HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/1996, 4 - NOISE ELEMENT UPDATE Q`�I��N��INIIIIII��I�IIUI�I M- DATE:
Ip�u�I cityof san lug s OBISPO 5-7 - g
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUM
0
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, ommunity Development Director
BY: Glen Matteson A sociate Planner
SUBJECT: Noise Element update
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution to (1) approve a negative declaration of environmental impact, (2) repeal the
1975 Noise Element, (3) adopt the updated Noise Element of the General Plan, and (4) approve
the Noise Guidebook.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the updated Noise Element of the General Plan, and the Noise Guidebook.
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Environmental status: Community Development Director has approved for public review an
initial study and proposed negative declaration.
Project action deadline: none
Background
State law requires that the City's General Plan include a noise element. This element is supposed
to assess noise sources and noise exposure, and to include policies and programs for minimizing
noise conflicts. The Community Development Department's 1995-96 work program calls for
updating the City's Noise Element, which was originally adopted in 1975.
In the late 1980's, the City began an effort to update its General Plan, including the closely related
land use, circulation, and noise elements. In 1991, the City received from consultants Brown-
Buntin Associates, Inc., draft policy and technical sections of a revised Noise Element. San Luis
Obispo County and most of its included cities had contracted with Brown-Buntin to prepare
countywide documents, which could be adopted in whole or part as each agency's noise element.
The City's Land Use Element and the Circulation Element updates, given higher priority,
proceeded ahead of the Noise Element update. Noise considerations examined in the draft Noise
Element influenced the new Land Use Element and Circulation Element, adopted in 1994.
1
city of San tins OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The updated Noise Element has been prepared to be consistent with the other recently adopted
elements. The recommended draft element is intended to be a very concise policy document, while
the companion "Noise Guidebook" would provide technical information, mitigation options, and
procedures. The element would be adopted as part of the City's General Plan. The Guidebook
would become a reference that could be updated as appropriate, without amending the General
Plan and without returning to the Council for separate approval.
The long preparation time and changes in assigned staff make it difficult to document the origin
of each item in the draft element and guidebook. However, it is apparent that the element's
policies 5, 8, and 10, and the guidebook's approach for waiving specific noise studies, follow
from previous Planning Commission or City Council direction. That direction was given when
considering other General Plan elements, or development projects. Policies 1 through 4 are
widely used throughout California. Policies 6, 7, and 9 are Brown-Buntin and staffs efforts to
address statewide issues with responses reflecting local preferences.
Related Action
Adoption of the element would be followed shortly by the City Council's amending a City-adopted
section of the State Building Code (Chapter 35, "Sound Transmission Control"), to allow noise
mitigation packages in place of specific noise studies in limited situations.
Public Participation
There has been relatively little public interest in changes to the Noise Element, due to its narrow
focus and technical nature. There has been no comment on the environmental evaluation.
However, the following issues have received some interest in other contexts.
Issues
Standards Are the standards sufficient to protect residents' enjoyment of their surroundings,
while traffic volume grows?
As discussed on pages 4, 5, and 25 through 27 of the Noise Guidebook, the recommended
standards are consistent with State guidelines and local noise surveys. Also, no substantial
areawide noise increases are expected. However, some areas may become noisier while still being
within the standards, such as along the proposed connection of South Street and Bishop Street.
Freedom to Choose People sometimes wonder why the City cares if someone chooses to live in
a place that has excess noise exposure according to City standards. "They'll know the railroad is
there when they rent the apartment." For existing buildings and existing noise sources, there is
little the City can do to affect noise exposure, so usually it is a matter of "buyer beware."
However, even without State legal mandates, for new buildings or new noise sources the
community can decide it is desirable to develop in ways that provide comfortable living conditions
(such as indoor and outdoor spaces where noise will not interfere with normal activities).
2
MY of San tuts OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Information Reouirements Are the burdens on development applicants for noise information in
proportion to the public benefit?
By preparing and updating the Noise Element, and the Guidebook, the City has already invested
considerably in identifying areas where specific noise studies are not required, and the proposed
element and guidebook would allow developers to use certain "mitigation packages" in place of
specific studies in the simpler noise exposure situations. Therefore, adoption of the updated Noise
Element will reduce informational requirements needed for compliance with State law.
