HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-1987 Planning Commission Minutes CITY ~ SARATOGA 'PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Tuesday, December 15, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave.
TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole
Roll Call- Present: Guch, Burger, Kolstad, Tucker, Siegfried
Absent: Clay, Harris
Staff: Hsia, Calkins, Young
I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
A. DR-87-095, V-87-025 - Cartmell, 14350 Paul Ave.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Planner
Calkins gave a summary of the proposed project and the
concerns expressed by the Commission at the November 17,
1987 regular meeting. Specifically, the Commission felt
that the second story addition, as proposed, would have a
significant impact on the privacy of the property owner to
the south. In addition, the Commission had expressed mixed
opinions as to whether or not the requested variance to
decrease the number of off-street covered parking spaces
from 2 to 1 was warranted.
The applicant presented revised site plans showing two
different alternatives for a detached two-car garage located
at the rear of the remodeled home. He also stated that
there would be room enough along the right side of the
proposed single-car garage to park another vehicle and he
would be willing to erect a gate/or fence in this area so
that any car parked along'side the garage would be screened
from view. The applicant also stated that the construction
of a detached two-car garage in the rear yard area would
adversely effect him as it would decrease the usable yard
area and increase the impervious coverage.
With regards to the potential privacy impacts, the applicant
stated that he was not prepared to offer any design
alternatives other than'reducing the size of the second
story window and planting a heavy landscaping screen along
the right side property line.
Adjacent property owners, Crane and Mahaffey, were present
and expressed their concerns regarding privacy impacts and
view obstruction, respectively.
The consensus of the Commissioners present was that the
variance request to allow a single car garage was reasonable
given the small lot size and other site constraints. With
regards to the privacy and view impacts, the Commission felt
the applicant had not adequately addressed this issue and
1
instructed '~h~m to prepare design alternatives that would
help lessen these impacts and present them at the
Commission's next study Session on January 5, 1988.
B. Draft Noise Element ~
Commissioner Guch noted.that there had been a leaf blower
demonstration before the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Planner Young
noted that the brand of the blower was one of the newest
Echo models, PB-4500, and that the noise readings were 84dBa
at 25 feet and 76dBa at.50 feet, with the machine at full
throttle.
Planning Director Hsia gave a brief introduction, stating
that the purpose of t0night's meeting was to hear a more
detailed presentation on the Element by the consultants,
answer Commissioner's questions, hear additional public
testimony, and review in detail the goals, policies and
implementation measures.
Richard Arjo, consultant, began his presentation by stating
that the noise measurements had been made in accordance with
State guidelines. He noted that street traffic is the
primary source of noise in Saratoga and showed the location
of the 60dBa contour on the map. He also noted non-traffic
sources of noise.
Edward Pack, consultant, gave a detailed presentation on how
the noise measurements were taken and how the noise contours
were generated. He discussed the two noise scales, Ldn and
Cnel, and described how a single number represents 24 hours
of noise. Commissioner Burger questioned the use of the
60dBa standard, and asked if it was an "urban" standard that
may not be appropriate to Saratoga. Consultant Arjo
responded that 60dBa is a federal and state standard,
averaged for the variety of'noise situations. Consultant
Pack stated that every.city has its own peculiar mix of
quiet and noisy areas and that 60dBa is an average for
exterior noise and 45dBa is an average for interior noise.
Commissioner Burger expressed concern at coming up with a
"right" standard for Saratoga, not one that is too low to be
unattainable and not one that is too high to allow too much
noise. Consultant Pack reminded the Commission that the
purpose of the Noise Element is in land use planning issues
related to noise; it is difficult to go backwards to address
what already exists, but it is possible to control future
noise problems.
Consultant Arjo briefly discussed the Community Noise
Profile, pointing out the various noise sensitive sites in
the City. Commissioner Burger was concerned that
residential areas were not specifically called out as noise
sensitive areas. Consultant Arjo said that it was implicit
in the Element and maps that such areas are considered
2
noise-sensitive.
Consultant Arjo then 'reviewed the land use planning
implications, methods for noise control and existing City
regulations relating to noise.
Due to the lateness of'the hour, Planning Director Hsia
recommended the Commission continue discussion on the Goals
and Policies- section tO another study session, and hear
additional public testimony instead. The Commission agreed.
Jerry Kocir, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., presented the City of
Cupertino's noise regulations to the Commission, saying he
thought they were very good. The Commission directed staff
to make copies of the regulations for the Commission at the
next meeting.
Steve James, ECHO distributor in Sacramento, said that his
company serves as a resource to communities in providing
information and education on leaf blowers. He presented
brochures and a document on test results of the various
brands of blowers.
Ann Bond, resident, expressed concern about the excessive
use of leaf blowers.
Gregg Catanese, owner' of landscape business, asked
Consultant Pack about the dBa effect of using two blowers in
tandem. Mr. Pack responded with technical information
regarding frequency and pitch, saying that a higher pitch
was perceived by the human ear as having a higher decibal
rating.
F. Schmidt, resident, expressed concern about people blowing
around dirt and leaves rather than vacuuming it up.
Carol Machol, resident, asked that a copy of the Noise
Element be made available at the City library. She also
suggested that more references from cities that were similar
to Saratoga be reviewed, such as Portola Valley, Atherton
and Los Altos Hills, rather than urban communities. She
also expressed concern that the noise contours for 2005
reflected interchanges on Hwy. 85 and that might not be
realistic. She was concerned about traffic backing up at
the interchanges, the p~ojected Level E of service on some
local streets, and the impact on noise. She distributed to
the Commission a page (p. VI-142) from the FEIS for Hwy. 85
regarding levels of service. She suggested that more
streets than those discussed on pages 10-11 of the Element
would have problems, and asked that some paragraphs would be
deleted from the Element. Consultant Pack stated that the
projected noise contours were based on the Barton-Aschmann
traffic information for Hwy. 85.
There being no further .testimony, Commissioner Guch thanked
the public and the consultants for their input, and
continued the item for further discussion to the January 19,
1988 Committee-of-the-Whole meeting.
II. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
4