The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About102-Correspondence from Ron Hills - Attachment 1.pdf(Page # in upper left corner) Attachment 1 Letter from Ronald and Suzanna Hills dated January 20, 2010 (pages 1-14) Notes from Ronald Hills dated February 23, 2010 (pages 15-18) Codes from other Cities (pages 19-20) Live Lawns (pages 21-22) Pavers (pages 23-27) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 Impervious Coverage Issue 1 2/23/10 COMMENTS ON IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE DEFINITION: The city needs to update its code to correct the definition of Impervious Coverage and allow for new technologies to be used for landscaping. Saratoga’s verbal interpretation of the code counts Artificial Turf, gravel and tree Bark as Impervious Coverage and makes no sense to the 3 lawyers and a former district attorney I spoke to, nor to any of the 20 cities, 5 water districts, the EPA, and Green Organizations I surveyed. I also checked this out with: EPA, State code, Webster's, Google, and Wikipedia. The common and legal interpretation of “impervious” centers around liquid percolation, not that it is a “constructed surface that disrupts the natural aesthetics of the landscape”. Everyone, except Saratoga, defines it as: “does not allow rain water to be directly absorbed by the ground”, “infiltration of water into the underlying soil is prevented”, “not allowing anything to pass through it”, “incapable of being penetrated”, “seals soil surface, eliminating underground natural water recharge”, etc. To make matters worse, “Natural aesthetics of the landscape” is also not defined in the code and can be very subjective (from dirt/weeds to grass/trees) and could vary from property to property. The present code interpretation allows the city to effectively impact/control the appearance of enclosed non-visible rear yard landscaping, even though this desire to control is not mentioned anywhere in the code. The present interpretation has another negative impact on homeowners because many use tree bark or gravel in planter areas to retain water in summers, or Artificial Turf in place of live lawns where real grass doesn’t grow well (such as shaded areas or high traffic areas) or just to save water. I assume that people who have applied, or will apply, for a building permit have been, or will be, required to count these materials against their Impervious Coverage limit no matter where it is on their property. This does not allow homeowner to freely select their own landscaping or encourage homeowners to use modern products that save water while giving a aesthetically pleasing landscaped appearance. 15 Impervious Coverage Issue 2 2/23/10 There are modern products that help save water while providing aesthetically pleasing landscaping. Examples are: Artificial Turf (AT), tree bark, gravel, deck like surfaces that let water percolate into the ground, and manufactured materials such as porous cement and Hydro-Flo technology pavers (see attachment-A) that allow water to percolate through them. QUESTIONS THE CITY NEEDS TO DECIDE: 1- Does Saratoga want to be the only city interpreting "Impervious Coverage" as a "aesthetics" question (defined as “not representing a natural landscape” look) or as a percolation question? It’s unfair (I also think illegal) to subjectively define a Impervious Coverage code with no definition of what’s acceptable “natural landscaping”. How does the city justify its interpretation of Impervious Coverage that does not conform to anyone else’s legal definition? It is also very subjective to say Artificial Turf doesn’t look like grass! The Turf’s look and feel is what makes it a booming business. 2- Does the city want to continue penalizing homeowners who use these products to save water while improving the aesthetics of their property and the city? 3- Does the city want to define/control enclosed rear yard landscaping? If so, why? How would the city accomplish this or monitor this, and where do we get the extra money to do code enforcement? Does the city want to be know as a big government (big brother) type of city? This will discourage people from moving to Saratoga and consequently lower property values and taxes (income to the city). Neighboring cities don’t do this. 4- How does the city plan to support and encourage homeowners to conserve landscaping water? Will the city continue to penalizing homeowners for using water saving landscaping materials? Why are we worrying about shower flow restrictors when live lawns are the biggest water users (>50%)? 5- How does the city & the homeowner comply with the Water District restrictions and fines on water usage, as well as the new Cal. State Landscaping law? Water districts are 16 Impervious Coverage Issue 3 2/23/10 willing to pay Saratoga homeowners to replace real turf with Artificial Turf. But city penalizes us if we do what the Water District is trying to promote. The cost of water is projected to increase 36% over the next 3 years? Water Districts are being threatened by the State that if they don’t reduce water consumption by 20% they could loose State aid. Homeowners will stop planting live green lawns or start turning off their landscape irrigation just to comply with the Water restrictions and save money. Saratoga will have more homes with dirt & weeds in their front yards. The Planning Dept. has a concern about AT becoming clogged over time (to 15% percolation rate) and causing water runoff. The least percolating Turf I found can clog down to <1% percolation rate and still handle >99% of Saratoga’s worse case rain storms over the last 7 years. Real lawns and dirt cause runoff problems faster than AT with its base rock that acts like a detention pond. No other city or water management group worries about it. Saratoga High, Prospect High and many other schools have very large flat football fields of AT. SUGGESTIONS FOR UPDATING CODE: Re-write article 15-06.370 and “Req’s for design review applications, pg-2, item-m” to: A- Define Impervious Coverage as a water percolation issue. Define Landscape Aesthetics as a separate issue. B- For IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE issues: do NOT count any material that can percolate water ≥1” per day*, such as: Artificial turf, Tree Bark, gravel, deck surfaces that let water percolate into the ground, and manufactured materials such as porous cement and Hydro-Flo technology pavers that allow water to percolate through them. Allow consideration for underground percolation tanks/systems