HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-2010 SUPPLEMENTAL COUNCIL AGENDA2010 Taste of Saratoga — Art & Wine Festival Proposal
to
The Saratoga City Council
by
The Saratoga Chamber of Commerce
Goal: To present a professionally managed two -day Taste of Saratoga — Art & Wine Festival
September 25 -26, 2010
Update on Event Preparations to Date:
• Caltrans has issued an encroachment permit for September 25 and 26.
• An event management group has been selected and is holding the dates open
• Committee reps have been in conversation with Captain Terry Calderone of the Santa Clara
County Sheriff's Department, who is supportive of the two -day event and has agreed to provide
officers needed for security and traffic control.
■ The Chamber Board of Directors is very enthusiastic to develop and produce a well- organized
event that will be a positive experience for the City of Saratoga, Village Merchants, Village
residents, attendees, artists, vendors, and volunteers which can become an annual attraction.
Pros of a Two -Day Event
• Two -days of attracting Saratoga residents and residents of surrounding communities to attend
• Great potential for increased business for Village merchants and restaurants
• Professionally- managed from start to finish by an organization that has a 25+ year established
record of successful art and wine festival production
■ Management group will be promoting the event all year on their website, at other events they
produce and through the artists that will be exhibiting at Saratoga's event
■ Chamber of Commerce Board and volunteers will be freed from the event logistics planning and
execution and can thereby devote their time to communicating and meeting with The Village
merchants, neighbors, restaurants and wineries
Challenges of a Two -Day Event
Limited parking
Solutions:
• Make more parking lots available to attendees by relocating the artist and vendor
parking area to West Valley College and provide shuttle services. This plan has been
accepted by California Artist.
• Contract with a valet service such -as Corinthian International Parking Services to provide
shuttle buses and paid valet parking services
o Prepare and implement a parking- awareness plan to inform potential attendees of
available choices and encourage them to use the shuttles and public transit
• Encourage attendees to park at one of the designated parking areas through notification
in our publicity of the event
• Work with the restaurants to create solutions to provide convenient parking for their
guests
o Require event volunteers to use the shuttle
■ Past objections to event from Oak Street neighbors, merchants, restaurants and wineries
Solutions:
o The Chamber Board will do the following:
a. Canvas Oak Street residences, merchants, restaurants in the Village and wineries to
present the event and to gather information from each of these groups related to their
past experience and concerns about the event
b. Arrange Town Hall meetings with each group to provide further information
c. Analyze and prioritize the information and develop collaborative solutions to the
challenges that were presented during the canvassing and Town Hall meetings
We have already had a conversation with Joan LeMahieu, General Manager of The Mountain Winery
and she has expressed her full support of a two -day event street closure. She has recorded the proposed
dates and will work with those while planning Mountain Winery events. They will publish driving
directions for the two -day event on their website and through other media for their customers.
The Chamber Board is seeking approval, for this event, from the City Council.
Madam Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager and Staff:
I am before you to ask that you review a decision made by the Traffic
Safety Commission at their meeting on January 14. As background, in
September 2009 a painting crew arrived at our street to paint a
crosswalk at the intersection of Kirkmont and Kirkbrook Drives. I was
not aware of this action and called John Cherbone, City Public Works
Director. I told him that the crosswalk was a total surprise and that no
public notice or public input was requested by anyone in the
neighborhood. He took action to defer this installation until the Traffic
Safety Commission reviewed their action. I learned that at the March
meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission only one resident on Kirkmont
had requested the crosswalk and the Commissioners approved it at that
meeting.
Since September I and one other resident on Kirkbrook Drive have
monitored the traffic at that intersection and the area around the Blue
Hills School. We have physically checked the flow in the morning and
afternoon during school days at least once or twice a week from
September to January. Our observations were that the general traffic
flow or children and parents parking their cars and walking between the
traffic flow on Kirkmont, Kirkbrook, Knollwood, Kirkdale, DeSanka and
Seagull was a more important safety concern that the Traffic Safety
Commission should review and not assume one crosswalk will alleviate
the safety concerns.
I only had three minutes to make this point at the Commission meeting
on January 14th. so I provided a written statement with pictures so the
Commissioners could review it at a later time. They then closed the
public session. The Commissioners discussed my request and only two
Commissioners even looked at my hand out. There was no attempt to
even consider reviewing this additional information. They then asked
their Traffic Engineer about her review of the intersection request. She
advised them that the crosswalk was needed. Her recommendation was
based on ONLY A ONE DAY review. The Commissioners did not even
acknowledge my request for a more overall review of the traffic
congestion around Blue Hills School. They only questioned the Traffic
Engineer and then voted to install the crosswalk.
I am requesting the Council to have John Cherbone defer the crosswalk
painting and require the Traffic Safety Commissioners to personally
perform an on site review of the total traffic flow for themselves and not
totally rely on the ONE DAY REVIEW by the Traffic Engineer. For your
information, in 1998 a review of the traffic around Blue Hills School was
performed, but that was ten years ago. A new review is now warranted.
I have given a copy of the documents that I presented to the Traffic
Safety Commission to the City Clerk for the Council's review.
Ernest A. Brookfield 12226 Kirkbrook Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070
TO: Saratoga Public Safety Commission Directors
SUBJECT: Old Business - Item 2 - Traffic Matrix @ 233 - Mike Ziegel
Ref: Traffic Safety Commission Meeting March 12, 2009
The Traffic Safety Commission on the reference date reviewed a request
( #233) for a cross walk on Kirkbrook Drive and Kirkmont. The specific
motion was to "recommend a white crosswalk be painted across the
southside of Kirkbrook at Kirkmont." This was approved 6 -0.