Mitigation Measures' Side Effects While measures to reduce noise impacts help create more
desirable environments, they must also be considered in the whole context of the project or area
where they will be used. The intended effect is to reduce noise. Unintended effects may include
poor appearance or less affordable buildings. Common criticisms of measures to reduce noise
exposure are noted below. The Noise Element expresses the community's preferences for
solutions, while recognizing that considerations besides noise exposure will be part of each design.
Concern: Walls to block noise can be ugly, and they can also block views and convenient
walking routes.
Response: Walls are identified as the least preferred approach, and ways to reduce their
undesirable aspects are prescribed (policy #8).
Concern: If distance between source and receiver is the only mitigation measure, a large
distance can be needed, which otherwise would be space available for development.
Response: The element recognizes that there are situations (such as small infill parcels) where
distance alone may not be the best solution. It recognizes combinations of
distance and other features, which could be used different ways at different parts
of a site. Especially in projects that are not exclusively residential, there may be
uses such as parking for the space which provides the distance.
Concern: Sometimes it seems like the City's requirements work against each other, such as
fence height limits that prevent effective noise barriers, or not allowing operable
windows which could provide natural ventilation and energy savings.
Response: There is no question that it can be hard to satisfy all objectives at once. Such
trade-offs seem to go along with having more people and activities in an urban
area. The proposed element's policy#10 specifically addresses fence height limits
and noise barriers. (The procedure for fence height exceptions was recently
simplified.) For both noise and energy compliance, applicants have packages of
measures they can choose from, which allow tradeoffs among different design
features with relatively low cost for the information. Also, if the packages do not
fit a particular user's needs, customized features can be modeled (at higher cost)
to determine the best combination. Staff and commissioners are prepared to work
with applicants and concerned citizens to resolve apparently conflicting objectives.
3
Jf-3
04P,1111 city of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Advisory Body Review
On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 (2 Commissioners absent) to
recommend that the element and the guidebook be adopted. Commission discussion was brief,
and focused on the use, effects, design, and possible future removal of sound walls (minutes
attached). While the Commission motion reflected the wording of staffs recommendation then
that both the element and the guidebook be "adopted," staff believes the Commission understood
the intent was that only the element become part of the General Plan, while the Guidebook would
simply be approved as a source of information.
CONCURRENCES
The Plice and Public Works departments are involved with noise issues through their
enforcement and project-management responsibilities. Preparation of the element was coordinated
with these departments.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended action will have no fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may adopt policies different from those in the recommended element. However, the
element must address the topics required by State law, and be consistent with other General Plan
elements. Substantially different approaches may need additional environmental review or
Planning Commission consideration before the Council acts. Features which are not consistent
with other elements would require amendments to those other elements to maintain the General
Plan's internal consistency.
The Council may continue action, with direction to staff.
Attachments
Draft resolution adopting a new Noise Element and approving the Noise Guidebook
Initial environmental study
Planning Commission minutes 3-27-96
Distributed Concurrently
Noise Element (Revised Hearing Draft, April 1996)
Noise Guidebook (Draft, March 1996) CARS-70F.NSE
4
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, REPEALING THE
1975 NOISE ELEMENT, AND ADOPTING A NEW NOISE ELEMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on
this matter in accordance with the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the updated element comes to the Council upon the favorable recommendation
of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental
Guidelines.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council has considered the initial study
of environmental impact (ER 14494), finds that there will be no significant impacts, and approves
a negative declaration.
SECTION 2. Fines. This Council, after considering the draft documents and staff s analysis,
the Planning Commission's recommendation, and public testimony, finds that the new element
is consistent with the General Plan.
SECTION 3. RRePeal of Previous Element. The Noise Element adopted in 1975 is hereby
repealed.
SECTION 4. Element Adoption. The Noise Element (Revised Hearing Draft, April 1996) is
hereby adopted as part of the General Plan.