that accumulate water runoff from hard surfaces and slowly allow the water to percolate into the ground (as in Cupertino code). There is no need to worry about setbacks from property lines for these products since they control runoff better than dirt or grass. C- For LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS: divide “visible” vs. “non- visible” yard areas by what can be seen from the street. If it can be seen by the public at a distance (such as a 17 Impervious Coverage Issue 4 2/23/10 second story neighbor window or from a hill side) it should NOT be counted as visible. For visible areas have homeowners show samples of the proposed Turf/gravel/bark/pavers/etc (plus the proposed location for each) to Planning for approval, similar to what’s presently required for colors, roof materials, etc. Do not allow old Astro Turf or Indoor/Outdoor carpeting in visible areas. Require that ≥50% be landscaped with live landscaping, etc and ≤50% be hardscape, etc (these can be more defined as to what’s allowed/disallowed- there are numerous options). For non-visible areas don’t control the landscaping design or materials except for water runoff to neighbors or in hillside slopes over ~XX% slope. Remember – these products actually reduce water runoff and the potential for mudslides by allowing more time for the dirt to absorb rainwater. * Based on Saratoga rainfall over last 7 years. All Artificial turf’s can handle >168”/day (7”/hr). Hydro-Flo Pavers can handle ≥24”/day (1”/hr). In the worse case (24”/day), if these products accumulate dust/dirt over the years, they can become ~96% clogged and still handle ~99% of Saratoga’s worse case rain storms, which is still much better than dirt or grass can handle. SUMMARY: • Present to City Council: - Impervious Coverage code is miss-leading and out of date. - Recommend change in code to clearly define: 1- “Impervious Coverage” as a water percolation issue. 2- Separate code for Landscaping Aesthetics - Allow for new technology to be used to help solve State Landscaping Law requirements and meet need of local Water Districts. - Recommend City still has oversight into landscaping appearance for “visible” lawn areas. • Question to City Council: - Does the city want to control the appearance or use of any materials used in non-visible lawn areas, such as enclosed rear yards, other than for water percolation needs? 18 PA Code 18.04.030 Definitions (74) "Impervious area" means the portion of land on a lot that is covered by structures, paved surfaces, uncovered porches or similar cover and is incapable of being penetrated by water under normal circumstances. Artificial Turf – not covered Gravel, tree bark – not counted as Impervious Coverage LA Code Title 11 MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTY REGULATIONS Los Altos, California - Code of Ordinances ...or part thereof. "Animated sign" means any sign that uses movement or change of lighting, either natural or artificial, to depict action or create a special effect or scene. "Arcade" means a private or public passageway either...and poison ivy when the conditions of growth are such as to constitute a menace to the public health; 5. Dry grass, stubble, brush litter or other flammable material which endangers the public safety by creating a fire hazard. ... Cupertino Code Glossary of terms 19 Code 18.04.030, Definitions: section (74) "Impervious area" means the portion of land on a lot that is covered by structures, paved surfaces, uncovered porches or similar cover and is incapable of being penetrated by water under normal circumstances Code 18.12.060, Parking (b) Parking and Driveway Surface Parking and driveway surfaces may have either permeable or impermeable paving. Materials shall be those acceptable to public works department standards. Gravel and similar loose materials shall not be used for driveway or parking surfaces within 10 feet of the public right of way. 20 Interesting article in Geophysical Research Letters about live lawns By Townsend-Small, A., and C. I. Czimczik Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in urban turf Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L02707, doi:10.1029/2009GL041675 22 January 2010 www.agu.org/journals/gl/ Basically- any Carbon foot print advantage of having a live lawn vs no lawn or Artificial Turf is lost due to CO2 gases from equipment maintaining the lawn. We still need parks but why not encourage use of Artificial Turf for home owners!! ---------------------------- City Parks May Be Bad for the Environment Inside Science Green parks in dry climates may actually increase the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, according to new research. • WASHINGTON -- Plants are usually our allies when it comes to reducing the atmosphere's greenhouse gases, converting carbon dioxide into food and storing the gas' carbon in the soil below. But according to new research, green parks in dry climates -- which bring thick carbon-capturing grass to regions normally populated by sparse native vegetation -- may actually increase the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. "The greenhouse gases produced by maintaining the park are the problem," reports Amy Townsend-Small, an earth scientist at the University of California, Irvine. Her research suggests that parks in arid cities, as they are currently managed and landscaped, are not as 21 "green" as they look. Her measurements of soil carbon and the air above the park's turf in Irvine showed that grass itself captures a fair amount of CO2 and emits only a tiny amount of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that soil bacteria create while digesting fertilizer. But when Townsend-Small included estimates about how much energy and fuel was required to manage the land -- and the pollution produced by equipment such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers -- she calculated the resulting carbon footprint created from landscaping maintenance to be 10 times the amount of carbon that the park's green area could absorb. Just watering the grass alone produced enough carbon to override any potential reduction in the gas that the lawn might produce. The numbers were even worse for the park's athletic fields, where turf is continually torn up and replanted before it can store significant amounts of carbon. Published in the Jan. 22 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the research suggests that parks in arid cities, as currently managed, should not count as carbon credits. 22 23 24 25 26 27