravel to cover an entire front yard, for example). However, the current definition may encourage an applicant to install more plants and grass. This type of landscaping requires more water use which is counterintuitive to California’s Water Conservation in Landscaping Act which requires a reduction in water usage through the new Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Page 4 of 4 The water allowance in the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance considers the total “landscaped area” as well as other factors such as a region’s typical rainfall. The ordinance defines “landscaped area” as including “all the planting areas, turf areas, and water features in a landscape design plan . . . . The landscape area does not include footprints of buildings or structures, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, decks, patios, gravel or stone walks, other pervious or non-pervious hardscapes, and other non-irrigated areas designated for non- development (e.g., open spaces and existing native vegetation).” (emphasis added.) A landscape ordinance would define what landscaping is and could regulate where and how much should be allowed. For example, the ordinance could require that a certain percentage of all front yards be landscaped. Site coverage by buildings and other structures would be regulated by existing standards in the Code for building size, setbacks, etc. FISCAL IMPACTS: Any amendments to the ordinance that may potentially increase the amount and type of impervious surface in the City will require environmental review in addition to public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. Any amendment that is more restrictive would typically have no environmental impact. Option one, creating an exception process, would not require environmental review upfront as any environmental effects would be considered on a case-by-case basis in relation to the proposed project. This option would cost approximately $5,000 in City Attorney time. Staff time would be addressed through the advance planning maintenance fund. The other options may require environmental review ranging from $20,000 to $30,000 and approximately $10,000 in City Attorney time. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council could direct the Planning Commission to consider all three options, allowing an exception process, and creating a landscape ordinance that would also address the current definition of impervious surface. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will conduct a study session with the Planning Commission based on City Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence from Ron Hills