Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-1988 City Council Staff ReportsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 1 -3 -88 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 1 W ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: RESCIND BUILDING SITE APPROVAL (2 Lots), SDR 1604 for David Miner, Alta Vista Drive Recommended Motion: AGENDA ITEM r CITY MGR. APPROVAL ,, Approve Resolution No. 1604 -03, rescinding existing Building Site Approval for David Miner. Report Summary: On October 15, 1986 meeting, the Saratoga City Council approved two building sites for David Miner, SDR 1604. Now, Mr. David Miner has asked to cancel his two building sites and release his bond for street improvements due to cancellation of building site. He is entitled to receive back storm drain, park recreation and 70% of engineer- ing fees back. The developer will be required to pay all fees to the City at the time of building site approval in the future. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 1604 -03. 2. Letter from David Miner. 3. Memo describing bond & fees. Motion and Vote: 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARA'i'OGA. CALIFORNIA 05070 (408) 867 -3438 bVl1!!.oMORAHJLr/UliVJl TO: Finance Department DATE: 7-26 -88 FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Bond :'Release for: SDR 1604 DAVID MINER --------------------------------------- ------------ ------=------------------- Developer has requested to' rewind his existing building sites; therefore please release bond. 1. Bond Type: 2. Amount: ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE $7.000.00 3 . �xs=dI ow certificate no.: 85- 1069021 4. ,Date Posted: August 6, 1988 5. Bond posted by: David Miner 6. Work guaranteed-: Street Maintenance " 7. 'Account Number: N.A. Issue Bond release to: Name: DAVID MINER Address: P. 0. Box 573 Saratoga, Ca. 95071 Roh0art S . shook C:.i. kv Fngineor Ugu 'w Qq 0 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT DATE: July 26, 1988 FROM: CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: RELEASE OF FEES FOR SDR -1604, DAVID MINER Storm Drain $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 Park & Recreation $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 Plan Check & Inspection $ 1,050.00 $ 630.00 (60.0 %) TOTAL $ 4,850.00 $ 4,430.00 RSS /df V�- 4 P RESOLUTION NO. 1604 -03 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RESCINDING BUILDING SITE FOR SDR 1604 The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The Final Building Site Approval granted by the City of Saratoga in Resolution No. 1604 -02 identified as SDR 1604, relating to the 9567.0 square feet and 8724.0 square feet parcels shown as Lot 52 & 53 on Tract Map at Williams Subdivisions recorded in Book Lot-of Maps Page 69 is hereby rescinded. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the day of , 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: _ August 3. 1988 ORIGINATING DEPT: RNGTNRRRTNG L j AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Replacement of Two Bridges on Quito Road - Consultant Agreement Recommended Motion: Award the contract to provide the engineering services for the replacement of two bridges on Quito Road to: Creegan & D'Angelo. Report Summary: On June 17, 1988, six engineering firms made presentations and were interviewed by representatives from the City of Saratoga, City of Monte Sereno and Santa Clara Valley Water District on the above subject project. The firm of Creegan & D'Angelo was selected unanimously and have been approved by Caltrans. Once the agreement has been executed, Creegan & D'Angelo will be sent the "Notice to Proceed" on the preliminary engineering of said project. The project will be ready to go to bid next spring with construction completed by late summer 1989. Fiscal Impacts: The cost to provide the engineering services for the above project is proposed to not exceed $57,050 of which 80% will be financed by the Federal Highway Administration ($45,640) and the remaining 20% is to be split 3 ways - -City of Saratoga, City of Monte Sereno and Santa Clara Valley Water District ($3,803.33 each). Attachments: 1. Copy of "Agreement for the Design of the Replacement of Two Quito Road Bridges over San Tomas Aquino Creek in the Cities of Saratoga and Monte Sereno, California ". Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I `I �' AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 3, 1988 CITY MGR. APPROVAL AW ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT. SUBJECT: Award Contract Schedule Band C of Overlay to RAISCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Recommended Motion: Award Contract Schedule B and C (Lomita Avenue) of overlay to Raisch Construction Company. Report Summary: We included in the overlay project this year two items of work on Lomita Avenue. One was to construct the improvements on the Pronger frontage for which we had previously foreclosed on the bonds. The second was for a neighbor who wanted the benefit of a larger carport. We needed to resolve some problems relative to these items but didn't want to hold up the major city project. Therefore, we awarded the large city project at your 6/15/88 meeting. We now recommend award of the other two portions of Lomita. We have a deposit of the neighbor's funds ($5940). The Pronger interests will be responsible for payment of the balance (19,285), if an when they get Tentative Site Approval for a lot split. The Pronger bonds generated $8910. 