This action was taken without any notification to the residents of the
area, nor an official posting, so other residents of the area could provide
additional input or comments. The Commission approval was based on
just one individual's request. No on -site survey was conducted nor was
the Commission provided with any additional supporting data by this
individual to reflect that a safety issue was present.
I am concerned about safety as all of the residents of Saratoga are and I
support the efforts of this Commission. However, I feel that this specific
action to add a crosswalk at this location is not a safety issue, but rather
one of convenience to only a few parents who live on Kirkmont. I have
taken pictures of the traffic in the morning of parents taking their
children to school. I have not yet seen a child walking to school without
their parents. Will this crosswalk provide more safety than a parent? If
this crosswalk is installed, will these same parents allow their elementary
school child to walk to school without them?
Parents currently driving their children to school are parking their cars
on Kirkbrook near the Knollwood intersection (most of the time as far
down toward Kirkmont). They get out of their vehicles and just cross
Kirkbrook as noted on one of my pictures.
A more serious safety issue the Commission needs to consider is the
current traffic pattern that Blue Hills School is using to "drop off' the
children on DeSanka. Several years ago, Nick Streit, Saratoga City
Council member surveyed our area to review the traffic flow of Blue Hills
School. The result of that review was to install a traffic light at the corner
of Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road and Seagull. This action was to provide a
better access to Blue Hills School (for left hand turns) as well as vehicles
leaving the school to return to Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road. Also, a school
guard was placed on DeSanka and Knollwood to assist with the traffic
flow as well as providing safe crosswalk control for the children leaving
the school. This guard is no longer there due to budget issues.
The concern for safety needs more investigation of the overall Blue Hills
School traffic congestion. The current traffic flow to the drop off point has
no control by either the school or parents. I invite you Commissioners to
be in the Blue Hills School area at 7 :40 to 8:14 am any school day to
witness this condition. Your review may provide a better safety approach
then just painting another crosswalk. How safe is the walk down our
Saratoga Streets that have no sidewalks, next to parked cars, in order to
get to a crosswalk and feel safe? Parents have the basic responsibility to
protect their children.
I have lived in Saratoga for over 35 years, raised my child in Saratoga
and have seen other families raise their children as well. There has never
been a safety issue on Kirkbrook, Kirkmont or Knollwood Drives. I
request that the Commissioners disapprove this crosswalk request due to
the lack of a justifiable safety issue.
Sincerely,
Ernest A. Broo d
12226 Kirkbrook Drive
Saratoga, CA 96070
AV,4 r /6-
IWOR ,2 /US
ry s��ot
1poaoalr ell
Cr
177101-A? IelD-r
� Scffl�t•
ra sc�aG -
c/zo ss �avG
r�orti ,�rr.��n�o,vr
NoT �r iNT1�.St�i!
k, PA?MoNr
�o
47 N 1� +I313i910N "! �
W44-1,e l I r-) IV
S ",4WVj- AU OF- Tb
GoN6&'TJ7c.✓ n A✓
At 4114IO& Z.Aolok' —
Ar."04uviACW
IwfZS O V
/N71�SbG/7l7N
c4r04 ? r1z/-G9- l0'
/f /RkA -Yoejr iivp
G FifZLy /�ioNG:
/CiIZ/e �j200i� 1�v�
lrs y y� 6.AeT ��1+C
~OW/— 011c,
ci4.2 0V I.?-)rZAf "OA,'
rb c.2o5-r r� W#r>•
/D ScthvoL - ivifiLG
ON "lives 712q %y /G
,�C =�v� =tea/ i1 i /2 /CMoNr
f�IvA 11 iR�A�
lG CIi�s
� '�w(a'r2k.�
X
Il
/li�lltP1Dh
nr e-r rr o o' P/AZA-4w
C✓a-f'2 o N .a/ r -1e61J rtW
i,v G2DS S /-v f✓. GJZ
r�q�,diN6 ov
Al) Rv e F3Y1l�A��
L f
�a�2trnlT �Y�k�
Ale,- / �D
tv SCdAPL ;3WWW*
n- R'. -Irk G
IV, O04 -'
</t7wo
p���rr
January 20, 2010
Honorable Mayor Kathleen King
Honorable Members, City Council
Address: City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Interpretation of Artificial Turf /graveVtree bark as Impervious Coverage (code 15-
06.370) and it's impact on Saratoga Building Permit 09 -0344.
Dear: Mayor King and Members of the City Council:
This letter is intended to bring to your attention outstanding issues surrounding our
installation of artificial turf (AT), landscaping gravel and tree bark in our enclosed
backyard, which the Planning Dept. verbally defines as Impervious Coverage (IC). For
the reasons stated below, we are asking relief from the Planning Department's
directive that our AT /gravel/bark be counted as IC and we not be required to
remove part of our Impervious Coverage since we would then be within the city
code limits
Summary
As you will see below I have undertaken extensive investigation of this issue and suggest
the City needs to place a high priority on reviewing its ordinance regarding impervious
coverage in light of the need to conserve water resources, the present California State
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act and the evolvement of artificial turf.
AT /gravel/bark are well accepted in municipal ordinances of other forward thinking
cities, while balancing needs for curb appearance.
At the same time, there is the opportunity to interpret the present ordinance to fit the
specifics of my case.
First, Article 15- 06.370 does not specifically address artificial turf. When you examine
the specifications of the material in place in our yard, there are immediate distinctions to
the examples given in the ordinance and the "Impervious Coverage Table ". Of course,
the point is whether the type of AT used here is "impervious ". It is not.
