Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 3-Foot Landscape/Synthetic TurfITEM #2 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: REQUEST: SUMMARY: MAY 10, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION TUST[N ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SCOTT REEKSTIN, SENIOR PLANNER THREE-FOOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT AND SYNTHETIC TURF STANDARDS Three-Foot Landscape Reguiremenf On March 16, 2010, several residents appeared before the Tustin City Council to express concern about receiving Notice of Violations (NOV) for non-compliance with TCC Section 9267(a)(3) which requires athree-foot wide landscape area between the driveway areas and the adjacent side property lines. Enforcement of 9267(a)(3) has occurred since Council adoption of the requirement in 2001. This item was originally set for the Planning Commission's January 11, 2011, agenda and was continued to all the City Attorney to research any potential conflict of interest and to request an FPPC ruling. On May 4, 2010, the Tustin City Council directed staff to defer additional code enforcement and to present the issue to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. Synfhetic Turf Standards On January 11, 2011, a workshop on the use Commission. The workshop provided the Plani turf, including its advantages and disadvantag synthetic turf, sample standards for synthetic t~ time, the Planning Commission directed staff to synthetic turf in Tustin. of synthetic turf was provided to the Planning ling Commission with an overview of synthetic 's, the applicability of the Tustin City Code to irf, and issues related to synthetic turf. At that prepare Synthetic Turf Standards for the use of The Three-Foot Landscape Requirement and Synthetic Turf Standards issues are presented together in this report and proposed ordinance since they affect the same Tustin City Code Sections and may have a correlation in application. Planning Commission Report Three-foot Landscape and Synthetic Turf May 10, 2011 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission consider the matter and adopt Resolution No. 4173 recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1398 approving Code Amendment 11-004 amending Sections 5502 and 9267 of the Tustin City Code modifying landscape requirements and set forth Synthetic Turf Standards. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Three-Foof Landscape Requirement In 2000-2001, members of the Planning Commission indicated a concern that an increasing number of Tustin properties had large portions of the front yard paved and used as parking lots. At that time, the City's standards for driveways provided the minimum requirement for driveway width, but did not regulate the maximum allowable area for pavement; the Code allowed the entire front yard area to be paved. The Planning Commission requested that staff prepare standards to regulate driveway widths for residential and non-residential properties. On August 6, 2001, the Tustin City Council approved Ordinance No. 1240 (Attachment A) which provided development standards and paving limitations for driveways of residential properties and driveways in commercial and industrial districts. In residential districts, the ordinance (Tustin City Code Section 9267(a)(3)) the ordinance required athree-foot wide landscaped area between adjacent properties (an example diagram of the required 3-foot landscape area is shown in Attachment B). It also limited the total paved area to no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total front yard setback area. Ordinance No. 1240 included a "sunset clause" for residential properties with existing paved areas that were not in compliance with the requirements to allow gradual compliance with the new code. The owners of these properties were given thirty-six (36) months to comply with the requirements of the ordinance (until September 6, 2004). Thereafter, all property owners were required to comply. City enforcement typically occurred when an affected property owner requested permits for a driveway apron extension or when the City received a code enforcement complaint. Since implementation of Ordinance No. 1240 in 2001, code enforcement officers have received approximately twenty-five complaints involving separate residential properties in violation of this code section. The majority of these code enforcement cases affect single family neighborhoods where a driveway has been extended to the property line on one side. Examples of recent cases are shown in Attachment C. As shown in slides one and two, some of these cases dealt with properties where the driveway extended from property line to property line creating a single expanse of concrete between the two properties. Other cases, as shown in slides three through eight, involved driveways which extended to the property line. To date, Code Enforcement staff have brought twenty of the twenty-five cases into compliance with the Planning Commission Report Three-foot Landscape and Synthetic Turf May 10, 2011 Page 3 City Code (Reference Attachment C). The remaining five cases involve property owners who appeared before the City Council on March 16, 2010 (discussed below). On March 16, 2010, several affected property owners appeared before the City Council after receiving Notices of Violation (NOV). At that time, the City Council directed staff to defer additional enforcement until additional information could be provided by staff. On May 4, 2010, the Council considered the staff report and public input. Staff was also directed to present the issue to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. Following the City Council meeting, City staff began an exhaustive survey of the City to determine the number of residential properties that were not in compliance with the three-foot landscape requirements as set forth in Ordinance No. 1240. Overall, approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of all properties located on public streets within the City limits have driveways or paving that are not in compliance with the three-foot landscape setback code requirement. A few of these properties may have paved areas that exceed fifty percent (50%) of the front yard setback, though the percentage was not calculated at the time the survey was conducted. During the survey assessment, it was noted that many properties within the City had site constraints which appeared to create irregular property conditions. These irregular property configurations included cul-de-sacs; driveways and garages located on the side of the property; narrow property widths; and driveway access serving more than one property. On January 11, 2011, the item was brought before the Planning Commission but upon request of the City Attorney, the item was continued in order to clarify with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) whether there were any conflict of interest issues related to the three-foot landscape easement. After an extended response time this matter was clarified, and the issue is now set before the Commission for consideration. The City Council has requested Planning Commission consideration of options on this matter. City staff has identified three (3) options for Planning Commission consideration which could address resident concerns regarding apre-existing condition. The following options are for Planning Commission consideration: Option ~- Retain Ordinance No. 1240 "As /s" This option would retain the regulations currently contained in Ordinance No. 1240 as currently set forth in TCC 9267(a)(3). If supporked by the Tustin City Council, code enforcement action would be reinstated to pursue code compliance. Staff does not support Option 1 due to a number of reasons. As noted previously, staff estimates that 32% of Tustin properties are currently in violation of Ordinance No. 1240. Also, as previously noted, revisions to the Tustin City Code have occurred since Ordinance No. 1240 that prevent over-paving of a residential front yard (max, 50% of a front yard can be paved). Planning Commission Report Three-foot Landscape and Synthetic Turf May 10, 2011 Page 4 Staff believes that these regulations are sufficient to ensure that property frontages are aesthetically pleasing, regardless of whether a driveway or walkway extends to a property line. Option 2 -Extend the Sunset Clause for Property Driveways Established Prior to Ord. 9240. This option would amend the current "sunset clause" to provide an extended period of time for property owners with paved three-foot yards to voluntarily be corrected in compliance with Ordinance No. 1240. The new sunset clause would allow pavement within the three-foot wide landscape area to remain until a date specified or until voluntarily removed by the owner. However, any property owner that paved the three-foot landscape area since adoption of Ordinance No. 1240 (2001) would be subject to full enforcement of the current regulations. However, extending the "sunset clause" for another three years would affect 32% of the private properties recently surveyed that are currently in violation of Ordinance No. 1240. Option 3 -Eliminate the Three-Foot Landscape Requirement This option would amend section 9267(a)(3) of the Tustin City Code to eliminate the three-foot wide landscape area requirement while continuing to enforce the paving area limitation so as not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total front yard setback area. This would provide flexibility to property owners as to where the paving areas could be established within the front yard setback area while maintaining sufficient permeable landscape areas in the front yards of residences. Paving would be permitted to adjoin a neighboring property within this area; however, the overall effect of retaining a majority of landscaping within the front yard area would be maintained. This option could also be calculated by City staff, either upon plan check review or in the field, to determine that paved areas do not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total front yard setback area. Prior to 2001, no provision existed to ensure that the front yard area was not completely covered by driveways. In 2009, the Planning Commission and the City Council took great care and consideration in adopting the comprehensive parking ordinance. These provisions essentially prevented the over-paving of residential front yards. Therefore, the removal of the 3 foot setback from the Code may be inconsequential while still maintaining the desired aesthetic effect on residential properties. A code amendment has been prepared based on Option 3 for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to the City Council. Synthetic Turf Another issue that has been considered by the Planning Commission and pertains to the City's landscaping requirements is synthetic turf. On January 11, 2011, a workshop on the use of synthetic turf was provided to the Planning Commission (Attachment D). The workshop provided the Planning Commission with an overview of synthetic turf, including its advantages and Planning Commission Report Three-foot Landscape and Synthetic Turf May 10, 2011 Page 5 disadvantages, the applicability of the Tustin City Code to synthetic turf, sample standards for synthetic turf, and issues related to synthetic turf. Synthetic turf is an artificial product manufactured from synthetic materials that simulates the appearance of live grass. Based on the City's current landscaping requirements and definitions in the Tustin City Code, the use of synthetic turf is prohibited on private property. For example, Tustin City Code Section 5502 requires "All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition free of dead, decayed, overgrown or discarded plant material." Further, Tustin City Code Section 9267 requires "Unimproved and/or unpaved portions of the front yard setback area in residential districts or front yards in commercial and industrial districts shall be improved or maintained with appropriate landscaping in a healthy and vigorous condition." However, these requirements apply to private property only. Synthetic turf has been installed on public property in some City of Tustin medians and parks in limited areas where live grass has been difficult to maintain. Based on direction received from the Planning Commission at their January 11, 2011, workshop on the use of synthetic turf, staff has prepared Synthetic Turf Standards which would provide consistency to ensure that the synthetic turf in visible yard areas is of a satisfactory quality and is well maintained (Attachment E). Some of the specific standards include minimum pile height, proper drainage systems, appearance, and a maximum coverage of landscaped area in the front yard. The Synthetic Turf Standards are referenced in draft Ordinance 1398, but are not proposed to be codified, to allow flexibility to update the standards though the approval of the Community Development Director as new technologies in the industry arise. In conjunction with the establishment of these standards, public outreach is proposed to inform property owners of the standardized requirements so they are informed when purchasing and installing synthetic turf. Some of the methods of outreach may include inserts in water billing, pamphlets at City Hall, and information on the City's website. Ultimately, the establishment of standards and the requirement for approval from the City will set forth clear standards for synthetic turf installation, and the proposed process is not anticipated to significantly increase the need for additional staff resources to review, monitor, and enforce synthetic turf installations. A code amendment allowing synthetic turf has been prepared for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to the City Council. FINDINGS In determining whether to approve Resolution No. 4173 recommending adoption of Code Amendment 11-004 for Ordinance 1398, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed code amendment will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the Planning Commission Report Three-foot Landscape and Synthetic Turf May 10, 2011 Page 6 general welfare of the City of Tustin. A decision to approve this request may be supported by the following findings: A. That prior to 2001, no provision existed to ensure that the front yard area was not completely covered by driveways. In 2009, the Planning Commission and the City Council took great care and consideration in adopting the comprehensive parking ordinance. These provisions essentially prevented the over-paving of residential front yards. B. That the removal of the 3 foot setback from the Code may be inconsequential while still maintaining the desired aesthetic effect on residential properties. C. That this project has been determined to be exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), in that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the proposed Ordinance No. 139$ (Code Amendment 11- 004) would revise text from Tustin City Code Section 9267(a)(3) which requires a three foot landscaped setback to property line, would revise Tustin City Code Sections 5502 and 9267 to provide for the installation of synthetic turf, and would set forth standards for synthetic turf. This revision has no possibility for significant effect on the environment; therefore, Code Amendment 11-004 is not subject to CEQA. D. That Code Amendment 11-004 is consistent with Housing Element Policy No. 6.4 and Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy No. 5.3 of the Tustin General Plan, which promote water efficient landscapes and water conservation techniques. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4173 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1398 (Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 4173) approving Code Amendment 11-004 amending Sections 5502 and 9267 of the Tustin City Code to modify landscape requirements and to set forth Synthetic Turf Standards in the City Of Tustin (Attachment F). Amy Thomas, AICP Senior Planner Scott Reekstin ./~ r~~,GZL~ /~ ~B~L.C~ Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Senior Planner Planning Commission Report Three-foot Landscape and Synthetic Turf May 10, 2011 Page 7 Attachments: A. Ordinance No. 1240 B. Diagram of Required Three-Foot Landscape Area C. Code Enforcement Case Before/After Examples D. January 11, 2001, Planning Commission Report E. Synthetic Turf Standards F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4173 Exhibit 1. Draft Ordinance No. 1398 S:1CDDIPCREPORTSI3 FT LANDSCAPE PUBLIC HEARING 051011.DOC ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No. 1240 ORDINANCE NO. 1240 to 11 12 13 14 is 16 i~ is 19 20 21 22 23 za 2s 26 27 2a ~ 29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT 00-001, AN AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN CITY CODE ARTICLE 9 CHAPTER 2 BY ADDING SECTIONS 9221.a.1(j), 9222.a.1(j), 9223.a.1(j), 9224.g.9, 9225.a.1(h), 9225.a.2(j), 9225.b.1Q), 9225.b.2(k), 9226.a.1(k), 9226.a.2(k), 9226.b.2(i), 9226.b.3(k), 9226.b.4(i), 9226.b.5(j), 9226.b.6(i), 9227.b.12, 9228.b.4(k), 9228.b.5Q), 9228.c.8, 9231.b.9, 9232.b(j}(10), 9232.b(k)(8), 9232.c(2)(g), 9233.b(7), 9233(c}(m)(10), 9234.b(h), 9234.d(h), 9234.e(i), 9235.f(9), 9241.c(j), 9242.c(d}, 9271.bb, AND 9299.b.(1)(h) RELATED TO DRIVEWAYS STANDARDS, AND AMENDING SECTION 9297 TO INCLUDE DEFINITIONS FOR A DRIVEWAY AND PAVED AREA. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS A. That an amendment to Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 2 related to driveways has been prepared to provide standards for driveways and paved areas vn residential, commercial, and industrial properties. B. That on June 11, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 00-001 to provide standards for driveways and paved areas for residential, commercial, and industrial properties and directed staff to focus enforcement in areas of.concern. C. That on June 18, 2001, a public hearing was continued by the City Council on said code amendment to allow for City Attorney to identify issues and impacts related to retroactive enforcement. D. That on July 16, 2001, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on said code amendment by the City Council. E. That the City's current standards for driveways within residential districts only provide the minimum requirement for driveway width. As such, properly owners. could pave the entire front yards converting the yards into parking lots inconsistent with the goal of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses (Goal No. 4). F. That the City's current standards for driveways within the commercial and industrial districts only provide the minimum requirements for driveway width. As such commercial and industrial properties could have driveways Ordinance No. 1240 Page 2 of 5 wider than driveway approaches standards within the public right-of-way and resulting in safety hazards. s to ll l2 13 14 Is [6 !7 ,s 19 20 21 z2 23 24 25 26 27 zs 29 G. The proposed amendment is. regulatory in nature and would provide consistency for determining the minimum and the maximum driveway width in residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts. The proposed amendment's limitation on the installation and maintenance of impervious materials in required front yards would limit the amount of storm-water run-ofF aftributed to each developed property in the City. The proposed amendment would also create an aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses by limiting the amount of hardscaping in the front of properties and requiring all unpaved areas be improved with landscape materials. H. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, particularly: Goal 4: Assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community fior residents and businesses; Policy 6.2: Encourage and promote high quality design and physical appearance in all development projects; Policy 6.4: Preserve and enhance the City's special residential character and "small town" quality by encouraging and maintaining Tustin's low-density residential neighborhoods through enforcement of existing Land use and property development standards and the harmonious blending of buildings and landscape; Policy 6.6.d: Improve the overall quality of Tustin's multifamily neighborhoods through improved site, building, and landscape design; and, Policy 6.12: Review and revise, as necessary, the City's development standards to improve the quality of new development in the City and to protect the public health and safety. That the code amendment provides an exemption for those properties that have been improved with paved areas authorized and approved through a building permit or discretionary entitlement by the City. A Final Negative Declaration has been adopted for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA). Section 2. The City Council hereby approves amendments to the residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts of Tustin City Code as follows: Ordinance No. 1240 Page 3 of 5 Sections 9221.a.1(j), 9222.a.1(j), 9223.a.1(j), 9224.8.9, 9225.a.1(h), 9225.a.2(j), 9225.b.1(j), 9225.b.2(k), 9226.a.1(k), 9226.a.2(k), 9226.b.2(i), 9226.b.3(k), 9226.b.4(i), 9226.b.5(j), 9226.b.6(i), 9227.b.12, 9228.b.4{k), 9228.b.5(j), 9228.c.8, 9231.b.9, 9232.b(j)(10), 9232.b(k)(8), 9232.c(2)(g), 9233.b(7), 9233(c)(m)(10), 9234.b(h), 9234.d(h}, 9234.e(i), 9235.f(9), 9241.c(j), and 9242.c(d) shall be added to read: "Driveways: Subject to Subsection 9271(bb)° to 11 lz 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 z3 2a 2s 26 z~ 2s 29 Subsection 9271(bb) is added as follows: Driveways for Residential Districts: If the garage or carport is designed for one or two vehicles, the driveway width within the front yard setback, as defined in Section 9297 of Tustin City Code, shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet and a maximum of twenty-four (24) feet; if the garage or carport is designed for three or more vehicles, the driveway width within the front yard setback shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet and a max'unum of thirty (30) feet. Paved areas for accessory residential uses such as the parking of vehicles or providing pedestrian access to the residence may be provided within the front yard setback of residential districts if the total paved area does not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total front yard setback, the parking of vehicles does not obstruct ingress and egress to required parking, and all of the requirements of this Section can be met. For lots at the end of cul-de-sacs with a tat frontage of less than forty (40) feet, the parking and driveway areas within the front yard setback shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent of the total front yard se#back. Total width may be divided for properties with two (2) driveways. Parking and driveway areas within the front yard setback shall be separa#ed with a minimum of a three (3) foot landscape area between the parking or driveway area and the adjacent side or rear property fine. b. Driveways for Commercial and Industrial Districts: one-way driveways within the front yard area, as defined in Section 9297 of the Tustin City Code, would have a minimum width of fourteen (14) feet and a maximum width of twenty (20) feet. Two-way driveways within the front yard would have a minimum width of finrenty-four (24) feet and a maximum width of thirty-five (35) feet. c. Paved areas may be improved with impervious materials including, but not limited to, concrete, bricks, slate or stone tiles, decorative stamped concrete, or any other permanent hardscape. No decomposed granite, gravel, or other loose materials shall be allowed. Unimproved and/or unpaved portions of the front yard setback area in residential districts or front yards in commercial or industrial districts shall be improved and maintained with appropriate landscaping in a healthy and vigorous condition. Ordinance No. 1240 Page 4 of 5 d. The provisions of this Subsection shall apply to all lots in the City, except that for lots with paved areas in excess of the requirements specified in this Subsection constructed or installed prior to September 6, 2001, such excess paved areas shall be discontinued, removed, or altered to conform to the provisions of this Subsection within thirty-six (36) months after the latter of the following dates: (1) the effective date of this Subsection (September 6, 2001); or (2) the date of notice of abatement issued by the Director of Community Development or the Director's designee. Section 9297 is amended to include definitions for the following: to 12 13 14 is 16 17 la 19 24 21 22 23 24 2s 26 2~ 2a "Driveway" means a paved area of a tat located between the public right- of-way and the. garage, carport, or required parking space designed and intended as an access way between a private or public road and the garage, carport, or required parking space. "Paved Area" means an area of any required yard which is constructed with impervious materials which either results in an increase in the amount of storm water run-off into public storm drainage facilities or hinders natural percolation of storm water on the subject property. Subsection 9299.b.(1)(h) is added tv read: "An increase of not more than #en (10) percent in the maximum permitted driveways within the front yard setback for residential districts or the front yard for commercial and industrial districts." Section 3. SEVERABILITY All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish the purpose of these regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall apply only to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall continue to be fully effective. P~SSED AND ADOPTED by the Cily Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting o~ the 6'" day of August, 2001. T ! LS WORLEY - ~ _ ayor City 1 2 3 4 s 6 s 9 Io 11 12 13 I7 ]s I9 20 21 22 23 2a 25 26 27 26 29 Ordinance No. 1240 Page 5 of 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1240 I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above foregoing Ordinance No. 1240 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16~' day of July, 2001, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of August, 2001 by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: Thomas, Bone, Doyle COUNCILPERSONS NOES: None COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: None COUIxCILPERSONSRBSENT: Worley, xawashima ATTACHMENT B Diagram of Required Three-Foot Landscape Area ,y ,=~' i. ~ 1~~. I i l I~ i ~~ ~' ~-•~r ~ IM,. 1~ -~~h~ i i'S,~ ~' :1._~. 11~ :.is . ~~K_,~ ~' ~ _~~ ~~ ~,'. ,. ~ i, 1 ~ ~ I' ~. ~j 1J,~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ` .~ ' I i~. ~I ~ ~~ ~~~ ~;~ , - ~+-~ - . ~ ~ ~ _ } ~ ~ ~~' ~' p U N ~ Q ~ ~~~ U ~ ~ LO ~ ~ ATTACHMENT C Code Enforcement Cases Examples ~u~ r~ ,~~ '~I~j~ .-~J~ -~.~ -1 w :~ II'~ i ~ ~ ~~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~+ d .P ~ ~ ~ .~ .. ~ t ~ ~ ~ Q , L ~n a L ~ l:_:_J /O~O~ O ~~~n ~V /~'~ l7 u C~ ~~ f~ ~~ ,_ ~. ~~ i~ p i` I .: ~~~ ~. ~P 00 0 0 0 L~=ryJ C1 r~ ~~ _, ~. _~ 1 i 1 .r' ~~~ 1':! ,',I ~'', i - ~,,r ~',., ~' +~ . '.. 111 M +,lu.' ~~,; . • ~7 ~? oa ~~ P '~ ~, ~ ~_ o .i ~'" ~ (• ~ ~ P ': 'k ~; 1 ::.: ~... ~ ~. {V _~ ~~~ ~ ~, ~, ,~~ ~~,+• ~ , ~ , ~~, - , ~~ 0 A~ W `~ ^~ ~' 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- O r~ L L A ~ Q .~ 1 ~ I I~~I yll ~~ I~I ll~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~•. ~ ~~~~~~ ,~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~,~ ~' ~~ I~~~ i .. _ , ~ . ~. 1 ~ i • { .~ ~I~ ti i i ~ _•_~ ( L. 'r .I~ II I / ~ T, j I ++ _I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'~ :~ i ' '~ r v ~ .. O ~II d ~ ,~ .- 1 ~ ~ . ;:,. ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ` ~` ~ a `y~ 1 as a ~1 ~~~ ~. .. L L., ® ~ ~:. ~ :. ' ~ - ~1 a A O d ~~~n ~V /~'~/~'~~ 11~U !~ .~` ~~`~ ~-Ti,+t ii ,u. >s ,~:, r ~~ _ . ..t. 7 ~_ - - ~r r .~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.l a a M r~ i 0 o ~ { V lS"fJ I P (~ ~# ,~ I d 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ Gi G1 ._ ~ .. ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ L L l I ~.'.,~ i. .,, ., I~, i I ~~~ ~ i y .~ I1 oa P P °~ `~ i ~ r'' _l `. I 'i ~'I :~ Q~ m ~~~ ~~ CrH ~; ~~ r~ r~ ~~ ~~ ~ \~ l~ ~\~ •,. _ f ~ ~~~ ~~ _~. ~~ ~ ~ .~~ ~, ~~~a ~~ r-- n s ~ ~- - _ ~~ ~ .T - ~a~ ~~~.~ ;fit;, ,~ .. s ~ ~ ~°~ ~~. h; ~ ~~~ r ~ J iT !`y, r~ ` .. ,~ ,. ~ .r -,~~. ~~, ~ ., i ~; -~= ~~ ~~ ~~. ATTACHMENT D January 11, 2001, Planning Commission Report ITEM #5 TUSTIN .