1 i Fiscal Impacts: $5,940 from Hopkins. $8,910 from Pronger bonds. $19,285 advance from General Fund. Attachments: MULion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 8 -3 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT. SUBJECT: Final Acceptance and Release Bond for SDR 1630, Linda K. Dolan & Andrew Carter, Sobey Road Recommended Motion: Grant Final Acceptance and Release Bond for SDR -1630. AGENDA ITEM [. CITY MGR. APPROVAL Report Summary: All private improvements for driveway have been satisfactorily completed and the bond can be released. Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Memo describing bond. m1 l• i nn :Inr7 xy_4 . . •�j;,� :�..w.o " C� � �� o� ° ° `BOO C��' 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 °•. • - -- -=1% (408) 887 -3438 MEMORANDUM i TO: City Manager DATE: 7 -27 -88 FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Tract - SDR 1,630 (Final Acceptance ) Location: Sobey Road , -------------------------------------------------- All improvements required, of SDR -1630 and' agreed to in the Building-Site Agreement dated Sept. 2, 1.987 have been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, I recommend the improvement security posted to guarantee that agreement be released. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: LINDA K. .DOLAN & .ANDREW CARTER Address:— 12330 Kosich Court, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 2. Improvement Security: Type:_ Assignment Certificate Amount: '$3, 000.00 Issuing Co.: Wells Fargo Bank Address: Saratoga. ]cpx�i�x�s Certificate No.: 6761- 01.5700 3. Special Remarks.: Please release Assignment Certificate. Ro S. Shook RSS /dsm SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. %L/ MEETING DATE: August 3, 1988 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services 340 ,c AGENDA ITEM q_(J_ CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Authorization for Sheriff's Office to Access Criminal History Information for Licensing, Permits, and Background Employment Checks Recommended Motion: Move to Adopt Resolution No. Authorizing the Sheriff's Office to Access Criminal History Information in Behalf of the City. Report Summary: Pursuant to many sections of the Saratoga Municipal Code, the Sheriff's Office reviews applications for such things as Solicitor Permits, Massage Establishment Permits, Permits for the Sale of Concealed Weapons, etc. The Sheriff's Office is also occasionally asked to provide criminal hist&ry background information to screen potential City employees. Pursuant to the California Penal Code, the City Council must specifically authorize the Sheriff's Office to provide this information if records from the Cal- ifornia Department of Justice are to be accessed. Adoption of the attached Resolution grants that authority. Fiscal Impacts: NONE Attachments: Resolution No. Mntinn and VntP_ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 8 -3 -88 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING I6Z° 2 J AGENDA ITEM F CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT • Underground Utility District ­Big Basin, Way /Congress Springs Road - Fifth Street to Hakone Gardens Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution 399 -7 setting a public hearing on the formation.of,.an,.un;der- ground utility district - Big Basin Way /Congress Springs Road - Fifth Street to Hakone Gardens. Report Summary: Council has established this area as the next priority for converting.overhead utilities to underground. This is a part of the village improvements that will include pavement reconstruction, upgraded crosswalks, lighting, trees, etc. Conversion will be at utility cost and conversion at structure will be at property owner's expense. City to bear cost of new street lighting. Fiscal Impacts: Cost not available yet. Attachments: Resolution 399 -7. Motion and Vote: RESOLUTION NO. 399 -7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER PUBLIC NECESSITY, HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ON BIG BASIN WAY/ CONGRESS SPRINGS ROAD BETWEEN FIFTH STREET AND HAKONE GARDENS. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Saratoga, as follows: WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 38.20 establishes a procedure for the creation of under- ground utility districts and requires as the initial step in such procedure the hold- ing of. a public hearing to ascertain whether public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead struc- tures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or similar or associated service in any such district; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended that such underground utility district, herein- after called District, be formed on Big Basin Way /Congress Springs Road between Fifth Street and Hakone Gardens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Council of the City of Saratoga on August 17, 1988, at the hour.of "8:00 o',clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 13377 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,-California, to ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground install- ation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or similar assoc- iated service in the District hereinabove described. 