Second, the ordinance uses the term — "natural aesthetic ", without defmition. Again, AT
has evolved significantly from the Astro -turf of 40 -50 years ago. More importantly, the
term "natural aesthetic" is not the same as "natural material ". "Aesthetic" relates to the
look. In today's push for a greener environment and water conservation, the State and
Water Districts discourage live lawns since they are the heaviest water user for most
homes. An accepted, an encouraged, alternative is AT which has the look and feel of
natural grass, while not requiring water, reducing pollution and at the same time allowing
percolation.
Background
We have resided on a 1.5 -acre property on Woodbank Way since 1975. As part of a
recent remodeling of the house and relandscaping of the grounds, we installed live
landscaping in front and rear yards. Later we installed- 3,534ft2 of expensive Eco-
Friendly AT and landscaping gravel in a former flat horse corral that consisted of dirt,
rocks and weeds. The corral is visible from the back of the house and adjacent to the
landscaped backyard. Our intention was to enhance the landscaping aesthetics of the
corral, provide consistent backyard appearance, while limiting use of additional water. It
is in our enclosed backyard and cannot be seen from outside the property. It did not
require city review /approval or a permit. This project was completed in May 2008.
In Dec. 2008, we applied for a permit to build a cabana in our enclosed backyard. For the
permit application the Planning Dept. counted our "backyard AT & gravel" as IC, even
though it is undocumented in the city code. This action caused us to exceed our IC limit
by 5 %. When this is not counted as IC we are at 33 %, which meets the 35% limit. Site
visits demonstrated that the AT looks like grass and percolates water at a high rate. Even
though we contested the definition of IC we were informed that the Planning Dept. would
not recommend a variance to our IC, nor recommend approval of our building permit
without removing the AT /gravel, or some other IC, to comply with the 35% limit.
In order to obtain the permit and finish the cabana, we complied, but "without prejudice
to my rights to revisit the issue in an alternate forum" (excerpt from my letter of March
31, 2009.).
The cabana is now finished, but approval of our "final" cabana permit is pending our
removal of the AT /gravel, or equivalent in patio decking /sidewalks /etc, all installed
before the cabana project began. We are faced with the removal of expensive ( >$30K)
landscaping, replacing it with live plants (using water) or reverting back to dirt/weeds,
destroying the rear yard appearance and reducing the property value. This is the essence
of our dilemma and that brings us to the reason for this letter.
Impervious Coverage
Since our permit approval, to better understand regulation of impervious coverage in
California cities, I reviewed the Saratoga city code, investigated the legal definition of
impervious coverage, and how 18 other cities, including all local cities, and five local
water districts treat AT, gravel and tree bark. I have also had discussions with Green
organizations, AT manufactures, and several lawyers.
The results of my research can be summarized as follows. More details on IC and AT are
contained in the attachments to this letter.
• Planning Dept.'s verbal definition of IC states this material does not look like
"Natural Landscaping" and it is to be counted as IC, whether it is in the visible or
enclosed yards. "Natural Landscaping" is also not defined in the code and could
be considered as dirt/rock/weeds to grass /trees. See enclosure -E for a photo of
this area.
2
• Legal definitions and all cities surveyed define IC in relationship to "water
percolation ", not visual appearance.
• There are no restrictions in 20 other cities (including local cities) on
AT /gravel/bark and enclosed backyards, except for extreme hillsides. Only in
rare cases was gravel restricted in font yards None are considered Impervious.
See attachment -D for summary of how 4 local cities handle IC.
• Some cities encourage the use of AT to save water and provide a year around
green landscaped appearance (no browning or dying).
• Most local water districts, including those serving Saratoga, will give rebates if
real grass is replaced by AT in order to save water and reduce pollution.
• Saratoga's normal rainfall is less than 1 " /day. The worse AT we percolates water
at 168" /day (equal to 17 simultaneous Hurricane Katrina's).
• Use of natural grass and plants, as recommended by the some Planning
Commissioners, would require an extra – 100Kg /yr of water, enough water to fill
the City Council Chambers with >4' of water —a significant waste of water,
especially during a drought. Lawns are single - largest irrigation crop, 3 times more
than corn (per NASA & Science Daily: www.sciencedaily.com /videos /2006/0404-
Qreener Brass less water.htmwww.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0404-
areener izrass_less¢water.htm). Calif new Landscape code requires all cities to limit
live lawn areas and water used for landscaping.
• AT reduces water runoff and water /air /noise pollution. Tree bark and gravel are
commonly used to help retain irrigation water and reduce water usage.
Conclusions
Verbal interpretations & restrictions on the use of AT not consistent Saratoga's
documented code does not specifically define these materials as impervious or require
review /approval before installing. The result is that Saratogans can make a significant
investment and, after the fact, are being told to make another investment to replace it.
Saratoga code interpretation is not consistent with building _a green community. Other
municipalities consider impervious coverage to be a water percolation issue, not a
landscape issue. The Planning Dept.'s actions force homeowners to plant live plants and
use water, instead of choosing materials to save water to beautify their property. This
contradicts an image of Saratoga as a "water conservation" community. Saratoga should
encourage homeowner investment in new technology water - saving options.
Saratoga is in conflict with the goals of the San Jose Water District and State of Calif
Local water districts recognize that AT helps to reduce water consumption as well as the
amount of toxicants entering the water system. Toxicants in modern AT are safe, well
below environmental standards and much less than those from lawn pesticides, fertilizers,
etc.. Many water districts, including Saratoga's, give rebates to homeowners who replace
real grass with AT. Now, the state wants to fine water districts if they don't reduce water
consumption by 20 %. Califs new Water Conservation requirement for landscaping
requires all cities to limit landscape water usage and size of live lawns. How does
Saratoga comply with this requirement since we are penalized for using material to save
water, especially for large lots? If we must live with the Planning Dept. directive, then
we greatly exceed the state limits and waste an enormous amount of water. AT can help
solve this state requirement while giving the City a green landscaped look.