~` ~ DATE: JANUARY 17, 2011 ~~~-- a ~ ~~~„~.. TO: PLANNING COMMISSION R~t~°~NG °UA FUTURE I{ONORIkG OUA PAST FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PREPARED BY: SCOTT REEKSTIN, SENIOR PLANNER REQUEST: SYNTHETIC TURF WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION: The use of synthetic turf has become more common as the costs associated with water usage and landscape maintenance have increased. In areas prone to drought such as Southern California, the use of synthetic turf has been promoted by water agencies, manufacturers and retailers. As a result, the City has received an increasing number of inquiries and requests from the public regarding the use of synthetic turf on private property. The purpose of this report and the January 11, 2011, workshop is to provide the Planning Commission with an overview of synthetic turf, including its advantages and disadvantages, the applicability of the Tustin City Code to synthetic turf, sample standards for synthetic turf, and issues related to synthetic turf; and to obtain input and recommended actions from the Commission. BAGKGROUND: Overview Synthetic turf is an artificial product manufactured from synthetic materials that simulates the appearance of live grass. Synthetic turf was created in 1960 primarily for use on athletic fields. There are two types of synthetic turf: in-fill and non-infill varieties. Infill synthetic turf contains rubber crumbs or sand and is designed for sports fields, whereas the non-infill variety uses coiled fibers to keep blades upright and works well in residential yards. Advantages and Disadvantages There are several advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of synthetic turf. For example, the use of synthetic turf has been promoted because of reduced water usage, the absence of pesticides and fertilizers, the elimination of lawn mowing and trimming, its durability, the reuse of disposed tires, fewer sports injuries, and Planning Commission Report Synthetic Turf Workshop January 11, 2011 Page 2 because it works well in small spaces and shady areas where live grass may be difficult to grow and maintain. However, synthetic turf is more expensive to install than live grass, has a higher surface temperature, may pose health concerns, may be less aesthetically pleasing than live grass, may cause abrasion injuries, does not produce oxygen, and has a limited lifespan. Synthetic turf works well in some applications such as sports fields, street medians and shady areas, but not in all applications. For example, synthetic turf may have a more artificial and less desirable appearance when installed in residential settings adjacent to live grass that is well-maintained. The Tustin City Code and Synthetic Turf Based on the current landscaping requirements and definitions in the Tustin City Code, the use of synthetic turf is prohibited on private property. For example, Tustin City Code Section 5502 requires "All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition free of dead, decayed, overgrown or discarded plant material." Further, Tustin City Code Section 9267 requires "Unimproved and/or unpaved portions of the front yard setback area in residential districts or front yards in commercial and industrial districts shall be improved or maintained with appropriate landscaping in a healthy and vigorous condition." However, these requirements apply to private property only. Synthetic turf has been installed on public property in some City of Tustin medians and parks in limited areas where live grass has been difficult to maintain. In anticipation of future Planning Commission consideration of synthetic turf on private property, synthetic turf was authorized at a single family residence on Prospect Avenue for an eighteen month trial period that began in October of 2009. This demonstration project was approved in support of water conservation efforts, and the owner has agreed to remove the synthetic turf at his expense if the turf does not perform well. To date no complaints have been received, and the turf has performed well and been maintained, as shown on the picture below. Planning Commission Report Synthetic Turf Workshop January 11, 2011 Page 3 Sample Standards In jurisdictions where synthetic turf is allowed, standards are often established to ensure that the synthetic turf is of a satisfactory quality and is well maintained. Examples of standards commonly used in other cities include: ^ Lifelike individual blades shall emulate real grass in look and color. • Cut pile polyethylene or polypropylene. • Minimum pile height of 1-3l4". ^ Installed professionally with proper drainage system underneath. ^ Installed and maintained to simulate the appearance of swell-maintained lawn. ^ Prohibit indoor or outdoor plastic or nylon carpet. ^ Combine with natural p-ant materials to enhance landscape design. ^ Worn or faded synthetic turf must be replaced or repaired. • Maintain free of weeds, debris, tears, stains, holes, mildew, discoloration, fading and impressions. ^ Shall not exceed a specified percentage of the landscaped area. Other softscape and hardscape could include trees, shrubs, groundcover, rocks, and decorative pavers. ^ Require certain quality grades, depending on location and application. ^ Minimum 8-year warranty. The establishment of standards would require significant public outreach to inform property owners of the requirements so they would know to purchase and install synthetic turf that meets the established standards. In addition, significant staff resources would be needed to review, monitor, and enforce synthetic turt installations. Issues Synthetic turf is widely available and may be purchased through various suppliers and through home improvement retailers in a variety of colors, textures, and qualities. The cost of synthetic turf for landscaping purposes ranges from approximately $2.25 to $7.00 per square foot, plus the cost of installation. As shown in the examples below, the cost of synthetic turf directly corresponds to the pile height and density. Name Cast Densit Pile Hei ht Warrant Use Luxu Lawn $4.73/s . ft. 85 oz./s d. 2.0 inches 10 ears U scale Premium $4.41/s . ft. 95 oz./s d. 1.75 inches 8 ears Residential Im erial Lawn $3.74/s . ft. 50 oz./s d. 1.5 inches 10 ears Res/Comm Active Pla $3.22ls . ft. 42 oz./s d. 1.0 inch 10 ears Pla areas Planning Commission Report Synthetic Turf Workshop January 11, 2011 Page 4 Synthetic turf for use on sports fields, playgrounds, and putting greens is generally less expensive and has a lower pile height compared to synthetic turf for yards and other landscaping applications. Various agencies such as the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California and the Orange County Water District encourage water conservation and use of artificial turf. In fact, synthetic turf rebate programs have been offered to MWD water customers. However, the use synthetic turf is not allowed in all cities. In Tustin, it is currently prohibited on private property. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the matter and provide input and a recommendation to the City Council regarding synthetic turf. Options available to the Commission may include: 1) taking no action; 2) allowing synthetic turf, but with standards, 3) allowing synthetic turt without standards, 4) regulating synthetic turf; and 5) recommending an amendment to the Tustin City Code to specifically prohibit synthetic turf in Tustin. Staff will be available at the workshop to answer questions and provide additional information. Samples of synthetic turf will be provided at the workshop. ~~~ ; Scott Reekstin Senior Planner Elizabeth A. Binsac Director of Community Development Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation ATTACHMENT E Synthetic Turf Standards CITY OF TUSTIN SYNTHETIC TURF STANDARDS June 2011 The primary purpose of these standards is to provide guidance to residential and commercial property owners who propose to install synthetic turf in front yards and in visible side yards of corner lots. The following standards may be amended periodically by the Director of Community Development. Standards ^ Lifelike individual blades shall emulate real grass in appearance and color. • Material shall consist of cut pile polyethylene or polypropylene. • Turf shall have a minimum pile height of 1-3/4". ^ Turf shall be installed professionally with a proper drainage system underneath. ^ Turf shall be Installed and maintained to simulate the appearance of a well- maintained lawn. ^ Indoor or outdoor plastic or nylon carpet shall be prohibited. ^ Turf shall be combined with natural plant materials to enhance landscape design. ^ A maximum of 50% of the landscaped yard area may consist of synthetic turf. • Significantly worn or faded synthetic turf shall be replaced or repaired. • Turf shall be maintained. • Synthetic turf is subject to approval by the Director of Community Development, prior to installation. ATTACHMENT F Planning Commission Resolution No. 4173 RESOLUTION NO. 4173 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1398 APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT 11-004 AMENDING SECTIONS 5502 AND 9267 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO MODIFY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND SET FORTH SYNTHETIC TURF STANDARDS IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That on March 16, 2010, the City Council directed staff to review existing Ordinance No. 1240, which requires a three-foot landscape buffer between residential properties, for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to City Council. B. That on January 11, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the use of synthetic turf and provided direction to prepare standards for the installation of synthetic turf in the City of Tustin, for consideration by the City Council. C. That Draft Ordinance No. 1398 (Code Amendment 11-004) has been prepared to modify certain landscape requirements, and to set forth standards for synthetic turf in Tustin City Code Sections 5502 and 9267. D. That a public hearing on Ordinance No. 1398 (Code Amendment 11-004) was duly called, noticed, and held by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California, on May 10, 2011. E. That prior to 2001, no provision existed to ensure that the front yard area was not completely covered by driveways. In 2009, the Planning Commission and the City Council took great care and consideration in adopting the comprehensive parking ordinance. These provisions essentially prevented the over-paving of residential front yards. F. That the removal of the 3 foot setback from the Code may be inconsequential while still maintaining the desired aesthetic effect on residential properties. G. That Code Amendment 11-004 is consistent with Housing Element Policy No. 6.4 and Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy No. 5.3 of the Tustin General Plan, which promote water efficient landscapes and water conservation techniques. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4173 Page 2 H. That this project has been determined to be exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), in that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the proposed Ordinance No. 1398 (Code Amendment 11-004) would revise text from Tustin City Code Section 9267(x)(3) which requires a three foot landscaped setback to property line, would revise Tustin City Code Sections 5502 and 9267 to provide for the installation of synthetic turf, and would set forth standards for synthetic turf. This revision has no possibility for significant effect on the environment; therefore, Code Amendment 11-004 is not subject to CEQA. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance no. 1398 approving Code Amendment 11-004 amending Sections 5502 and 9267 of the Tustin City Code to modify landscape requirements and to set forth synthetic turf standards in the City of Tustin (Exhibit 1). PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of May, 2011. Jeff Thompson Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4173 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of May, 2011. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1398 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 5502 AND 9267 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO MODIFY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND TO SET FORTH SYNTHETIC TURF STANDARDS IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That on March 16, 2010, the City Council directed staff to review existing Ordinance No. 1240, which requires athree-foot landscape buffer between residential properties, for Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to City Council. B. That on January 11, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the use of synthetic turf and provided direction to prepare standards for the installation of synthetic turf in the City of Tustin, for consideration by the City Council. C. That Draft Ordinance No. 1398 (Code Amendment 11-004) has been prepared to modify certain landscape requirements in Tustin City Code Sections 5502 and 9267, and to set forth standards for synthetic turf. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on Ordinance No. 1398 (Code Amendment 11-004) by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California, on May 10, 2011. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4173 recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1398 approving Code Amendment 11-004. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on Ordinance No. 1398 (Code Amendment 11-004) on June 7, 2011, by the Tustin City Council. That prior to 2001, no provision existed to ensure that the front yard area was not completely covered by driveways. In 2009, the Planning Commission and the City Council took great care and consideration in adopting the comprehensive parking ordinance. These provisions essentially prevented the over-paving of residential front yards. G. That the removal of the 3 foot setback from the Code may be inconsequential while still maintaining the desired aesthetic effect on residential properties. H. That this project has been determined to be exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), in that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the proposed Ordinance No. 1398 (Code Amendment 11- 004) would revise text from Tustin City Code Section 9267(a)(3) which requires a three foot landscaped setback to property line, would revise Tustin City Code Sections 5502 and 9267 to provide for the installation of synthetic turf, and would set forth standards for synthetic turf. This revision has no possibility for significant Ordinance 1398 Page 2 effect on the environment; therefore, Code Amendment 11-004 is not subject to CEQA. That Code Amendment 11-004 is consistent with Housing Element Policy No. 6.4 and Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy No. 5.3 of the Tustin General Plan, which promote water efficient landscapes and water conservation techniques. Section 2. Section 55021(1) of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: Landscaping. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition free of dead, decayed, overgrown or discarded plant material and all synthetic turf Section 3. Section 9267a3, of the Tustin City Code is hereby repealed: Section 4. Section 9267c of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: Paved Areas. Paved areas may be improved with impervious materials including, but not limited to, concrete, bricks, slate or stone tiles, decorative stamped concrete, or any other permanent hardscape. No decomposed granite, gravel, or other loose materials shall be allowed. Unimproved and/or unpaved portions of the front yard setback area in residential districts or front yards in commercial or industrial districts shall be improved and maintained with appropriate landscaping in a healthy and vigorous condition and/or synthetic turf maintained in Section 5. Section 9267d of the Tustin City Code is hereby repealed: nn of nhn} } i v }ho rlirnr}nr of ('nmmi ~ni}~~ rln~iolnr~mon} nr }hn rrvtl C-e~~-~ar,~urEl~~e~r-rS6{~ 2d--b p-cn v-vrr~crcv rliron}nr~c ~-IecjLjngll, Section 6. The Synthetic Truf Standards for the City of Tustin are hereby incorporated by reference, as Exhibit A and may be amended at the discretion of the Community Development Director. Section 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance 1398 Page 3 remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tustin on this 7th day of June, 2011. JERRY AMANTE, MAYOR PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1398 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1398 was duly and regularly introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7th day of June, 2011, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21St day of June 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Published: Exhibit A CITY OF TUSTIN SYNTHETIC TURF STANDARDS June 2011 The primary purpose of these standards is to provide guidance to residential and commercial property owners who propose to install synthetic turf in front yards and in visible side yards of corner lots. The following standards may be amended periodically by the Director of Community Development. Standards • Lifelike individual blades shall emulate real grass in appearance and color. • Material shall consist of cut pile polyethylene or polypropylene. • Turf shall have a minimum pile height of 1-3/4". ^ Turf shall be installed professionally with a proper drainage system underneath. ^ Turf shall be Installed and maintained to simulate the appearance of a well- maintained lawn. ^ Indoor or outdoor plastic or nylon carpet shall be prohibited. ^ Turf shall be combined with natural plant materials to enhance landscape design. ^ A maximum of 50% of the landscaped yard area may consist of synthetic turf. ^ Significantly worn or faded synthetic turf shall be replaced or repaired. ^ Turf shall be maintained. ^ Synthetic turf is subject to approval by the Director of Community Development, prior to installation.