2. At such hearing all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Said hearing may be continued from time to time as may be determined by the City Council. 3. The City Clerk shall notify all affected property owners as shown.on the last equalized assessment roll and utilities concerned at least ten (10) days prior to the date thereof. 4. The area proposed.to be included in the.District is shown upon that certain map entitled Saratoga Underground Utility District 116, dated June 1988 which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO._/ 4V I C� MEETING DATE: August 3, 1988 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: GPA- 88 -03, Consider General Plan Amendment for revised Noise Element Recommended Motion: Conduct public hearing, adopt Negative Declaration, approve GPA- 88 -03. Report Summary: The revised Noise Element has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The Element was prepared in accordance with State planning law by the planning consulting firm of Community Planning Consultants. The Element defines and prescribes ambient noise standards for various land uses in Saratoga, describes noise problems and proposes goals, policies and implementation programs. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1) Report from Planning Department with resolution. 2) Planning Commission minutes of 5/25/88, 4/15/88, 1/19/88, 12/15/87, 11/3/87. 3) Negative Declaration. 4) Noise Element, Exhibit "A" (this was sent to the Council under separate cover prior to the agenda packet). Motion and vote: 5) Correspondence received. W.+ •ti of SARATOGA REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 18, 1988 COUNCIL MEETING: August 3, 1988 SUBJECT: GPA- 88 -03, Consider General Plan Amendment for revised Noise Element. BACKGROUND Attached for your review is the final draft of the revised Noise Element of the General Plan, as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The Commission reviewed the Element at four Committee -of- the -Whole study sessions and a public hearing, minutes of which are attached. This draft incorporates all the suggestions made to date by the Commission. The Noise Element was last updated in 1974. This revised Element was prepared by the planning consulting firm of Community Planning Consultants, under the direction of Richard Arjo, with technical assistance by Edward Pack Associates, Acoustical Consultants, both of whom will be at the August 3 meeting to address the Council and answer questions. The purpose of the Noise Element, prepared in accordance with State planning law, is to define and prescribe ambient noise levels for the various land uses in Saratoga in order that the quiet residential atmosphere of the city will be maintained. The Element basically consists of three sections: 1)a technical section that defines and describes the noise environment; 2)a description of the noise en- vironment in Saratoga, including existing and projected noise con- tours, noise problems, and suggested noise reduction techniques; and 3)the identification of issues and proposed goals, policies and im- plementation measures. When the Council originally directed that the Noise Element be upgraded, they requested that the Element address the issue of power equipment such as leaf blowers and lawn mowers. A discussion of s� Report to City Council Noise Element August 3, 1988 mtg. Page two this issue can be found on pages 13 -14 of the Element. Imple- mentation Program 1.2 on page 24 addresses this issue by recommending that the Noise Ordinance be revised after the Element is adopted, to reflect more appropriate noise levels and enforcement methods for Saratoga. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council review the final. draft and con- duct the public hearing. The Council should suggest changes to the Element if necessary, adopt the Negative Declaration, and approve GPA- 88 -03, adopting the revised Noise Element of- the General Plan. Vag, (Jf� - Va erie Youn Associate Pl ner Attachment: Resolution adopting Noise Element RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA ADOPTING THE NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has prepared a revised Noise Element of the General Plan which addresses noise issues in Saratoga, pursuant to Government Code 65302(f); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, with the determination that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Noise Element at noticed public hearings and recommended its approval and adoption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, ' the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of the proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission, and the written and oral testimony presented to the Council regarding the Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that City of Saratoga.hereby approves GPA -88 -003, C adopting the Noise Element, in the form incorporated herein by reference, making the 1.) The Noise Element is consisten policies set forth in the General the City Council of the General Plan Amendment of Exhibit "A" and following findings: t with the goals and Plan; 2.) General community welfare and good planning practice are served by the Element; 3.) The Element will not have a significant effect on the environment. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1988, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Mayor r, City Clerk Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 16. GPA -88 -03 City of Saratoga, General Plan Amendment to adopt the revised Noise Element of the General Plan. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this Application. Planning Director.Hsia presented the Memorandum of May 25, 1988; he cited the Report prepared by the City Manager Re: Administration and Enforcement of Noise Standards. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M. There were no speakers. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 7:55 P.M. • Passed 4-0. l� Commissioner Kolstad concurred with the Report from the City Manager. , Commissioner Harris stated that the intent of the Commission was to enforce standards. Chairwoman Guch was favorable to eliminadon of the category of Light Industrial. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLA- RATION AND GPA- 88 -03, AN AMENDMENT TO ADOPT THE NOISE ELEMENT AMENDING ACOUSTICAL STANDARDS SHOWN IN FIGURE 2 AS FOLLOWS: ELIMINATE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND SETTING STANDARDS AS FOLLOWS: COMMERCIAL OFFICE, OUTDOOR 65 INDOOR 50; PUBLIC/PARK, OUTDOOR 60 INDOOR 50;'RESIDENTIAL OUTDOOR 60 INDOOR 45. Passed 4-0. , CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: Tuesdag, A ril 5 1988 - 7 :30 p.m. PLACE: Community center Arts &.Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave.'' TYPE: Committee -of- the -Whole ------------------------------------ Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Harris,, Kolstad, Burger, Guch, Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Clay, Tucker Staff: Planning Director Hsia, Planner Young ------ - - - - -- I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. DR -87 -015 - Mauro., 21471 Continental Circle The meeting was called to order. at 7:30 `p.m. Planning Director Hsia presented the modification being requested, i.e'. a color change from medium..,brown to medium gray. Mr. and Mrs. Kemp, owners, presented photos of the house from -� various vantage points to show the minimal impact in the change of colors. They also showed samples of the brick and rock materials used on the house. Commissioner Kolstad felt the house will still be too visible with the colors proposed. Commissioner Harris felt the most visible elevation is primarily stone and glass so the color will not be too bright. Other Commissioners agreed. There was consensus in favor of the proposed color change. B. DR -87 -090.- Jordan, 14220 Paul Avenue Planning Director Hsia presented the modification being' requested, i.e.. a change in materials on the north and west elevation. D. Cunningham, representative for the applicant, presented graphic materials and the plans showing the proposed changes. The proposed colors are grey pearl ( #215) for the main part of the structure and Cape Code blue ( #72) .for the trim. The stone material is called "San Francisco cobblestone." There was .consensus among the Commission to approve the proposed material changes and the color scheme. Draft -Noise Element Planner Young briefed the Commission on the status of the _. Element, noting that the consultant brought the revised projected noise contour map and list of the text changes this evening for the Commission to review. 1 Committee -of- the -Whole Report 4/5/88 Dick Arjo, Community Planning Consultants, presented 'the revised projected noise contour map based on the negotiated freeway design agreement approved by the City Council on' March 2. Because of the depressed profile and sound walls, the 60dba contour does not extend as far into the residential areas as shown in the previous map. The Commission then went through the list of text changes clarifying some items and giving staff and the consultant additional changes. There was consensus to schedule the Noise Element for the May 11 Planning Commission as a public hearing item. II. ADJOURNMENT �o The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Young.' Associate Planner VY /dsc V, a] Planning Commission Committee -of- the -Whole Minutes 1/19/88 B. DR -87- 021..1 _ Murco Development Co., 13276 Glasgow Ct. Planner Caldwell reviewed the project and presented a plan showing comparative sizes, heights and roof pitches of the neighborhood. Mr. Don Coffey, applicant, explained that the basement had been eliminated, the,home was-moved back on the lot approximately 5' and that 500 sq. ft, of the home was attic spaces spread over the den and entry. He pointed out that the home is only about 100 sq. ft.- larger than the other homes after- excluding the attic portions. _ The Committee generally agreed that if the footprint of the home is similar in size to those in the neighborhood, the item could be placed on the consent calendar. Review Draft Noise Element - Commissioner Guch gave some introductory remarks, and consultant Dick Arjo proceeded with discussion on the Issue Identification /Goals, Policies, Implementation section of the Element. He stated this section was the most important because it set forth policy, assigned responsibility and established work programs for the future. Issue #_1 - Mr. Arjo said this issue dealt with enforcement of the noise ordinance and the revision of standards. Commissioner Burger was concerned about proactive rather than reactive enforcement. Commissioner Harris felt there was a need for more enforcement, not more ordinances. Mr. Arjo suggested that the CSO's could be asked to add "noise" to their list of sensitive items for enforcement. Issue L2-- It was recommended that policy 2.2 be made first, as policy 2.1, because it was more important. There was discussion on the difference between policies 2.2 and 2.3, and what decibel level should be used for determining when acoustical studies would be required. After clarification on the technical issues by Mr. Pack, it was determined that the noise level in Implementation 2.3 should read 1155 dBLdn." Issue #3 - This issue relates to awareness and education. There were no suggested changes. Issue J4- This issue relates to traffic noise. There was consensus to add stronger wording to the end of Implementation 4.2, to read "....to the standards acceptable to the City of Saratoga." Under Implementation 4.31 there was consensus to add the words "or efforts" to the end of the sentence. There was also consensus to add policies and implementation regarding vehicle maintenance and speed limits to this section. 2 C Committee -of- the -Whole Minutes 1/19/88 II. Commissioner Tucker asked the consultant to compare Saratoga to cities that were similar, such as Atherton, Los Altos Hills, etc.. Mr. Arjo stated that, in terms of noise• standards, the average acceptable level was 55 -65 dBa. Commissioner Guch emphasized that the standard for,Saratoga, on page 61 would be stated as one standard only, not "preferred" and "acceptable" standards: Commissioner Tucker was concerned about the,projected noise contour map for 2005 reflecting the Caltrans configuration for Hwy. 85 and not the Saratoga alternative. She said it may give the Public-the-wrong impression that those contours - are acceptable to the City. Carol Machol, resident, expressed the same concern. She suggested 'that the map be kept As a separate document for, information only. Commissioner Guch was concerned that the freeway design isn't final yet, so that projected contours cannot be made at this time. Consultant Pack said the contours were based on the information available from Caltrans and that Noise Elements are required by State law to contain noise .projections for the future based on estimated conditions. There was concensus among the Commission to ask the Planning Director to communicate the Commission's concerns to the Council and ask for direction on how to proceed. _ The Commission also decided that further discussion on the Element be postponed until more knowledge of the freeway design was obtained. The Commission further directed that the noise contour projection map be revised to reflect contours from the approved freeway ,design when- it is finalized. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. 3 Planning Commission Committee -of{ e- Whole minutes December 15, 198-7 instructed him to prepare design alternatives that would help lessen these impacts and present them at * the Commission's next study session on January 5, 1988. 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 tonight'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 it's 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 CPC-COW December ( J .. 19 87 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 K.ocir, 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 )Aowers. 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 projected 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. 