SECTION 5. Guidebook Approval. The Noise Guidebook (Draft, March 1996) is hereby
approved as a reference, separate from the General Plan.
s�
Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
On motion of , seconded by , and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1996.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ity torn y
RES.NSE
yG
�►11�IIB�IIIIIIIIIIIIII���;��„��I�II�III1111111� IIIA
cityO Sal'1 l�,llS oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: Noise Element Update (ER 144-94)
2. Lead Agency: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson; 805 781-7165
4. Project Location: San Luis Obispo (current and future incorporated area)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: same as lead agency
6. General Plan Designation: not applicable
7. Zoning: not applicable
8. Description of the Project:
The City of San Luis Obispo proposes to replace its General Plan Noise Element,
adopted in 1975. As required by State law, the Noise Element assesses current
and future local noise conditions, based on development allowed by the Land Use
Element and traffic expected under the Circulation Element. It sets noise
exposure limits for sensitive land uses and establishes planning and design
guidelines and requirements. Principal changes from the 1975 element would be:
- Four categories of noise exposure would be reduced to three, with the
former "normally acceptable” and "normally unacceptable" generally
becoming "conditionally acceptable."
- Some land use categories would no longer be listed in the chart of noise
exposure acceptability: extensive natural recreation areas, noise-sensitive
manufacturing, some commercial types, and agriculture.
- Specific outdoor and indoor sound reduction packages would be provided,
for cases where noise is a concern but evaluation and recommendation by
an acoustical expert could be waived.
- Compared with other locations, lower interior noise levels would be
required for dwellings along the railroad, south of Orcutt Road.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: not applicable
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (such as permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement): none
v� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include thelfisabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. .41- 7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, X
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR; including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
2 �
Signature: Date:
Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager For: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than
Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,
"Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063
(c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
3 y f.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X
It is difficult to achieve total consistency between overall noise goals and the Land Use Element, because the
historical development of land uses and transportation noise sources has resulted in noise sensitive land uses being
in locations that do not have clearly acceptable noise exposure. The draft Noise Element acknowledges this
difficulty and explains that noise exposure will be reduced through design of new projects and possibly measures
such as changing traffic patterns on existing roads or retrofitting existing buildings.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact X
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
4
//_/O
;sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
5
y i/
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X
exiting or projected air quality violation (Compliance
with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
6
:sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? x
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 2 x
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
Where berms or noise walls are used, city standards and project review will assure that they do not block required
visibility at street intersections and driveways.
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 3 x
Sound walls, identified as the "last resort" mitigation approach, can isolate the uses they shelter, a concern for
convenient pedestrian access, evacuation, and emergency response. Policies of the Land Use Element and the draft
Noise Element call for places to walk through them at regular intervals.
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? x
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative x
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility x
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats x
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? x
7
i3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X
health hazards?
;sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X
grass or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fre protection? X
Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution X
facilities?
9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 4 X
Architectural review is expected to prevent sound walls from being unattractive. Concern has been expressed that
even if buildings are designed to avoid blocking scenic views, berms or sound walls may do so las on the south side
of Tank Farm Road, east of the railroad). Policies of the Circulation Element should prevent this.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 1 5 1 X
An earlier draft of the Noise Element said residential sites exposed to existing unacceptable noise levels should be
entitled to fence height exceptions for new sound walls. This raised an aesthetic concern which was addressed by
revised policy language in the draft Noise Element.
c) Create light or glare? X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
-T
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
10
;sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
-T
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
11
xi7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- X
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually X
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
12
y/e
7. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
There is no relevant earlier analysis.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 City of S.L.O. General Plan Draft Noise Element, page 7 and page 23.
2 City of S.L.O. Zoning Regulations, page 23.
3 City of S.L.O. General Plan Draft Noise Element, page 6; Land Use Element, page 27.
4 City of S.L.O. General Plan Circulation Element, page 27.
5 City of S.L.O. General Plan Draft Noise Element, page 7.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM None required.
IES.NSE
GM 1-12-96
13
W- /f
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 27, 1996
Page 5
Commissioner Ready restated the motion, wh ch is to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing
Officer's approval, subject to the findings and acts incorporated therein, with the amendment that
hours of operation for retail sales shall be limi ed to 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and the use permit
shall be subject to review by the Administrati e Officer, with respect to reasonable complaints
received in the discretion of the Administrati a Officer. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kourakis.
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Kou skis, and Whittlesey
NOES: Commissioner Cross
ABSENT: Commissioners Senn, Hoff n, and Chairperson Karleskint
2. General Plan Noise Element Update: City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Chairman Karleskint rejoined the Planning Commission Meeting.
