Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2004, PH5 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CAR WASH IN CONJUNCTIO ADcouncil -� aacEnba Report CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directoo"M PREPARED BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner ��// SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CAR WASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 1308 MONTEREY STREET. (AP 131 03) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission action to approve the Use Permit to allow the car wash based on findings and subject to conditions. DISCUSSION Situation The applicants are proposing to construct a new car wash facility at the rear of the existing service station. The new structure will house a mechanical type car wash and air-drying mechanism along with necessary operational equipment and storage. The Hearing Officer approved the car wash on November 21, 2003 based on findings and conditions (see Attachment 3, approval letter). On November 25, 2003, two separate appeals of the Hearing Officer's Use Permit approval were received (Attachment 4). The appeals were submitted by nearby residents who were concerned about potential noise increases and additional vehicular traffic generated by the use. On January 14, 2004, the Planning Commission heard the appeals and upheld the Hearing Officers determination, approving the Use Permit with modifications to project conditions (see Attachments 5, 6 and 7, Planning Commission meeting minutes, resolution and staff report). On January 22, 2004, the residential neighbors filed an appeal. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is discussed in detail in the analysis below. A copy of the appeal form has been included as Attachment 8. Analysis The primary neighborhood objection and staffs central issue with the new car wash has been noise, however the residential neighbor's appeal of the Planning Commission's action identifies several concerns. The following discussion analyzes each of the reasons for appeal as stated on the appeal form, Attachment 8. The text in bold italics is from the neighborhood appeal form, followed by a staff response. 1. "The noise study provided by the applicant to support the application is inadequate. We take issue with the ambient noise level calculations, the noise mitigation calculations and the limited scope of the study." i t Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use Permit 131-03 1308 Monterey Street Page 2 This is an automated carwash with a mechanical drying unit that will introduce a new noise source in the area. The applicant hired a noise consultant, David Lord, to analyze the impacts of the carwash and recommend corrective mitigation measures in order to reduce the noise to an acceptable level. The item was continued from the first administrative use permit Hearing with direction to the applicant to prepare a more comprehensive noise study that addressed neighborhood concerns such as reflective noise and elevation differences between the Monterey Street commercial corridor and adjacent the residential neighborhood. On November 21, 2003 the applicant returned with a detailed site-specific noise study (Attachment 9). The Hearing Officer approved the car wash subject to the noise mitigation suggested in the noise study. The mitigation, which includes a noise reduction equipment package on the dryer unit and a 7-foot tall wall attached to the exit of the building is intended to reduce the output average noise of the car wash dryer unit to a level at or below the existing average noise level of the area. The site-specific noise study determined that the existing average noise at the nearest residential property line is 52 decibels (dB). The new car wash with mitigation measures installed will produce an average of 50 dB at the property line. At the Planning Commission hearing, the noise consultant acknowledged that the car wash dryer will have a noise level that may peak as high as 65 dB during startup, however the average noise level will be below the existing noise level produced by traffic at the site. The maximum noise exposure allowed for sensitive noise sources such as residential uses is 65 dB as noted within the City's Noise Element. The Hearing Officer approved the use since it was felt the mitigation measures went above and beyond the required noise limits established by the City's General Plan. Field-testing of all equipment will be required to assure compliance with City noise standards and project specific mitigation measures. Additionally, the Hearing Officer restricted the hours of operation of the car wash to between 7 AM and 9 PM. At the appeal hearing, the Planning Commission further restricted the hours of operation and restricted the hours of operation of the car wash between 8AM and 7PM. 2. "We disagree with several staff findings and statements that support the application, including those related to noise mitigation, site circulation,public safety, and compliance." As discussed above, the Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission have found that the noise mitigation is adequate for the proposed use. In order to address circulation concerns, the applicant provided graphic examples and a video presentation at the Planning Commission hearing that displayed how the truck circulation will work on the property. The circulation plan meets City standards. 3. "The project violates several General Plan provisions including LU 2.2.2, LU 2.1.3, and LU 2.2.4(page 26)." General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing this application. The Planning Commission staff report, Attachment 4 has a complete analysis of relevant General Plan policies. The General Plan policies referenced in the appeal are discussed below. Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use Permit 131-03 1308 Monterey Street Page 3 LU 2.2.2 Separation and Buffering: Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities. The site presently contains a sloped, landscaped buffer that ranges from 40 to 60 feet between the car wash site and the residential property line. The buffer will remain and would be landscaped with additional trees with the proposed development. The Planning Commission was sensitive to the relationship of the commercial corridor with the adjacent residential neighborhood but ultimately felt the car wash, with mitigation, is adequately separated from the nearby residential uses. LU 2.1.3: Neighborhood Traffic: Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. All neighborhood street and circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local traffic. Vehicle traffic on residential streets should be slow. To foster suitable traffic speed, street design should include measures such as narrow lanes, landscaped parkways, traffic circles, textured crosswalks, and, if necessary, stop signs, speed humps, and bollards. The proposed project actually relocates the fuel delivery truck access further from existing residential. The construction of the car wash will require the northerly driveway nearest residential to be abandoned and landscaped. There is no evidence that the addition of the car wash would direct a higher percentage of the trips to and from the service station through.the adjacent residential neighborhood. LU 2.2.4 Residential Next to Non-residential: In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority.. In staff's opinion, this is perhaps the most significant General Plan policy that relates to this proposal. Staff, the Hearing Officer, and Planning Commission all expressed reservations over locating a car wash so close to an established neighborhood. The prime issue behind this concern relates to unacceptable noise levels. However, based on the noise analysis prepared for this site and the willingness to accept several noise attenuating mitigation measures, the applicant has demonstrated how the.noise generated by the car wash will not exceed ambient levels and will fully comply with or exceed standards of the General Plan Noise Element. 4. "The project violates several Community Design Guidelines, including AJ, C.l a. and D.la." A. 5 of chapter 3.1 of the guidelines (Commercial Projects) discuss providing logical access to the site and designing the site to avoid awkward circulation. The City's Parking and Driveway standards are designed to avoid awkward maneuvering, and as proposed this project complies with the Parking and Driveway standards. C. 1. a. from chapter 3.1 of the guidelines suggests considering neighboring development and adjacent uses. D. 1. a. from chapter 3.4 of the guidelines (Specific Commercial Projects) discusses how service stations should be designed to accommodate fuel truck Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use.Permit 131-03 1308 Monterey Street Page 4 delivery patterns. As mentioned above, the delivery truck access was discussed by the applicant at the Planning Commission Hearing. The project is subject to architectural review. If the Council upholds the Planning Commission determination and approves the Use Permit, the car wash design will proceed to the Architectural Review Commission for a review of the design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 5. "The project violates Use regulation F.Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone." With previous automated car wash facilities, such as the facility at the corner of Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road, the Planning Commission has determined that these facilities are not subject to regulation F. If car washes were subject to regulation F, then all car.washes would be prohibited in the City since all car washes require the vehicle to be driven up to or through the facility regardless if facility is mechanical or not. 6. "The project contradicts the Community Development Department's mission to "support community values... and protect public health and safety." The appellants are referring to the Community Development department's mission statement. The complete text of the mission statement reads: "Our mission is to serve all persons in a positive and courteous manner and help ensure that San Luis Obispo continues to be a healthy, safe, attractive, and enjoyable place to live, work, or visit. We help plan the City's form and character, support community values, preserve the environment, promote the wise use of resources, and protect public health and safety." In this case, the community values are the heart of the City's General Plan that are implemented in the various land use regulations and development standards. The preamble to the Land Use Element begins with the statement: "We the people of San Luis Obispo hold that we have the right to determine our community's destiny based on our community's values..." The numerous policies in each of the City's General Plan Elements are established with the purpose to further those values. As mentioned above, the General Plan supports commercial use of the property provided it can be designed in such a way to not impact the livability of our surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission felt that the project, as conditioned, would not cause detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the immediate neighborhood. 7. "The project is incompatible with the predominantly residential character of the neighborhood and is strongly opposed by residents, property owners, and business owners in the neighborhood." The location of the car wash is within the commercial corridor along Monterey Street but certainly at the edge of an important residential neighborhood. The intersection of Johnson and Monterey Streets is a busy location with moderate traffic levels and a variety of uses. A large number of residential uses, including historic residences with a high level of character, are located adjacent to the commercial corridor on Johnson. The interaction of uses is a sensitive issue, and a large number X14 t � 1 Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use Permit 131-03 1308 Monterey Street Page 5 of persons offered testimony to the Planning Commission against the proposed car wash. Additionally, the appellants distributed a petition with numerous signatures of area residents and business owners. However, due to the applicant's response to the noise concerns, including noise and aesthetic mitigation, the Planning Commission supported the project. Conclusion The General Plan designation for this site is Commercial Retail, and the Zoning is Commercial Retail, which allows the use with approval of an administrative use permit. The use permit process allows the City to review the use for consistency with General Plan policies and property development standards. The project's location adjacent to a residential neighborhood requires special review and care to ensue that the commercial venture will not negatively effect residents enjoyment of their homes. It is therefore important that the City Council consider the testimony of the appellants in determining whether a car wash is an appropriate use for this particular site. In weighing the facts and testimony, the Planning Commission was convinced that the project could be designed to be a"good neighbor" and is therefore in support of the project as conditioned. Environmental Determination The construction of the car wash is categorically exempt from environmental review, consistent with Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15303 allows the construction of small facilities of less than 2500 square feet in area to be exempt from environmental review. The resolution approving the Use Permit adopts the proposed environmental determination. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department has confirmed that the northerly approach along Johnson Ave. shall be abandoned and replaced with curb, gutter & sidewalk per city standards. The southerly approach along Johnson Ave. will need to be replaced because of the cracked and damaged concrete, lack of gutter pan and subsequent damage to the street paving. This project is located within the Mission Style Sidewalk District. The district extends along the Monterey Street frontage. Any curb and gutter, sidewalk, street tree wells, and driveway ramp installations and/or replacements will need to be done in accordance with the City's Engineering Standard Details for a Mission Style sidewalk. The Transportation Division of Public Works has conditioned the project to ensure that delivery vehicles will enter and exit the property in a forward motion and at no time back up over the public sidewalk. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it may only have a neutral fiscal impact. r� Council Agenda Report—Planning Commission Appeal of Use Permit 131-03 1308 Monterey Street Page 6 ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning the action of Planning Commission and denying the use permit to allow the car wash (Attachment 11). 2. Continue the item for additional analysis or research. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced scale site plan and project details Attachment 3: Administrative Hearing Minutes and approval letter Attachment 4: Administrative appeal forms Attachment 5: January 14, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 6: January 14, 2004 Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 1: January 14, 2004 Planning Commission staff report Attachment 8: Planning Commission Appeal to City Council Attachment 9: Noise Analysis by David Lord, November 19, 2003 Attachment 10: Draft Resolution upholding Planning Commission and approving Use Permit Attachment 11: Draft Resolution upholding appeal and denying Use Permit. G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Use Permits\1308 Monterey Car Wash\AP CC 131-03 2-17-04.doc �' L "ry�q w a� AttLachment 2 ill 0 ®©i t � tff t ��� E ! � i 4ai - I p as fillMINIM All o � o � ooioco { 1111 { { boa O ® © i � � i ' � I � q � { Ii �: a �e � tlia � I � tEdAr� �' ilgl � il � { aSli1 � 6 � ia � sae oo©o a©©000©oo®® `I I -T———i—`�I �• i 1 00 I 'l O s WI ® b f - ---o = ® -a�o - 1.334US NOSNHOf ', - Attachment 2 olio Elm It 11,311 10 1 10,15, 1-1 1 1 H 1,11 lid I if [lei vFee Y E fill 4 m ���fl���lig�eq °I � gill��7oI 111E �E�a �sfl• 1 iC i@:11Fhgaill q �l3 90000000®®®®®OOccCO ®®® 3 � ' H N » N I I I I I I � r I � I 0 I. I i I } aid b i � ® i f I i O O '"�m ft I i ! I I I ( t I c t 0 J � L H H M M N 91, 1 �� 1 Attachment 2 no D®t9 `'i fly LLI t 10 1 I'l H I M 07 A O i9 z ticl � � � � t111111° Ii11t cbiiiil { t00000aoo ra F Q � Ir I _ II ,I I -- 9; I_ I II III III ,II II II I III II I I 1 a s ,I I ^ I P ;II C � I11 C III � C 0 ttJ } L4 W) zi bail S- I C) Attachment 2 !01 Iint-Ill i P @t� j LL I Ego G it{ o N o000 h, 0 0•, c �i N d � � N r L V1 O � GJ N yiy Z $ sraa� —. W i s� l 1 Attachment 2. °� Ki'll s R I I `�f i � le f0 Ica e6 R I U � o � � r U LLU I a r: R w ri its � > pig I rw O O d Attachment 3 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2003 1308 Monterey, Use Permit Appl. A 131-03; Request to allow a new car wash at an existing service station; C-R zone; Jim Pfeil, applicant. Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, explained the application is to construct a single- bay, fully automated, car wash at the existing Unocal Station. The car wash would be at the rear of the site. This project was heard by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on November 3, 2003 and a few items of concern were expressed. The first was the issue of noise. This facility does have the potential of creating noise output from the washing and drying units. This operates as a tunnel car wash, with the drying unit on the exiting end, toward Johnson Street. The ARC wants to make sure that the noise levels are not greater than the ambient noise levels. Issue #2c fuel delivery truck access to site. It was pointed out by a member .of the public, that fuel delivery trucks would not be able to access the site if the car wash is built. They currently use the rear of the site to access out to Johnson Avenue. The applicant has produced additional noise analysis at the site, additional site circulation information and some additional design information. Planner Dunsmore stated staff has some additional conditions of approval and the Hearing Officer should know that project is directly adjacent to multi-family residential property lines. He also stated there is a gradual slope to the property, which the neighbors stated currently creates an amphitheater effect for noise from the gas station, which is a concern for noise from the car wash. Staff has made a recommendation for approval for the car wash, subject to additional conditions and findings. These conditions discuss hours of operation (restricted to 7:00 am to 9:00 pm), a sound wall, and certain noise measurements being met by the car wash now, and in the future. Ron Whisenand, Administrative Hearing Office, asked for clarification pertaining to the fuel truck access to the site, and the noise level issue. Planner Dunsmore stated that the noise concerns of the ARC are more restrictive than what our noise ordinance would require. Our noise ordinance allows up to 70 decibels during daytime hours, from a commercial source, at residential property. The daily average currently at the site, due to traffic noise, is 52 decibels. Staff is recommending the new use not exceed the existing ambient noise level at the site. The public hearing was open. Administrative Hearing- Minutes Attachment November 7,2003 Page 2 George Garcia, Garcia Architecture and Design, 1130 Garden Street, applicant, addressed both the noise and circulation issues. He reiterated that the ARC has tasked them to keep the noise levels at less than ambient. He determined, by meeting with a local consultant, that the existing ambient level at the residential receptor location is 52 dbi, noting that these levels are higher than what they will be allowed for the car wash. The consultant also confirmed that George's original orientation and layout would best fit for acoustics, and a 6-foot, masonry sound wall will be the best at reducing noise. Hearing Officer Whisenand asked if the consultant addressed the amphitheater effect and the sound wall. He also asked what type of equipment will be housed in the equipment area, and will there be any noise associated with it. George Garcia responded they looked into a number of different locations for the sound wall. He stated they feel putting the wall closer to the source would be the most effective at reducing the noise. He explained that the water recycling machines are housed in the equipment room and due to the structure being completely enclosed, there will be no noise emitted from it. George explained that the most noise emitted by a car wash is from the drying unit. This is the area they are concentrating on for the sound wall.-He doesn't feel noise from cars will increase over what it is currently. Hearing Officer Whisenand asked about fueling truck circulation. George Garcia explained that with building the car wash, the northerly Johnson driveway would be closed. He contacted the terminal people at Conoco-Phillips. They signed off on a form approving the truck route. The truck will enter the site by traveling either east or west on Monterey, and travel through the canopy, which is common at tight sights. The trucks will not have to back out of the site, to exit. George Garcia stated he does agree with staff s five findings and conditions of approval. He also stated that condition #6 is acceptable to them. It states the car wash is not to operate between the hours of 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. Also, the owner is planning on installing locked gates on the car wash, to prevent anything from happening there after hours. Steve Mann, 1315 Palm Street, asked for a summary of the staff recommendations. Planner Dunsmore summarized the conditions as follows: • Condition #1: Single-bay, automated car wash is allowed, regardless of owner, • Condition #2: Return to the ARC for review of the design and site improvements, • Condition #3: Mechanical dryer unit be fitted with a noise reduction package supplied by the manufacturer, lowering the decibels by 5 dB, measured at the unit. • Condition #4: The car wash shall be designed so as not to exceed a noise level of 50 dB, as measured from the property line, at the nearest residential property, when the mechanical wash unit or drying unit is in operation, to be achieved by through building orientation, masonry wall, building design, and landscaping, to be reviewed and approved by the ARC. ( Administrative Hearing- Minutes - Attachment '3 November 7, 2003 Page 3 • Condition #5: The site shall be designed to allow fuel delivery trucks to enter and exit without backing onto Monterey Street or Johnson Avenue, evidence being submitted to the ARC. • Condition #6: The car wash and equipment shall not be operated or tested between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. •. Condition #7: If at any time in the future, operation of the car wash results in noise levels that exceed 50 dB, as measure from the nearest property line, and the excessive noise results in complaints from the residential neighborhood, the use shall be discontinued until the noise can be brought into compliance. Hearing Officer Whisenand asked who would be responsible for monitoring the noise levels. Planner Dunsmore responded that the applicant should be responsible for hiring a consultant. Steve Mann stated his primary concern is the noise issue. He'd like to see an annual review to make sure the noise levels remain in compliance. He stated he feels the hours of operation start too early, and run too late. He'd rather see the hours of operation reduced to 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. He also asked if a combination of sound walls could be used, rather than just one. He feels this will change the character of the neighborhood into more commercial, and increase traffic, which he doesn't want to see happen. He's also concerned about large trucks exiting the west Monterey exit, due to their size, they'll have to cut through the intersection. Hearing Officer Whisenand asked whether one sound wall will be adequate. He asked George Garcia if the consultant had addressed the sound wall issue. He also asked whether trucks would be able to enter and exit the site from the legal right-of-way of Monterey Street and Johnson Avenues. George Garcia replied that the consultant did address this and stated that a 6-foot tall, masonry sound wall would be sufficient to provide a 10 dB reduction, and it should be located between the car wash and the residences above. Betty Aten, 1315 Palm Street, stated her issue is with the noise. She doesn't currently hear traffic noise from Monterey Street. But she's concerned about the intermittent noise from the drying unit going on. She asked for clarification of the city's noise regulation. Hearing Officer Whisenand explained that the city's noise regulation is an average, taken over a 24-hour period, with nighttime noise being penalized. Jeannie Vinson Orosco, 966 Johnson Avenue, stated that the increase in noise, from the gas station, to her apartment, is excessive, due to the amphitheater effect. She also stated she has concerns as to how the fuel trucks will be able to make the tum from Johnson onto Monterey, as they currently have trouble. She stated she feels this lot is Attachment 3 Administrative Hearing -Minutes November 7,2003 Page 4 too small for the use, and the use does not fit, as most of the neighborhood is currently residential. Raymond James, 1308 Monterey Street, stated his concern is that the noise from the drying unit will reverberate off the cement wall of the building across the street, and add to the decibel level. He also asked for clarification of how the fueling trucks will enter and exit the property. After clarification by Hearing Officer Whisenand, he stated he does not feel it is possible for the trucks to maneuver as stated. George Garcia restated Conoco-Phillips reviewed and approved the entry/exit route for the fueling trucks. He also stated nighttime deliveries can be requested. Hearing Officer Whisenand asked about drainage at the site, due to the car wash. He also asked if it would be possible to take a video of a fueling truck making the enter/exit maneuver. George Garcia explained they would be recirculating as much water as possible. Also, a strip drain can be installed along the exit to capture water dripping from vehicles as they exit the site. This water is collected and recirculated back into the system. George replied that he felt it would be possible to take the fueling truck video. The public hearing was closed. Hearing Officer Whisenand continued this item to November 21, 2003. He would like to allow additional time for the consultant to perform more noise analysis, especially for the issue of intermittent noise, and the amphitheater effect. He would also like the consultant to evaluate the proposed sound wall choices and truck circulation. Respectfully submitted by Ginger Christensen Administrative Assistant S - 11.0 Attachment 3 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY NOVEMBER 21, 2003 1308 Monterey. Use Permit Appl. A 131-03; Request to allow a new car wash at an existing service station; C-R zone; Jim Pfeil, applicant. Ron Whisenand, Administrative Hearing Officer, explained the process of the hearing, including the appeal process. Presenting Associate Planner Tyler Corey, explained the reason for the continuance from the previous Administrative Hearing was so that more noise analysis could be done. This analysis is completed and has been reviewed. Staff is recommending approval of the permit based on information in the new study, which shows the ambient noise level at the property line to be below 52 dB and the proposed use with mitigation will result in approximately 50 dB. This is to be accomplished by a 7-foot tall sound wall. The public hearing was open. Applicant George Garcia, Garcia Architecture and Design, 1130 Garden Street, explained he went back to their acoustic engineer David Lord, for the information needed, as determined at the previous Administrative Hearing. This information is: • The ambient noise level, measured at the nearest residential receptor, which is up the hill from the gas station, is52decibels. • They looked at three locations for a sound wall. The best location was determined to be as close to the source as possible, this being the car wash exit tunnel. It was determined that a 7-foot sound wall, curving with the driveway, would best accomplished this. A noise suppression package will also be added to the drying unit for additional noise reduction. Fueling truck maneuvering at the site. The client owns additional gas station/car wash sites, some of which are smaller than this site. They looked at his other sites to do a comparison. When using the Monterey radius template, which assumes a single-tanker, at the Madonna Shell site, it shows that the truck would not be able to maneuver, yet trucks actually can maneuver. This shows that the radius template is extremely conservative. This same radius template shows that a truck would be able to maneuver at the Monterey site, so they are confident there will not be any problems. Scott Hagemann, 1259 #D Palm Street, has 20 years of live audio/sound experience. He stated that 50 dB is not.a constant in this area. At night it will be quieter. He stated that the 7-foot retaining wall would only help reduce noise if you are at 7-foot elevation or lower. If you are up the hill, above the wall, the sound will reverberate up the hill through the valley. He also stated that any sound leakage out the front would bounce off the retaining wall across the street. He would like decibel readings to be taken on mornings and evenings during what would be the non-operation hours of the car wash. Administrative Hearing - Minuies Attachment November 21, 2003 Page 2 Hearing Officer Whisenand explained that 50 dB is a residential standard, not a commercial standard. He also explained that the 50 dB is measured on an average basis. Dennis Ahearn, 537 Cerro Romauldo, stated his concern is that windows in the apartments he owns are above 7-feet and because of the additional noise, the desirability of living at the apartments will be reduced. Greta Swauger, 1327 Palm #D, stated that the 7-foot sound wall will not help reduce the noise at her residence because sound travels up and she lives above the 7-foot level. Debra Jones, 971 Johnson, stated she is concerned with noise. She agrees that the 7- foot sound wall will not help reduce the noise at her residence since she lives above the 7-foot elevation. She has lived at this location approximately six years.. When there are parties or fights near by, she can hear every word being spoken. Her other concern is with traffic. When cars line up waiting for the car wash they will be idling, generating exhaust. She stated that when student groups currently hold car washes at the site, they have run out of room and backed up into the street. Steve Mann, 1315 Palm Street, stated he is concerned with the dB levels at the entry to the car wash, which are shown as 66 dB. He's concerned that the sound source is shown below ground, but the blowers are above that level. The analysis addresses 500 Hz, but the blowers will be putting out a wider range than that. He doesn't feel this has been addressed sufficiently. The location of the noise receiver is 1400t above ground from the sound source, but the neighbors all live higher in elevation. He is also concerned with the reflected sound off the wall across the street. Gary Green, 1305 Palm Street #4, stated he is concerned with the noise at the top of the hill. He can currently hear people talking across the street. He doesn't feel the 7- foot sound wall will help. Jeanne Orosco, 966 Johnson Avenue, stated she also doesn't feel the sound wall will help. The car wash will be only thirty feet from where she lives. She feels this is too close. She has noted that other gas station/car wash facilities are not this close to residential areas. She is also very concerned about the additional traffic on such a small site. Raymond James, works at 1308 Monterey, stated he feels the fuel trucks will not be able to maneuver at the site. He has asked three of the drivers that service the facility now. They have told him they will have to back out onto Johnson and go through the middle drive. He also stated there will be no guarantee that the fuel deliveries will only come during the night. Administrative Hearing- Minutes - Attachment November 21, 2003 Page 3 Shirley Hendricks, 1327 Palm Street, stated she is very concerned about the pollution and noise. She has lived there for eight years and when Mustang Tavern was there, they had horrible noise problems. She asked what could be done to prevent this. Hearing Officer Whisenand replied that being at the hearing and speaking is the first step. It will also go before the Architectural Review Commission again. If she doesn't agree with the decision today, she can file an appeal, which will allow the Planning Commission to hear the item. The Planning Commission decision can be appealed to the City Council. Dennis Ahearn asked if staff has gone to the site of the Madonna Shell and listened to the noise. Hearing Officer Whisenand replied that yes, staff has been to the site. Applicant Garcia stated fuel deliveries could occur at any time of day that is determined best. His client will be purchasing the station from Unocal so the "brand" of fueling trucks could change. He also pointed out that even though the sound source is being shown on the drawings at ground level, which would not be accurate, it is contained in a concrete masonry box, which will help shield some of the noise. He pointed out that the car wash building would be a sixteen-foot tall building, which would also help block some of the currently existing noise. Hearing Officer Whisenand asked for clarification if the blower does in fact operate at 500 Hz. Applicant Garcia stated his understanding is that this is the maximum velocity at start- up of the unit. The public hearing was closed. Hearing Officer Whisenand stated he approves, as modified, the use permit subject to the conditions and findings. He stated that the site's location adjacent to residential properties raises a serious concern about the noise and land use compatibility, but since the ARC is holding the applicant to a higher level of noise standards, and the consultant has addressed all of the noise issues in the study, he is supportive of the car wash. Associate Planner Corey read the following conditions of approval: 1. This approval shall allow the proposed construction of a single bay, automated carwash to be located at the rear (north of existing attendant booth) of the site at 1308 Monterey Street, regardless of owner. 2. The car wash design and associated site improvements shall be subject to approval of architectural review and a construction permit. S' � l Administrative Hearing - Minutes Attachment 3 November 21, 2003 Page 4 3. The car wash mechanical dryer unit shall be fitted with the appropriate noise reduction package as supplied by the manufacturer. 4. The car wash shall be designed so as not to exceed a noise level of 50 dB, as measured from the property line at the nearest residential property, when the mechanical wash unit or dryer unit is in operation. This shall be achieved through building orientation and a solid masonry wall as recommended by the noise analysis prepared by David Lord submitted to the City on November 19, 2003. The design of the wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 5. A strip drain shall be added to the exit driveway of the car wash to allow excess water to be appropriately drained from vehicles leaving the car wash. The location and design of the strip drain shall be provided on plans for review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 6. The site shall be designed so as to allow fuel delivery trucks to enter and exit the site without backing onto Monterey Street or Johnson Avenue. Evidence of the ability to allow adequate site circulation shall be submitted to the Architectural Review Commission with the proposed design plans. 7. The car wash and associated mechanical equipment shall not be operated or tested between 9 PM and 7 AM. 8. If, at any time in the future, operation of the carwash results in noise levels that exceed 50 dB as measured from the nearest residential property line and the excessive noise results in complaints from the residential neighborhood, the use shall be discontinued until the noise can be brought into compliance with the conditions listed herein. Hearing Officer Whisenand stated he wants to .modify Condition #4 to read that the applicant shall test the equipment and provide a report that the condition has been met. This shall be done prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. He also suggested the applicant possibly build a mock site, using cones, to ensure maneuverability of the fueling trucks for when the application goes back to the ARC. Respectfully submitted by Ginger Christensen Administrative Assistant Attachment 3 �� city o lus oaspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 November 24, 2003 Jim Pfeil 11545 Los Osos Valley Road Suite C-1 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 131-03 1308 Monterey Street Dear Mr. Pfeil: On Friday, November 21, 2003, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request to allow a new car wash at an existing service station, at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved, as modified, your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The establishment of a new car wash, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. 2. Sound reducing equipment for the car wash, design elements of the new building and the site, including a 7 foot tall sound wall on the site, will reduce the noise output of the car wash to levels that are at or below the level of ambient noise currently measured at the nearest residential property line adjacent to the site. 3. The hours of operation of the car wash will allow the use to operate at noise levels that are below the requirements set by the City's Noise Ordinance therefore minimizing and potentially eliminating interference with nearby residential activities. 4. The new car wash will not interfere with regular vehicular access or fuel delivery truck access at the site since, as conditioned, vehicles and fuel delivery trucks will still be able to enter and exit the site without backing onto Monterey Street or Johnson Avenue. 5. The design of the car wash will be consistent or complementary to existing structures on the site and will be reviewed for consistency with the Community Guidelines by the Architectural Review Commission. rnnditions 1. This approval shall allow the proposed construction of a single bay, automated carwash to be located at the rear(north of existing attendant booth) of the site at 1308 Monterey Street, regardless of owner. ® The city of San Luis Obispo is committed to Include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. . O Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachnnent 3 A 131-03, 1308 Monterey Street Page 2 2. The car wash design and associated site improvements shall be subject to-approval of architectural review and a construction permit. 3. The car wash mechanical dryer unit shall be fitted with the appropriate noise reduction package as supplied by the manufacturer. 4. The car wash shall be designed so as not to exceed a noise level of 50 decibels, as measured from the property line at the nearest residential property, when the mechanical wash unit or dryer unit is in operation. This shall be achieved through building orientation and a solid masonry wall as recommended by the noise analysis prepared by David Lord submitted to the City on November 19, 2003. The design of the wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. The applicant shall test the equipment and provide a report that this condition has been met. 5. A strip drain shall be added to the exit driveway of the car wash to allow excess water to be appropriately drained from vehicles leaving the car wash. The location and design of the strip drain shall be provided on plans for review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 6. The site shall be designed so as to allow fuel delivery trucks to enter and exit the site without backing onto Monterey Street or Johnson Avenue. Evidence of the ability to allow adequate site circulation shall be submitted to the Architectural Review Commission with the proposed design plans. 7. The car wash and associated mechanical equipment shall not be operated or tested between 9 PM and 7 AM. 8. If, at any time in the future, operation of the carwash results in noise levels that exceed 50 decibels as measured from the nearest residential property line and the excessive noise results in complaints from the residential neighborhood, the use shall be discontinued until the noise can be brought into compliance with the conditions listed herein. The decision was appealed to the Planning Commission on November 25, 2003. A hearing before the Planning Commission has been tentatively set for December 17, 2003. If you have any questions, please call Phil Dunsmore at(805) 781-7522. Sincerely, Ro aid Whis and Hearing Officer cc: SLO County Assessor's Office George Garcia, 1130 Garden Street, Suite A, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Clover Trust 1997— 1 A De Business Trust, C/O Tosco Corporation, Property Tax Dept/DC17, P 0 Box 52085, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2085 . Attachment 4 C ��� 0f SAn JUTS OBISPO Department of Community Development * Planning Division Appeal Form ($100 Fee) (Fee must accompany appeal form) Qippellant Infprmation: ay�ond A.�aJ'a/�' 1 Name:��.� It4- .f-c.4.uN i-6� 6114;117,, bry `D. --o nes a C !31 S P4 H1 S 7 ao r15�n B MailingAddress:�;r y ��� �� sia �o / '77 ob, 3V0/-3 Phone: -5 Y(o ' O S�o � br7 Fax: In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: ❑ Minor or Incidental Architectural Review (appealed to the ARC) LTJ Zoning Hearing Officer -Administrative Hearing (appealed to Planning Commission) ❑ Community Development Director (appealed to the Planning Commission) e "tu e o ur e. rn x.>o < ao v bei. e t e n i o can beau a r lift Subject of Appeal: The date the decision being appealed was rendered: /� �' d 3 Project address: /30c? lne�v� =V- Application number: /3 L 0 3 Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: C�sr,C.e/v�^v/^�-�tQ..d<�- S "rbt�4lt- //Ay/bL AA n A � SiAT0fn p$II1 t D t/OfficFiling Fee: Paid Payment/check Information: N/A Revised: 10-29.03 C- 2 Attachment 4 arty of SW FIs OBISW Departnmof Community, Development Planning Division Appeal Form ($100 Fee) (Fee must accompany appeal form) Appellant Information: Name: IL �AI -�ff�LVEC�- � Mailing Address: 96�; J—&gA/,i7,,t/ �W 1-411,5 C�4 92j�( Phone: 5V?.5' 5-Y-5 - 075,—t Fax: In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: ❑ Minor or Incidental Architectural Review (appealed to the ARC) Zoning Hearing Officer -Administrative Hearing (appealed to Planning Commission) ❑ Community Development Director (appealed to the Planning Commission) e Subject of Appeal: The date the decision being appealed was rendered: Project address: /30c? /nnj&::� =V- Application number: 4 g Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: 7At"'0*'L1"-'- 7A'WkS NGcr 72bs�igNLgy ~70M 1-510 /�7NtIW1 # s T, AND rA`k"Y 9;k IT 7ff6 °fiTITA 0A1VJkw4Y rr .)-.�+usmN AVS 1yJ�XT 7ati 9GG. �o!lNSoN�N TH�t rs /Wz r�aSY Ta Om as nyEY.NH•s7 1"A%4*tS-.¢ NNR-4 �T 1 NJS scdl&X$IJ 7b�Rp1 /%VN &YJF; 71 - -Z t6 111h$p �r 76�Jp�JJlb_ srwr (Ytl6 �qA r KtidtA� I 7lcf 37J ?PAJ 1 n' 3 aN$ NrBS soi& A4vYrf1N4(r- ABctcT 74W' *AcdruS /G4z_ C/l r-7 :5 7Ni1r ab0d"N '*N+a+ Mpj% NR ,A Nei&i(BaaAH�D Wre moist„ Tars =AA 4,0AUJ"ft wrt! &W*ZRl JELL 4$ 4 rr n D l'1S� eBu.XTT WA ENSort £vFfelVrN We&,-ff'r'f !,lost y1 WILL- B& A P79 C' a,= +dSr .4S P1 "&z Z 0&AJ"r sa& Fkt-w s�+.nlstr�N 'e AN A"irS Sa ANY 'u! � SuF,F�sS ru:. r lx �� a , C 6F S -�f_ r AA 711&9 "A, ,+s WH T (MKT a o;P�D '0L 2'?s�� .� cLtr s oN Nd.,rFRJcr� 1v Tri6 Cout�ritausE. MoivlY�rC�Y /rN AM7 0 71`/s4T sTA,7*+ ftg /%a-R4T Rooms . �+a,cr1� DRtUI�(.L�t7S .AN/� /Jcy .JucrS� /% ltll C/ c- oi�t3?7CAL. CffAR4r-77V S�T!� A'vA , X16 l�iQS To �GtG Signature of Appellant Date Office Use Only: Filing Fee: Paid - 5-a 3 Payment/check Information: WA Revised:. 10-28-03 IO�1 l\ Attachment 5 Draft SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2004 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 14, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh. James Caruso, Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson.Orval Osborne Absent: None Staff: Associate Planners John Shoals and Phil Dunsmore, Deputy Community Development Directors Ron Whisenand and Michael Draze, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE: The Minutes of October 8, 2003, were accepted as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, encouraged others to attend these public hearings, and spoke against home businesses in the R-1 zone. Dela Barr, 650 Skyline Drive, a ninth-grade student, spoke against the proposed Prado Road extension through the Damon Garcia Sports Fields to Broad Street, and suggested it be routed south to Tank Farm Road at Santa Fe Road. Larry Stabler, requested that item 3 be first on the agenda, since it may be lengthy, and noted a number of citizens did not attend because of the anticipated lateness that it would be heard. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 1308 Monterey Street. AP-PC 131-03; Appeal of Hearing Officer's approval of a request to allow a new car wash at an existing service station; C-R zone; Jim Pfeil, applicant / Vern A. Ludwick II, Debra D. Jones et al, appellants. Continued from December 17, 2003. (Phil Dunsmore) Sr I - Draft Planning Commission minutes Attachment 5 January 14, 2004 Page 2 Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report and recommended the Commission uphold the Hearing Officer's determination approving a new automated car wash in conjunction with an existing Unocal fuel station and deny the appeal, based on findings and subject to conditions. He noted that the December 17th hearing concluded after the testimony by the appellants and the applicant, and this hearing was to begin with the public hearing portion. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Mann, appellant, 1515 Palm Street, presented signed petitions to the Commission in opposition to the car wash, and noted a contradiction with the City's policy prohibiting "drive-through facilities." Scott Hagaman, appellant, 1259 Palm Street #D, spoke against the car wash, concurred with Mr. Mann's concerns, and noted the traffic, noise and odor impacts it would have on the neighborhood. Betty Aten, appellant, 1315 Palm Street, opposed the car wash request and requested a new sound study be conducted by an independent noise expert. She also noted concerns with air quality issues. Gina Rosco, 966 Johnson Avenue, felt that due to the closeness of the car wash to her residence, emissions from vehicles would pass through her windows and into her home. She noted concerns with traffic and congestion and asked the Commission to deny the car wash. Dennis Ahearn, 537 Cerro Romauldo, did not feel that a 7400t sound wall would capture the noise created by a 12-foot tall building since the mechanical equipment is located in the rafters. Jennifer Santos, 1259 Palm Street #A, noted there would be noise emitted from the entrance of the car wash as well as the exit. She suggested landscaping, trees, or dense shrubbery to buffer the noise. MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke against the car wash. Mark Blair, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the car wash. He noted his tenants across the street from the proposal also oppose the car wash. George Garcia, applicant, noted that conditions were applied to the project during Architectural Review that address the height of the noise wall and installation of landscaping in the open space area as a sound buffer. COMMISSION COMMENT: LOr Attachnient Draft Planning COmmiSSi(, dinutes 5 January 14, 2004 Page 3 Commr. Caruso moved the staff recommendation. to uphold the Hearing Officer's approval and deny the appeal with the hours of operation being changed to 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Seconded by Commr. Christianson. Commr. Loh suggested a condition be added that a landscape architect be hired by the applicant to work diligently with the neighbors to resolve areas of conflict, and that that landscaping, trees, or dense shrubbery to buffer the noise be incorporated into the rp oiect. She did not feel that noise issues had been adequately addressed. The motion maker and seconder accepted the amendment. Commr. Boswell