3 CPC -COW Decembek _5,l 1987 v 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 Planning lCommission CommitteC 3f- the -whole minutes November '3 O'­1987 for discussion -is a review of each Commission's powers, duties and limitations, as written in the City Code. Another item suggested was recommendations from the Heritage Commission for financial and. other incentives for preservation. - C. Review of Draft Noise Element Planning Director Hsia gave a brief presentation on the Noise Element, then introduced Richard Arjo, Community Planning Consultants, who had prepared the document. After a few brief remarks, it was decided that the document should be gone through'section by section, with questions and responses by the Commission and consultant. The acoustical standards proposed on page 6 were discussed. There was concern that there should be one standard only, not "preferable" and "acceptable" levels, and that Figure 2 be revised to reflect lower levels.. Commissioner Tucker asked if it was possible for the consultant to bring samples of different levels of sound. In regard to the projected noise contours for the year 2005, Mr. Arjo noted that there were no projected significant changes on existing streets, even with Hwy. 85 construction, because traffic levels would even out. He regretted that Mr. Pack, acoustical consultant, was not present to answer questions regarding the noise measurements and technical data. In regard to community noise complaints, Planner Young noted that the list of complaints was as of December, 1986. The Commission asked that the list-be updated and that barking dog and juvenile party complaints be included. Mr. Arjo then went thorugh the Land Use Planning Implications and Existing Regulations sections. The Commission then asked members of the public present to express their views and concerns. Gregg Catanese, owner of a landscape maintenance business, expressed concern that too much emphasis was being placed on leaf blowers when other power equipment may have just as high a decibel rating. Yves Casabonne stated that many problems could be solved by the use of newer, quieter equipment and training the users of leaf blowers. Leonard Liccardo expressed concern about noise levels on Highway 9, and suggested there be a policy regarding assistance to property owners in dealing with Caltrans. He cuestioned who had authority over Highway 9 noise levels, 2 Ii. CPC -COW ( . November 3.'_71987 Caltrans or the City. Bernard Sims expressed his opinion that most gardeners wore ear muffs when using leaf blowers and not other power equipment because they know leaf blowers are loud: Commissioner Siegfried suggested the Commission hear a demonstration on new leaf blowers. Ann Bond'said that for her, the quality of life in Saratoga was plummeting because of noise pollution. She told of her experiences hearing leaf blowers for more than 30 minutes at a time, of blowing debris, and of not being able to work at home or take walks without hearing power equipment. She said the problem was with enforcement, and that people were afraid to complain about their neighbors. Mr. Arjo suggested the Commission consider- self- policing programs and policies,, particularly through gardener's associations. Mervyn Solt, landscape contractor, said the leaf blower issue is an economic one, and that most gardeners would not be able to earn a living without them. He favored training in leaf blower etiquette. Don Marchuso stated his property borders the Oddfellows Home and expressed concern about noise every weekend from spring to fall from the renting of their picnic grounds. He said he recently lodged a complaint and the Planning Department was looking into it. Mr. and Mrs. Carlo s.tated.they live adjacent to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and were concerned about vehicle sirens and truck noise in that area. Annette Casabonne stated she knew manufacturers of leaf__ blowers who were willing to demonstrate new products. There being no further comments from the Commission decided to continue the item to session, scheduled for Tuesday, December 15 Arts and Crafts Room of the Community Center. ADJOURNMENT The meeting ended at 9:00 p.m. 3 public, the another study at 7:30 in the FES -ND Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No. GPA -88 -03 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable - provisions of the Envi.ronment,al Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no s- ignificant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms -and meaning of said-Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Revision to Noise Element of the Saratoga General Plan. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEG,ATIVE-DECLARATION The project has no potential adverse impacts because it establishes goals, = - policies and implementation measures to preserve the quiet., residential atmosphere of the ity. The project protects the'health.and safety of the community by recommending appropriate noise- related standards and guidelines for development. Execuied at Saratoga, California this 6th day of April 1988. YUCHUEK HSIA DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER Planning'Commission, Saratoga. RECEIVED iu� 000 0 is 88 PLANNING DEPT, 19966 Bonnie Ridge., Saratoga, July 24s' 88. In the event that the subject of noise and other pollution is being brought up in forthcoming meetings, I would like to express my objection to the power blowers used by many contract gardeners. In addition to the excessive amount of noise created by these machines, I find them quite offensive in other ways, too: If one happens to live down -wind from the operator, one receives the exhaust fumes and dust kicked up by the blowers. And either way, the leaves etc. are generally blown into neighbouring properties from where, in turn, their gardener will pass, them on or simply blow them back again. This may be good for permanent employment, but I consider it a frustration. My proposal: Ban the-use of all blowing machines in ru6ldentlal areaa. Also I would like to suggest enforcement of "Quiet Time" within our residential areas.