We AGREE with the city's desire to maintain a high standard of aesthetic appeal in the
community. Our belief is that proper use of AT increases Saratoga property values and
the appearance of the community. Old style glowing green Astro -Turf and indoor /outdoor
carpeting are not appropriate in visible areas, but modern AT looks /feels like real grass.
To control visible public areas a practical, simple solution would be to have homeowners
present a sample of the materials they plan to use to the Planning Dept. for review and
approval. I could not find any city controlling how homeowners landscape their rear
yards. All these materials percolate water, and should be allowed and encouraged like
other cities.
We hope to resolve this matter promptly and appreciate your attention to the concerns we
have raised.
Respectfully yours,
Ronald and Suzanna Hills
18588 Woodbank Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attachments:
A- Information on Impervious Coverage and Artificial Turf
R_ T.etter frnm our grace manufacture showing lndepandent testing of percolat:0^.
rate, including the base rock.
G Letter from our grass manufacture showing independent testing for toxicants
D- Summary of how local cities consider IC
E- Photo of AT area, facing rear of enclosed yard
4
Attachment -A
Information on Impervious Coverage and Artificial Turf
1. Saratosta code related to this issue states:
a. Article 15- 06.370: "Impervious surface" means any structure or
constructed surface that disrupts the natural aesthetic of the landscape, including,
but not limited to, solid surface decks, accessory structures, swimming pools,
recreational courts, paved driveways and parking areas, and surfaces composed of
gravel, decomposed granite, clay, and brick with sand or concrete. [Our original
Natural Landscaping was dirt /rocks /weeds]
b. Under "requirements for design review applications ", pg -2, item -m,
"Impervious Coverage table" list the following examples to be used in the
calculations: home footprint, driveway, walkway, pool, and deck. [These are all
hard surfaces that won't allow water percolation]
c. No requirement exists for review /approval/permit to install AT, gravel,
tree bark or even uncovered cement patios /sidewalks. One could cover their
whole backyard without a permit but then be penalized when a permit is needed
for something else.
2. Impervious Coverage & Surface definition examples: Defined by EPA,
Webster's, Google, Wikipedia, water districts and other city codes 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 ". There is no reference to "landscape
aesthetics ", only water percolation. We were told that since it was man
made it was not "natural landscaping" and was therefore classified as IC.
Survey of 20 Calif. cities (including Saratoga's surrounding Bay Area cities
and some in conservative Orange County):
a. No other city restricts the landscaping in an enclosed backyard, other
than for extreme hillside areas. Some regulate ground water
percolation but allow AT /gravel/bark.
b. They control how much of the exposed front yard and side yards can
be paved vs. landscaped (usually 50/50). No backyard restrictions.
c. Some encourage the use of Artificial Turf to save water and give a
year around lush green landscaped appearance (does not turn brown in
winter or droughts). Tree bark and gravel promote water conservation.
4. Water districts will give cash rebates if real grass is replaced with Artificial
Turf in an effort to conserve water. Saratoga is in direct conflict with the
efforts the Water District (Reference SJ Water District rebate program:
www.vallevwater.ora /Water/Water conservation/L,andscaping/ Landscape rebate p
rogram.shtm). A few examples of other water districts giving rebates (while
money holds out): Santa Clara Valley, East Bay Mud, Sequel, N. Marin and
misc. S. Calif. districts.
5. "Calif. Water Conservation in Landscaping Act ", as of Jan. 1, 2010,
requires all cities to use the states new complicated regulations, or create their
own regulations, to limit the use of water. The state law limits live lawn areas
to —25% of yard area. The purpose is to limit water usage for landscaping.
(see http: / /www. water. ca. gov/ wateruseefficiency /landscapeordinance /) A
6. Our IC problem- Some commissioners suggested we install natural
landscape (also undefined in the code). To make it match our other
landscaping would require a large area of grass and plants. Every square foot
of grass takes — 23 -45gal of water per year (depending on lawn, etc). To match
our existing grass we would need —100K -160K gals /year (66K -106K toilet
flushes). This is equivalent to covering the our area or the City Council
Chambers in 4 -6' of water. This is a real waste of water, especially in a
drought period and when the state wants to limit (& fine) water districts and
homeowners. Typically, each household uses >50% of their water for
outdoors (SJ Water Co.). Landscaping a large lot (we have 1.5A) using real
grass, etc requires excessive amount of water. Homeowners with large lots are
penalized if they want to have landscaped areas like homeowner with smaller
lots. SJ Water Co. plans to increase water rates -36% over the next 3 years.
Restricting the use of modern materials, the state code and water district
demands to reduce water consumption, plus increase in water rates will not
encourage homeowners to landscape or water, which is not in keeping with
the desired green landscaped look of Saratoga neighborhoods.
5- Water runoff/percolation: Surveyed more than 12 AT manufacturers: Their
products (including the compacted base rock) have been tested to percolate
water at a. 7" -31 "/hour. See attachment -B for percolation rate testing
(> 10 "/hr) of our AT. The rate primarily depends of style of Turf. AT
(including base rock) can percolate much water faster than the soil. The base
rock even acts as a "detention pond ", reducing runoff and allowing more
water to be percolated into the aquifer. Saratoga's maximum rainfall is
<1 " /day and only on few occasions in the last 7 years did it exceed 1" (max
was 4.2" /day in 2008). At 7 "/hr AT can handle at least 168" /day. It is
designed for, and used in, dusty places which also have torrential rain storms
(such as Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, etc.) plus in constant heavy rain areas
(Gulf region, Hawaii, etc.). It is used for landscaping homes, hotels, parks,
commercial buildings, schools, airport runway in- fields, etc where runoff
cannot be tolerated.
6- Our property has a unique situation: Most of our property cannot not
percolate water into the aquifer. The house and backyard areas are built on fill
dirt, over an old shallow lake bed. The surface of the lake bed contains a
dense gray silt that doesn't percolate. Consequently we have had flooding and
had to installed drain lines to divert rain water off the property into the storm
drains or creek. The AT base rock helps control the situation and retain water.
7- Toxicants are not a problem. Most AT manufactures use recycled materials
for infill. Originally water districts worried about leaching lead, zinc and
C
other toxicants into the water sources or contamination to the skin. Over
recent years these problems have been eliminated. Saratoga & Prospect High
schools use AT. Fremont School District is now converting all football fields
to AT. AT also eliminates pesticides, insectsides, etc from entering the water.
Water districts have done studies and verified AT is safe. Reference the
attachment -C for toxic test results on our AT.
8- Saratoga wants to be known as modern green and environmentally_
friendly, it should follow the lead of other cities, water districts and the
state, and encourage the use of modern products that save water and
reduce pollution. Being Green means minimizing use of natural resources
(such as water and energy) and reducing pollution- both accomplished
with AT /gravel /bark. The City of Saratoga has the same problems as
homeowners. Saratoga is replacing worn grass in El Quito and Congress
Springs parks with decomposed granite paths to save water and
maintenance. Decomposed Granite is defined as IC. Do schools, city parks,
etc. have the same IC interpretations /restrictions as homeowners?
9- Need to save water: Saratoga spends 55% of its utilities bill on water
and is trying to reduce the overhead (ref. Saratoga News, pg -12,
11/3/09). "Build -it- Green" wants to minimize "real turf' areas to 10 -33%
of property. The American Water Works Association promotes use of AT
to save water. Water Districts are threatened with losing state aid if they
do not reduce water consumption by 20% in the future (SJ Mercury, Pg -1,
10/23/09). Again, counting these materials as impervious materials for
the City or homeowners effectively goes against water conservation
requirements.
12- Other advantages of Artificial Turf:
a. Reduces water runoff since base rock acts as detention pond while the
ground absorbs the water. Consequently there is less water runoff than
from dirt or grass.
b. Looks and feels like real grass year around, even in shaded or heavy
traffic areas or during winters and droughts. Improves aesthetics of
Saratoga. UV stabilized, long warranties and life.
c. Child, adult and pet friendly. No allergy- causing seeds or cuttings.
Non - toxic /antimicrobial. (ref. US Consumer Product Safety
Commission)
d. Eliminates problems with dogs /cats, insects, gophers, rabbits, etc. AT
is also used in local dog parks.
e. Reduces landscape maintenance time and cost, especially for older
people and for large lots. Easy to clean (blow off leaves, wash off
spills)
f. Greatly reduces water, air, noise and toxicant pollution (fertilizers,
insectides, weed sprays, lawn mover & trimmer green house
gases /noise, etc.), which impact neighbors and the City.
g. Adds resale value and improves aesthetics of Saratoga.
7
i` %tC H M EA/T-
BIG CYPRESS'S
stf R� RADI tl L 1M. 12 PfXYE-THVLEN'E FIBER ANO EWERB :A-DE 421K; x
SPRI,1 -SFT PM,0fl INOTf. SAD FWE FUEPOPT'
YARN SLR; Qt5LWPLV 1t}A -00 DENIER N"OP / WNr P,E. US 1"fICRUNS
TH$ ti i:J( t0NLlD ifil"1-I'i A Wt j.' 8 PLY WYLON
GAUGC T14,
SnT CK RATE: t 1 5 STITCHES PER 3 INCHES air.
PrkE HEIGHT; a5ttito - 1 t�c Wji P Iv., O 40MU- I�t',G Ii KYLCNi
FACE WE.40KIr' 7 071, & YEAR FAM V; ARFU 4T Y
PRIMAR'Y "laK- 8.� Q;Z l HLE BAJM.',NrG:- 13 E€1' (YVtPJ POLYPROPY3.'E 4E p.Lls
18) :fir URETHANE W)HOLES FOR . cER AW FOOTS L
IS FEET
SMPP0410 WI PUG}!T: I 1 LU a- PIER LANI . k Ems" I'
PMOMTM
THE
WOtMERFUL CMDR AM THE i>;6`aNiG" L FOR 4f€WUNti PU FWTEP+(`.THDN ALWAYS F .L KITH" 1 =:2
L5* M BARE. f60'f "AM AW 1 L5 CW M ; 9OWAll F= . TMF ,*or,*t` )VrTl
t?0tyET iAEl- = Rim A SMCI& TPff URIZMI EFFECT T 'f ',`o F.,j THE TU►RF LOOK UKE'REAL
TWIG" i? '!t ` POP T'► lC h? Z SWL1 i ??# , M+ LA )4t WILL A.4:t W T j�
RUMER TO IV ti ITS ilL Aga THRO" TOE mmoN 11'dCJwtvo^I ro vim ''T %'n'F AL: t
AbOCT104AL. lli '1:1 {. ' l tzy '+�+'IL . ?F$d ALU7*3 TW- '!k% tH VO UL ISTPONot"A.
l `.F �Py3�jf4 -1 « '�.:ff, .�� t±►,„+�� � �#' �sr;� � +� i� CK+� ��rr:u�� � �. `3' �t car:.
r.-d oru:# tl s" t * el up vo vw wl r;l -. --, i ;we y' Vgm I a i m n,. x
W wrt
meeNrilqq I ?w-- ��` s t' _J Efts rye, ul P'a trm I td.: by 11 --cul 2
4u Id us v
��z�� t�: t�-�� �t�r:a tam mart ".�� �§+ �'► ('?�';!�'G::l au� iaa �:�rd �� err e,is- - a:r�a�e� � ?€
-
i l pkrf a mr
1st Ca nos vT m_ . �,q Fkjw co. wvw , jon j ne y:. Pj t,+ 3- + Y.
P D-f yHigh car CIO-1 owmPt "dry t4vd siowt Sao MAO�wpV%.i bm
�� f+d :��ayJ'r�ye��•'�t��1ss.. �2 C� y,,3 �°! 1€a�'6A'i �r'kk'�`y{}`,:�.' U t�`'e�'e�Y�l� !�? ?!M f��$ ����' �'�r''1E f�� ;
.eiixl 0 ► ?
In *164) ) Sr! iTO rA44** T W Aw pxA#A 1 i t :fat %'+►l1 4 'LY 'lt. '6 ,U +fir
►`�:7 � �;� r<e��� `t`�,. r:�r'�s r- �rca��^�'115e:4`�+'4� u':,
I-xv. floe %1 k. AL't4 IV- ZzS'�b+
�I�i.�a'`��� �G��L44 �t►��S� �`.X!�; �`�r,��: ,xq�+
�,'Ii Y'#'4�'.L:�t. #��:- T�'!i.i ��4
BIG CYPRESS'S
stf R� RADI tl L 1M. 12 PfXYE-THVLEN'E FIBER ANO EWERB :A-DE 421K; x
SPRI,1 -SFT PM,0fl INOTf. SAD FWE FUEPOPT'
YARN SLR; Qt5LWPLV 1t}A -00 DENIER N"OP / WNr P,E. US 1"fICRUNS
TH$ ti i:J( t0NLlD ifil"1-I'i A Wt j.' 8 PLY WYLON
GAUGC T14,
SnT CK RATE: t 1 5 STITCHES PER 3 INCHES air.
PrkE HEIGHT; a5ttito - 1 t�c Wji P Iv., O 40MU- I�t',G Ii KYLCNi
FACE WE.40KIr' 7 071, & YEAR FAM V; ARFU 4T Y
PRIMAR'Y "laK- 8.� Q;Z l HLE BAJM.',NrG:- 13 E€1' (YVtPJ POLYPROPY3.'E 4E p.Lls
18) :fir URETHANE W)HOLES FOR . cER AW FOOTS L
IS FEET
SMPP0410 WI PUG}!T: I 1 LU a- PIER LANI . k Ems" I'
PMOMTM
THE
WOtMERFUL CMDR AM THE i>;6`aNiG" L FOR 4f€WUNti PU FWTEP+(`.THDN ALWAYS F .L KITH" 1 =:2
L5* M BARE. f60'f "AM AW 1 L5 CW M ; 9OWAll F= . TMF ,*or,*t` )VrTl
t?0tyET iAEl- = Rim A SMCI& TPff URIZMI EFFECT T 'f ',`o F.,j THE TU►RF LOOK UKE'REAL
TWIG" i? '!t ` POP T'► lC h? Z SWL1 i ??# , M+ LA )4t WILL A.4:t W T j�
RUMER TO IV ti ITS ilL Aga THRO" TOE mmoN 11'dCJwtvo^I ro vim ''T %'n'F AL: t
AbOCT104AL. lli '1:1 {. ' l tzy '+�+'IL . ?F$d ALU7*3 TW- '!k% tH VO UL ISTPONot"A.
l `.F �Py3�jf4 -1 « '�.:ff, .�� t±►,„+�� � �#' �sr;� � +� i� CK+� ��rr:u�� � �. `3' �t car:.
r.-d oru:# tl s" t * el up vo vw wl r;l -. --, i ;we y' Vgm I a i m n,. x
W wrt
meeNrilqq I ?w-- ��` s t' _J Efts rye, ul P'a trm I td.: by 11 --cul 2
4u Id us v
��z�� t�: t�-�� �t�r:a tam mart ".�� �§+ �'► ('?�';!�'G::l au� iaa �:�rd �� err e,is- - a:r�a�e� � ?€
-
i l pkrf a mr
1st Ca nos vT m_ . �,q Fkjw co. wvw , jon j ne y:. Pj t,+ 3- + Y.
P D-f yHigh car CIO-1 owmPt "dry t4vd siowt Sao MAO�wpV%.i bm
�� f+d :��ayJ'r�ye��•'�t��1ss.. �2 C� y,,3 �°! 1€a�'6A'i �r'kk'�`y{}`,:�.' U t�`'e�'e�Y�l� !�? ?!M f��$ ����' �'�r''1E f�� ;
.eiixl 0 ► ?
In *164) ) Sr! iTO rA44** T W Aw pxA#A 1 i t :fat %'+►l1 4 'LY 'lt. '6 ,U +fir
►`�:7 � �;� r<e��� `t`�,. r:�r'�s r- �rca��^�'115e:4`�+'4� u':,
I-xv. floe %1 k. AL't4 IV- ZzS'�b+
Mar. 25. 2009 3:22PM South Bay Materials 408 295 2400 No. 4247 P. 1
w TESTING SERVICES, INC.
917 SHOWALTER AVE. • P.O. BOX 2041
TS1
DALTON. GEORGIA 30722 -2041 /
PHONE: (706) 226 -1400 • FAX: (706) 226-6116
TEST REPORT
CLIENT:
Eve reen Synthetic Turf
REPORT NUMBER:
41103
m L
P.O. Box 2008
Dalton, GA 30722 -2008
LAB TEST NUMBER:
DATE:
1924 -3110
Aril 24, 2008
RIBBON ID:
OVERVIEW: A cone of ribbon was submitted for analysis.
TEST METHOD: Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) by Method 60108
TEST SCOPE: Testing Services Inc was instructed by the client to determine the teaching properties for EPA
toxic metals from submitted yam using in the manufacturing of synthetic turf.
TEST PROCEDURE: A sample of yarn was diluted 20 -fold to an acetic add extraction. An extraction was performed
after 18 hours on the fluid to determine toxins that may have leached from the dyes in the
yam.
TEST RESULTS:
�r r metals esuU
Arsenic As <0 5 IL
inimum Detection Limit
Barium Ba <5,p tL
5,0
m L
Cadmium (Cd) <0.1 m fL
0.1
m IL
Chromium trA <0,5 1,
0.5
m IL
Lead Pb <0.5 m IL
0.5
m 1L
Selenium Se <0,1 L
0.1
m L
Silver A <0.5 m L
0.5
m IL
TCLP Mercur (H Result
Minimum Detection
limit
Mercury H <0.2
0.2
m L
CONCLUSION
pigments of
-the yarn. - - -• - -, r °•�• .•� , u�t t'IV VIUVVIUM, VI heavy metals Irom ine (lye
Approved «.
�� Vt..O •.M+�tnwn.t.c,
CU.1.
O.M1: IDO40L2. MUM
W'oC
Erie Miles, Vp VP
Testing Services Inc
OUR LETTERS AND REPORTS APPLY ONLY TO THE SAMPLE TESTED AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF THE QUALITIES OF APPARENTLY IDENTICAL
OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS. THESE LETTERS AND REPORTS ARE FOR THE USE ONLY OF THE CLIENT TO WHOM THEY ARE ADDRESSED AND THEIR
COMMUNICATION TO ANY OTHERS OR THE USE OF THE NAME TESTING SERVICES, Inc. MUST RECEIVE OUR PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL, THE REPORTS AND
LETTERS. AND OUR NAME. OUR SEALS, OR OUR INSIGNIA ARE NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE USED IN ADVERTISING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
VISIT OUR WEB$RE AT www.toioldelton.com
Im
| nce| City Comparison
1/20/10 11:30 AM
IC 1% coverage limit AT counted
Impervious Coverage
city Turf Gravel Bark Fron Total as IC
Code ref.
Contact
Los Gatos i Not defined i Not defined :Not defined 1-50/50, :No limit.
las IC. No as IC. No !paved vs
las IC. No AT/Gravel/ 1
Himit on its limit its ilimit
'for Santa Clara County. IC
:Nguyen (+2
i j on on its landscape. lBark OK.
means water percolation.
others)
AT/Gavel/ i i
i:AT/gravel/bark are not counted.
::354-5236
:Same as LG
110.01.020.1- "ICmeansthe
'Erin
larea covered by all buildings or
McGranahan
lother structures, decks,
:354-7635
'driveways, patios & paved
i
!parking or storage areas." Has
Iapproved AT in front & rear
Campbell !Same as LG I Same asLGSameas LG !Same as LG iSarne
but not Frontyard set-back area has 866'2193
desired in 50/50 limit on paved vs
8nntyavd. Handscape. AT/Bark allowed &
Mot counted as [C in front but
gravel not desired. Backyard
can be 100% pervious.
Cupertino Same asLG 1 Same as UG I Same as LG Same as LG ::Same as LG Same as G ne as preventing :Leslie Gross
rainwater from entering ground :777-3308
i !and groundwater.
'AT/Gravel/Bark are not counted. 1777-3277
Saratoga -Yes, counts !Yes, counts iYes, counts iSimilar to lCounted as Yes
Werbal (based on appearance- :Saratoga
:as 11C !as IC :as IC LG :part of total Idoesn't look like natural Plan. Dept.
:on property on property Ion property
6 "a ta, a*,-s,*e,* d, on essentially flat lots (small to large). Some-Tii m i.t. a t.-i o1n.-s on slopes above 10% where even live grass, i s s o m e t.-in e s ...................... ..
constrained for appearance or water nun'uff.
City comparison.xls
M "f `^ .% �' Mme• ,'R rF:,''y,.
/ 71,
TWO-
44.
0 rlw-.Ivl
AL
� ±. .: .- _ �� .`� w '• ,rr z&•`.`- ACS 4s � ", °
• � A _ _ yid ; .,.
` _Y•L �' •' , I. _ �• i +� - �• `Y ,,+r •Sn E,•�s1 'P ��� ICI {�
1
\i gip., t • % �1 :`. �'. Z .'. "� } �, i I
`:rte— •' , � - -
.. s;:_ •ter
a d + yr �• ,.
yr '.
Matteoni
Olaugmin
&Hechtman
L A W Y E R S
V. WI ;ui hliu
Iir:nllr� AI. \l'ol —wii
kmlmi Ili (111111 u
Hand - Delivered
January 20, 2010
Mayor Kathleen King
and City Council Members
City of Saratoga
Saratoga City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: 2010 Work Program; General Plan Issue
Dear Mayor King and City Council Members:
On the south end of town there are two clusters of parcels located in
the City's Urban Service Area, but outside of City limits. The 1987 General
Plan Map (attached) shows these parcels with a designation of RHC (Hillside
Conservation) which generally will allow a parcel size in the range of 1 — 10
acres depending upon the slope and availability of utilities. You will find that
same designation in every new version of the City's General Plan Map from
1987 to 2007. Even the General Plan Map on the City's website today shows
these clus�rs with the RHC designation (attached). That designation makes
perfect sense from a planning standpoint, because the 100+ parcels that
make up these two clusters are generally in the 1 acre to 5 acre range, with
the largest parcel being 13 acres.