Associate Planner Matteson presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission affirm
that no additional environmental study is required, and recommend that the City Council adopt
the Noise Element update and companion Noise Guidebook, with additions as shown on two
overhead projectors.
Commissioner Cross asked staff if there is a discussion about actually changing land use
designations based on the profiles.
Associate Planner Matteson stated there is a discussion in the element about the difficulty of
achieving an ideal consistency between the Noise Element and the Land Use Element, where the
Land Use Element reflects past development that would be unacceptable according to the Noise
Element. Achieving consistency looking only at noise, in some cases, would work against other
objectives the City has, such as preserving residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Cross asked staff how this element would impact new construction, where
something currently exists; would we see sound walls along those areas?
Associate Planner Matteson said there probably would be some sort of structural noise solution
for sites that have in fill or what is called intensification development. To protect outdoor areas
that are for active use, that are between a major street and a building, it is hard to come up with
any solutions other than a noise wall. However, there are almost always options, including
putting some sort of outdoor space that would accommodate active uses behind the building or
some other solutions that would avoid continuous walls.
yza
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 27, 1996
Page 6
Commissioner Cross stated there is a discussion about the walls with regards to having openings.
Associate Planner Matteson stated the basic idea it to block the direct sound path. It is possible
to have openings in a wall through a jog, in on offset, or some kind of wing wall that prevents line
of sight transmission. It is probably not as effective as having a continuous solid surface. But, it
allows places for people to walk through by making a jog and still achieves the noise mitigation.
Commissioner Cross asked if there would be anything to preclude a person from putting a sound
wall up after they have tried other measures.
Associate Planner Matteson stated no. There is a policy that acknowledges this on Page 7, 910.
One of the City's main interests is not having the walls create an effect in the neighborhood of
being totally wailed off.
Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville stated this is a State mandated element. The purposes
for having this State mandate has its roots in public health and safety. It has been identified as a
State goal to protect people from noise, and local jurisdictions are required to adopt noise
elements. This creates a bit of a problem because we're supposed to provide for people to protect
themselves from noise, yet, at the same time, we don't want to create these barriers in the
neighborhoods.
Commissioner Cross stated he is concerned about already built neighborhoods and asked how this
can be precluded from happening.
Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville doesn't feel this can be precluded from happening if
preclusion would defeat the purposes in the State Government Code for protecting people from
noise.
Commissioner Cross asked what the ramifications would be from the State if persons were
precluded from building sound walls.
Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville stated the City could be sued for having an inadequate
General Plan.
Commissioner Cross expressed concerns regarding neighborhoods being walled off and it creating
a harsh environment.
Commissioner Ready asked if there is any type of regulation with respect to construction of walls
in the street setback.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated it is 3' at the closest portion of the front setback to the
street and then it graduates. It could be up to 6'when it gets to the front yard setback.
y�i
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 27, 1996
Page 7
Commissioner Whittlesey stated part of the approval processes (for a fence height exception) is to
look at the potential for setting a wall back.
Commissioner Kourakis stated the last sentence of policy 10 says fence height exceptions may be
conditioned to minimize the aesthetics impacts to the neighborhood character.
Commissioner Whittlesey suggested adding the fact that it could be required to be set back.
Chairman Karleskint feels it should have the same language as 8.4.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated that one of the main goals should be to encourage noise
reduction practices and technology. The City is open to hearing about technologies that reduce
noise.
Commissioner Ready suggested, referring to conditions for fence height exceptions, dropping the
word "may" and replacing it with "shall."
Commissioner Ready asked staff for clarification of the build out noise contours, Figure 5.
Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville explained Figure 5 and stated it is a generalized map
that shows the generalized thresholds.
Commissioner Kourakis suggested referencing the Noise Element to Page 25, 2.14-2.15 of the
Land Use Element.
Commissioner Whittlesey suggested adding the references to the introduction.
Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville suggested referencing 8.4 of the Noise Element,with
regards to sound walls, to the neighborhood protection chapter of the Land Use Element.
Commissioner Whittlesey moved that no additional environmental study is required, and the
Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Noise Element update and companion
Noise Guidebook, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
AYES: Commissioners Whittlesey, Kourakis, Cross, Ready, and Chairman Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Senn and Hoffman
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: