Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101-Council Report.pdf SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Dave Anderson ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD: Macedonio Nunez, Assistant EngineerJohn Cherbone, Public Works Director SUBJECT:Appeal of Encroachment Permit Application No. 07-079, which was approved by the City Engineer, allowing connection of a private driveway to Wardell Road at 20865 Wardell Road. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Affirm issuance of the encroachment permit subject to any additional conditions recommended by the City’s Traffic Engineer. REPORT SUMMARY: Pursuant to a condition in grading permit issued by the Community Development Department on October 24, 2006, the applicants applied for an encroachment permit to allow their driveway ( to connect to Wardell Road at the point where one of the lots, 20865 Wardell Road, fronts on the western end of the road). The Public Works Department issues encroachment permits where it determines that the encroachment on City property will be constructed in accordance with sound engineering principles, will not create safety hazards, and will not result in costs to the City. The City issued the permit subject to various conditions on May 17, 2007. (See Attachment A.) This appeal was filed on May 31, 2007. (See Attachment B.) The appeal was filed pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 2-05.030. Subsection (f) of that section provides that Council review of the appeal need not take place in a formal public hearing unless a public hearing was required for the approval being appealed. In this case, no hearing is required for issuance of an encroachment permit. Accordingly, this matter is not presented as a public hearing item. The Council is obligated, however, to hear public testimony on the matter in a manner similar to all other Council agenda items. The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the encroachment permit, on the following grounds: Safety. 1.As illustrated on the Encroachment Permit Plan (See Attachment A), the appellant’s driveway enters Wardell Road from the south, connecting at the same point as the driveway that is the subject of the encroachment permit application. The applicants are required to install a stop sign at the intersection as a condition of approval for the encroachment permit. Based in part on a report from Pang Engineers (Attachment 2 to the Appeal Application), the appeal claims that the proposed driveway would create a “hazardous situation,” and that the stop sign is insufficient to remedy that danger. Staff has submitted the Pang Engineers report to the City’s Traffic Engineer for review. The Traffic Engineer’s report will be distributed to the City Council and made available to the public on Monday, June 18, 2007. Runoff. 2.The appeal claims that the driveway will cause excessive runoff. The Public Works Department determined that runoff from the driveway would not present a risk to public safety or City infrastructure. Any runoff that might affect the public right of way would drain from the easterly end of the proposed driveway, where the driveway would encroach upon Wardell Road. This section of the driveway would drain into two catch basins near the point of encroachment. These catch basins will be connected to the City storm drain system. The City system has the capacity to carry 5.59 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) of runoff. The applicants’ engineer determined that with the proposed driveway, the storm drain in question would receive 5.12 cfs of runoff during the 10-year storm event standard used to evaluate encroachment permit applications, and is thus within the City’s capacity. The westerly section of the driveway drains to a series of swales on the residential parcels and on an adjoining open space parcel. The driveway is being developed in accordance with a Stormwater Control Plan dated October 23, 2006, which maximizes the infiltration of stormwater, thus minimizing the amount of runoff that reaches public streets or other residential parcels. The applicants’ engineer, in the Stormwater Control Plan, certified that the Plan meets the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control board for stormwater lding Department has reviewed the Plan and determined that the certification runoff. The Bui is appropriate. Slide Hazards. 3. The appeal claims that the driveway will cause slide hazards. The City’s Geotechnical Consultant identified no such hazards and recommended that the Community Development Department approve the grading permit for the driveway. The encroachment permit under consideration relates only to the area where the proposed driveway would meet Wardell Road. Appellant’s appeal letter does not specify particular potential slide areas, but to the extent that the appellant’s concerns about slide hazards relate to parts of the proposed driveway other than that area, these concerns are not relevant to the encroachment permit. Public Works staff has reviewed the geotechnical reports and confirmed that the encroachment design does not present slide hazards. Trash Pickup. 4. Currently, some residents of Wardell Road place their trash bins at the end of the road for pickup. The appellant asks that the City Council overturn the encroachment permit on the ground that this trash pickup area is overcrowded. This issue is not directly 2 related to the connection of the proposed driveway to Wardell Road, and therefore is not germane to consideration of the encroachment permit. Moreover, other stretches of curb, to the east of the end of the road, are available for trash bins. The question of the proper placement of bins for pickup is a matter to be resolved between residents and West Valley Collection and Recycling, the trash hauler. If trash bins on Wardell Road should in the future become a hazard to public health or safety, the City has the option of seeking to abate the nuisance through code enforcement proceedings. City Code. 5. The appeal claims that Wardell Road should be considered a cul-de-sac and on that basis argues that the driveway may not connect to a cul-de-sac. Staff has determined that Wardell Road is not a cul-de-sac. Under the Saratoga Municipal Code, a cul-de-sac is a “street having but one outlet for vehicular traffic, the terminus of said street having a vehicle turnaround enclosed by parcels of land.” (Saratoga Municipal Code Section 14-10.290(j).) As the attached photographs (Attachment G) show, the road ends abruptly in a low set of boards placed across the right of way, perpendicular to the road’s edges. There is no turnaround space for vehicles as required by the definition provided in the Code. The appeal also refers to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-12.070(a), which states that in the HR district, when 75% or more of a lot’s frontage is on the turnaround space of a cul- de-sac must, that frontage must be at least 60 feet. The appellant claims that the applicants’ lot fronts on the turnaround space of a cul-de-sac but has less than the minimum frontage. Section 15-13.070, however, controls the shape and dimensions of lots, and thus has its effect during subdivision. It does not govern the connection of a driveway for existing lots to a public road. The appeal also claims that if Wardell Road is considered to be a dead end rather than a cul- de-sac, then the encroachment permit is barred by other sections of the Municipal Code. Section 14-30.080 requires that “\[w\]hen dead-end streets are approved, standard street barricades shall be constructed at the ends thereof.” Appellant asserts that “there should be a ‘standard’ barricade” at the end of Wardell Road, and that the proposed driveway is therefore not allowed. The decision being appealed, however, is the granting of the encroachment permit, not the approval of Wardell Road. Because Wardell Road is not being approved, section 14-30.080 is not triggered. Appellant also cites Municipal Code Section 15- 13.070(b)(2), which requires that the “frontage and width of an access corridor to a flag lot shall not be less than twenty feet.” This section governs the permissible shape of lots (a factor to be considered in approving new lots), while this appeal concerns the encroachment of the proposed driveway on a public road at the point of connection. Pending Litigation 6.: The appeal finally requests that the City Council defer issuing the permit until the resolution of pending litigation over the grading of the proposed driveway. This is not a factor that is relevant to the issuance of an encroachment permit. Where the City has received a complete application for an encroachment permit and determined that the encroachment is designed in accordance with sound engineering principles and presents no 3 safety or cost issues it lacks authority to deny the permit. In the course of the pending litigation the appellant may request that the court take action to halt construction if that action is justified under the applicable legal standards. Relevant background documents have been attached. In light of staff’s review of the issues raised by the appeal, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the permit. This recommendation is preliminary, pending staff review of the recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer. The attached resolution provides for the possibility that additional conditions may be proposed in the Traffic Engineers report. ALRTENATIVES: 1.Approve the appeal thereby denying the applicants’ encroachment permit. 2.Deny the appeal thereby upholding the encroachment permit. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet, posted notice, and advertised the notice in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: A.Encroachment Permit issued May 17, 2007. B.Appeal Application C.Drainage calculations prepared by TS-Civil Engineering D.Excerpt from applicants’ Stormwater Control Plan, dated October 23, 2006. (Full report is available at Saratoga Public Works Department.) E.Correspondence between City Geotechnical Consultant and applicant’s engineer. F.Encroachment Permit Plan. G.Photographs of west end of Wardell Road. 4 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL; THEREBY AFFIRMING THE CITY ENGINEER’S GRANT OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 07-017 Lim et al.; 20865 Wardell Road WHEREAS , on May 17, 2007, the Public Works Department of the City of Saratoga granted encroachment permit number 07-079, allowing a common driveway serving four residential lots to connect to the western end of Wardell Road at 20865 Wardell Road; and WHEREAS, on May 31, 2007, the appellant, Matt Christiano, filed an appeal of the City Engineer’s grant of encroachment permit number 07-079; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2007 the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Saratoga has considered the appeal and all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby : I. Affirms the City’s determination that the encroachment permit meets the appropriate standards and rejects the appeal for the reasons set forth in the staff report and Traffic Engineers Report attached as Exhibits A and B; and II. After careful consideration of the various engineering reports, plans, and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, grants encroachment permit number 07-079 (Exhibit C) subject to the conditions set forth therein and the following conditions: INSERT ANY CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY TRAFFIC ENGINEER III. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga. State of California, the 20th day of June 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: 5 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________ _______ Aileen Kao, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. __________________________________ _________________________ Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 6