In June 2007, the City Council changed the General Plan designation
for these two clusters to OS -H (Hillside Open Space) which requires between
20 and 160 acres per parcel. (See attached map which staff says is the
current, valid map). Not one owner of any of these 100+ parcels was given
notice that the City was contemplating this change to their General Plan
designation. I have reviewed the staff reports for those hearings and I have
watched the City Council videos of those hearings. This change in the
General Plan designation was not mentioned even once by any member of
818 'I'll \Ia III eda
Sim .lose. CA 9.:120
ph. 108.293.4300
fay. 108.293.1004
�%«%c.maUconi.ioru
Kathleen King and January 20, 2010
Members of City Council Page 2
staff or any City Council member. There can be no dispute that it makes no sense to
impose a 20 acre minimum parcel size on a cluster of parcels where the largest
existing parcel is only 13 acres.
I believe that this problem was created by an innocent misinterpretation of
General Plan language from 1983 by staff members in 2007. The problem could be
easily solved by changing the General Plan Designation for these two clusters of
parcels back to RHC. I have tried to work with staff directly to resolve this issue, but
without success: Staff's suggested solution is to make each one of these 100+
property owners apply for their own General Plan amendment, pay for environmental
review particular to their property, and sign a preannexation agreement giving up
many of their rights. That is an overly expensive, overly complicated and unfair
solution to a problem the City created and the City should solve.
plan.
I hope that you will consider solving this problem as a part of your 2010 work
Very truly yours,
, �L&
BARTON G. HECHTMAN
BGH /mr
Attachments
t
I
GENERAL
PLAN
LEGEND
CITY OF SARATOGA
•CALI •
MONTH 1".6 0 0
WP D Boo
J U N E 1 9 a 7
URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY,
CITY L,. m T.5 7vl
N
esfi POLelce
ETA .
WINNOW
MAN
e
' F
xV.
�4
v.�
L E
Hillside Conservation S.f
Rvia : Very Low Density Residential
am Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential: M -15
Medium Density Residential: M -12.5
Medium Density Residential: M- ID
MWti -Family Residential
OR Planned Development Residential
Mulb the Plaroung Dhtrxt
Planned Development
- Protessiolel Admmhtiatnr
Comm ,—I Retail
:E?frl0�, Community Facility
Mllside Open Space
Open Space- .Waged Re.—e
_ Open Space. Outdo., Recreahuu
open Space - Private
Public Use Corddas
- -- -- Sphere CH InHUence
City Limits
---- Urban Sewwe Area
Mllside WCIHC Plan Area
Hydrology
G,P.
` -
opt ed by City Council
xd
June 6, 2007
--
z
mn
17
i
�I
ti-'
..i,....::....1..
....... ., ...... ..L........r.
~�
-
.... �a...... i ...�,...,.dn,.....d.r�ae "�� ",
srr..crrw. �d�W uuOwlp�n, °.
eWMW Mn.a. u, a.
G,P.
e nw. Ct+ W'-k's,'FC. iI�p�r'� CL'v��c;,ye�
. Upen Space - Managed I
Open Spare- Clutdoor R
Open Space - Private
Puc ' Public Use Corridor
- - - Sphere Of Influence
City Limits
Urban Service Area
Hillside Specific plan t
Hydrology
Adopted by City Cow,
June 6, 2007
O -J
1 Ind. = I.UUO teat
I QQU SW U I WU
Thus 1: alu: ur a :erw, of 1�IaQralnS •.ofitcb •.Ilan wmbur.
;arata¢a wtwo A Man, tnnstftutrr tRe land Irr. daetbp.
et
:Al ateffa .A""It6 u:e: fal yaclfu. prc =1, of lad
anal,, b/ laf,-WKe to fit, diagram
tr eared Date: flay 30. 1007 Red31011 bat
City oj'Saratoga Land Use Element
Background ReportlGoals, Policies, and Implementation Allea•tires
f
IA
k M , OV461
J . ;:w YtMriti
wig
t
j
4 I.A
%
UArGO-MCCORMICK CONSULTING
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
'>Curre,,t MC. C1LCf'f'L i t1a
rt., V-
PAGE 15
Exhibit LU-5
*J MILO(! S.F.
PmfeImal Admsno,l, ore
'-�f
NVILO L t, P,: dentlat
Commercial Retail
City Lrwt'
R&D
C.". (ammujnitv Facility
av tS Jiw Dema, Rest.jentla( m -IS
rut Public Use Cum&4
Medilmn (.enslt: pe�.tdentml* M-1
HILido --Von Sq i
m-lo
Opn •;par e - man d Rp."'Ow
Multi hiro(i H,es,Wes=vmi
(.-,P-n Vtt ---iAndr,or Pe,-rev ..:,r)
Plmn,d ()c- Mopm•nt Pe,identi.il
upen >pc Prate
Fldnmrw District
WH& Sp'.0 Ili-, PLII. 5J;.'..l
N'...lopirw-w
Ifidr,4 ',q-j
UArGO-MCCORMICK CONSULTING
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
'>Curre,,t MC. C1LCf'f'L i t1a
rt., V-
PAGE 15