-i.e. non -use of outdoor power tools and machinery between the.hours. of. 8pm & 8am, and after 1 m on Sudays and holidays.. Rudy G. Brandon. July 15, 1988. Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 To the 11embers of The City Council of Saratoga: The homeowners of Sara -Villa Association are vitally concerned by the Ceneral Flan Noise Element. As you already know by our previous letters to the City of Saratoga, The Planning Commission, and the Council, we have been subjected to and disturbed by noise from commercial cleaning equipment owned and operated by The Florentine Restaurant in the parking lot behind their restaurant (which is an area adjoining our homes). Your revised noise specification specifically states that this is primarily a residential community, and as such your goal is "preserving the quiet residential environment of Saratoga" and by "preventing increases in noise levels where noise sensitive land uses are located (Page 1). This being the case, we object to allowing noise levels to increase in commercial and residential areas, and most especially in boundary areas between commercial and residential areas. We also note that this problem of boundary areas is not even mentioned. in your specifications, notwith standing our many calls and letters on this subject since October of 1987. In addition to not helping our specific problem, Page 6, Figure 2 states that "residential noise shall be 10 dba lower in the evening than in the daytime" with no requirement that night time noise in commercial or boundary areas between commercial and residential areas be also lowered in the evening. It is also very obvious that the values in Figure 2, Page 6 are very high as compared with the dba levels used and in practise for many years. We have been told repeatedly that a new Noise Element and Ordinance would tighten up the specifications so that violations could be successfully prosecuted. It is not enough to state "evening hours ". The wording should be very specific, 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. or at least 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Once again we would strongly recommend that the wording "boundary areas, between commercial and residential areas, shall use the noise limit of the residential area between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., and that the standard shall be 50 d.ba" should be added to Page 6. We would still prefer to retain 45 dba, as stated in the old specifications; without this change all of the months of communications will. be of no avail if a 60 dba is allowed as a standard in a commercial area between 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. The noise of this cleaning machine is offensive when operating during the night or before 8:00 a.m. It was passed by your representative originally with a dba oi' 57 with the doors closed. The operator says that they can not operate it with the doors closed. We would respectfully recommend that you include the above suggestions and recommendations in your final draft. Respect lly, HAWKIN1S U ASSOCIATES P. 0. BOX 2819 SARATOGA, U 95070.0819 ,, ` y SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:...,.,— f �r �_____� AGENDA ITEM + MEETING DATE: Auaust_3. 1988� —CITY MGR APPROVA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Maint�e,IIance Department ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: HAKONE DONATION ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Re�mmg d_Motiong Accept and acknowledge by way of letter from the Mayor, a donation of $15.00 from the Suzume de Gakko group of Wesley Methodist Church in San Jose. Report SuMM"Xv Suzume de Gakko of San Jose has donated $15.00 to Hakone Gardens as a token of their appreciation for a docent tour on Friday, July 1, 1988. A copy of the letter of acknowledgement has been forwarded to the Hakon Foundation. Attachments Letter of acknowledgement. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: /� 0 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: A�a��t 1988 CITY MGR APPROVAL NOLGRAMMMLIMMUM ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:_ Maintenance Department ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: HAKONE DONATION ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Recommended Mg�g� Accept and acknowledge by way of letter from the Mayor, a donation of $25.00 from Gary Emick of Sun Microsystems, Incorporated of Mountain View. eA rt Summary Gary Emich of Saratoga has donated $25.00 to Hakone Gardens as a token of his appreciation for a Sun Microsystems, Incorporated docen tour on Friday, July 1, 1988. A copy of the letter of acknowledgement has been forwarded to the Hakone Foundation. A�tt,�chmmll= Letter of acknowledgement.