had concerns with the noise levels and proposed mitigation measures. AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Christianson, Aiken, Cooper and Osborne. NOES: Commrs. Loh and Boswell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:3 vote. 2. Citywide. TA and ER 108-03; Request to amend City regulations related to concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcohol; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report asking the Commission to review the proposed Municipal Code amendments and to recommend that the City Council approve these amendments. He explained that the proposed amendments repeals Section 5.36.020 and amends Sections 17.08.040 and 17.100 of the Zoning Code to define when beer and wine sales may be allowed on a site in conjunction with automotive fuel sales. He detailed each of the changes proposed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke in opposition to the request. Darren Brewer, 1438 Nipomo Street, noted his attorney, Ann Russell, has submitted a letter on his behalf. He felt that the ABC review process was in conflict with the City's use permit process in that each one requires the others approval. He noted there is a moratorium on Type 20 (off-premises beer and wine) licenses and that he could not get a new license or add to the concentration of alcohol permits; he must purchase an existing license from someone else. COMMISSION COMMENT: Commr. Christianson moved the staff recommendation with two changes: Section 1 Finding 3: Strike the language, "Establishment of concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer or wine will.not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working Within the City and" . . . and that Finding 5 be changed.from Planning Commission Use Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO.5381-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION UPHOLDING THE HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH AT 1308 MONTEREY STREET AP-PC 131-03 WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 21, 2003 and approved a Use Permit to allow a car wash at 1308 Monterey Street subject to findings and condition; and WHEREAS, two official applications appealing the Hearing Officers determination were received on November 25, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California; on December 17, 2003 pursuant to the appeals received on November 25th; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties and appellants, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions, complies with property development standards for the Commercial Retail zone since the project meets setback, height,lot coverage and parking standards. 2. The proposed car wash building at this location on the site will not impact site distance, site circulatirear of nor will it impede views to or from the site since it.is at the reof the site behind existing improvements on the property. 3. New landscape including additional tree plantings on the property will help to reduce any visual impacts of the new construction as it relates to adjacent residential properties. 4. The establishment of a new car wash, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. 5. Sound reducing equipment for the car wash, design elements of the new building and the site, including a 7 foot tall sound wall on the site, will reduce the noise output of the car wash to levels that are at or below the level of ambient noise currently measured at the nearest residential property line adjacent to the site. 6. The hours of operation of the car wash will allow the use to operate at noise levels that are Resolution No.5381-04`.__ Attachment 6 Page 3 8. If, at any time in the future, operation of the carwash results in noise levels that exceed 50 decibels as measured from the nearest residential property line and the excessive noise results in complaints from the residential neighborhood, the use shall be discontinued until the noise can be brought into compliance with the conditions listed herein. 9. The project shall provide 5 vehicle parking spaces and 4 bicycle parking spaces consistent with the architectural plans. 10. All proposed new exterior lighting shall be shown on the building plan check submittal and shall include all pertinent specifications. Fixtures shall be selected to coordinate with existing exterior lighting and be properly shielded to avoid off-site glare. 11. Applicant shall provide parking for bicycles in the amount and type required by City Zoning Regulations and at locations consistent with standards of the Bicycle Transportation Plan. All required bicycle facilities shall be shown on project plans. Code Requirements: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Works 1. If applicable, show the location of the fire service lateral, double-check assembly, fire department connection (FDC) on the site plan if a fire sprinkler upgrade is required. Show the location of the fire riser room on the interior of the building and confirm that an external riser is not allowed in accordance with the Planning Division architectural guidelines. 2. The existing curb, gutter&sidewalk and driveway approaches shall be repaired or replaced if damaged, offset, or are otherwise not in compliance with city standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The northerly approach along Johnson Ave. shall be abandoned and replaced with curb, gutter & sidewalk per city standards. The southerly approach along Johnson Ave. shall be replaced because of the cracked and damaged concrete, lack of gutter pan and subsequent damage to the street paving. 4. This project is located within the Mission Style Sidewalk District. The district extends along the Monterey Street frontage. Any curb and gutter, sidewalk, street tree wells, and driveway ramp installations and/or replacements shall be done in accordance with the City's Engineering Standard Details and Standard Specifications for Type 2, Mission Style sidewalk. �r Resolution No.5381-04 Attachment 6, Page 5 Transportation 1. Delivery vehicles shall enter and exit the property in a forward motion and at no time back up over the public sidewalk. An exhibit illustrating how this will be accomplished shall be subiriitted for review and approval with the project's building permit application. On motion by Commissioner Caruso, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Caruso, Christianson and Chairperson Osborne NOES: Commrs.Loh, Boswell REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of January 2004. 4� ,4�zz onal 'senand, Secretary Planning Commission _ Attachment 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT HEM a i BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: January 14, 2003 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director-, Development Review FILE NUMBER: AP-PC 131-03 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1308 Monterey SUBJECT: Appeal of the Hearing Officers determination approving a new automated carwash in conjunction with an existing Unocal fuel station. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officers determination based on findings and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation This application has been continued from December 17, 2003 due to a lack of time to complete the public hearing. The following staff report is unchanged from December 17. The applicants are proposing to construct a new automated car wash facility at the rear of the existing fuel station. The new structure will house a mechanical type carwash and air-drying mechanism along with necessary operational equipment and storage. The Hearing Officer approved an Administrative Use Permit for the new car wash on November 21, 2003 (see attached meeting minutes and approval letter, Attachments 3 and 4) based on findings and conditions. On November 25; 2003 two separate appeals of the Hearing Officer's determination were received. One of the appeal forms contained signatures and addresses from 3 area residents. Data Summary Address: 1308 Monterey Property Owner/Applicant: Tosco Corporation/Jim Pfeil Representative: George Garcia Zoning: C-R (Commercial Retail) General Plan: Commercial Retail Environmental status: Exempt from CEQA per section 15301 Existing Facilities (Class 1) Site description The .51-acre property at the northeast comer of Johnson and Monterey contains a 4-pump fueling station with canopy, an attendant kiosk, restrooms, and associated on-site parking lot improvements. �� 31 . Attachment 7 AP-PC 131-03 1308 Monterey Page 2 Currently, the site contains a wide access driveway from Monterey Street and 2 access driveways onto Johnson Avenue. The majority of the site is paved with asphalt with the exception of several small landscape planters at the street frontage and a wide landscape planter at the north end of the site on an existing slope between the fuel station and residential uses. Adjacent uses include R-3 residential multi family units to the north, Stanley Motors auto sales to the east and a 7-11 store and pet shop across the street to the south. Proiect Description 3 The application includes a new drive-through car wash consisting of a 1,226 square foot building and attached equipment room. Vehicles will enter from the east _ 9 side of the building and exit to the west towards Johnson Avenue. The building will be designed to -�- match the mission theme architecture of the existing fuel '= _. canopy and attendant booth. The Existing Unocal Service Station at 1308 Monterey Street new structure ..will be finished with similar light-colored exterior plaster and Spanish tile roof, and is designed to be a logical extension of the existing architecture of the site. In addition to the new car wash structure, the project includes additional site improvements such as new parking and landscaping, a relocated trash structure, and bicycle parking. EVALUATION Basis for Appeal The two requests for appeal list a similar basis for appeal. The main concern appears to be noise, traffic, and compatibility with the residential neighborhood. Attachment 5 contains copies of the appeal forms received by the City on November 25th, 2003. Specifically, adjacent residential neighbors are concerned that noise from the car wash dryer unit will be amplified up the short hill into the adjacent apartment units and other nearby residences. Appellants also feel that the new structure will interfere with fuel truck deliveries and cause the delivery truck to interrupt the flow of traffic on Monterey Street. Project History The Architectural Review Commission initially reviewed the project on November 3, 2003. At the ARC hearing the Commissioners continued the item until a noise study could be completed and fuel delivery truck circulation patterns could be established. Based on public opposition to the project at the hearing, the ARC agreed that the item should gain approval of a Use Permit prior to returning to the Commission for a review of the design. It was felt that the noise study and truck circulation pattern could result in changes to the design. The Commissioners felt that if the project could be �--33' AP-Pc 131-03 Attachment 7 1308 Monterey Page 3 designed to reduce the noise of the carwash to a level that is at or below the existing ambient noise at the property than a revised design of the carwash could be considered at this site. An Administrative hearing was held for the item on November 6, 2003. A noise analysis that had been performed by David Lord for the project site was presented at the hearing (see attachment 6) in addition to a graphic that showed the truck circulation on the site (see attachment 8). The initial noise analysis identified that the ambient average noise level at the residential property line was 52 dB. The car wash design, without noise mitigation was identified to create intermittent noise as high as 65 dB when measured at the residential property line. The applicant stated that a noise reduction package could be fitted to the unit to reduce the noise output and a sound wall could be constructed to further reduce the noise level. In response to neighborhood opposition to the project, and specific concerns that the noise of the mechanical car wash and dryer unit might be amplified up the slope to the residential uses, the Hearing Officer continued the item to allow the applicant to prepare additional noise analysis and an accurate truck circulation diagram. The Hearing Officer asked the applicant to provide a noise analysis that outlined specific noise reducing mitigation measures for the use and analyzed the specific location of the property. On November 21, 2003, the applicant returned to the Administrative Hearing with additional site- specific noise analysis and conceptual plans identifying a truck route. The:revised noise analysis (Attachment 7).,identified a re-designed building, a sound wall, and a noise reduction package for the car wash that would result in a significant noise reduction for the use. The-report concludes that the mitigation measures could reduce the intermittent noise of the facility to 50dB,.which is below the existing ambient noise level. The noise analysis also examined the amphitheatre effect and potential reflected noise. The Hearing Officer expressed the desire that the new use not negatively effect adjacent residential properties if it indeed was to be installed in this mixed-use neighborhood. However, with the new noise information that demonstrated that ambient noise.levels would not be exceeded, the hearing officer conditionally approved the new car wash. The Use Permit approved by the Hearing Officer included conditions prohibiting the use of the car wash between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. and required implementation and testing of the noise reducing measures into the design (see attachment 4) The Hearing Officers approval of the Use Permit was based on specific findings that the new use would not impact the fuel delivery truck access nor exceed the ambient noise levels already found at the site. General Plan Analysis General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing this application. The City must make a finding that a development approval is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the City's Zoning Regulations, (Section 17.02.050) state that the City's regulations and standards will be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the General Plan. The existing use is consistent with the site's land use designation of Commercial Retail if an Administrative Use Permit is approved for the car wash. All car washes require approval of a Use Permit regardless of the zoning district. The discretionary approval of the car wash is the appropriate time to review site compatibility including issues such as noise and residential adjacency. The following General Plan excerpts relate specifically to the proposed development: ��33 AP-PC 131-03 Attachment 7 1308 Monterey Page 4 General Plan Land Use Element: LU 3:7.9:Noise Control Zoning Regulations and Architectural Review Guidelines will include measures such as the following to prevent unacceptable noise exposure for residential areas or other noise-sensitive uses: location and shielding of mechanical equipment; location of truck loading, trash collection areas, and loudspeakers; landscaped setbacks or noise attenuation walls along property lines. The equipment has been located within a sealed concrete masonry structure and the openings of the car wash have been aligned away from residential uses. A 7-foot tall sound wall is proposed as mitigation. Since the new use would orient existing fuel truck circulation further from the residential uses, the location of truck loading would be improved with the new use. LU 2.2.2 Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries; the freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities. The site presently contains a sloped, landscaped buffer of approximately 40 to 60 feet between the car wash site and the residential property line.. The buffer will remain and.would be landscaped.. with additional trees with the proposed development. LU 2.2.4 Residential Next to Non-residential 'In designing development at the boundary between residential and non,residential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority. The Planning Commission should consider this General Plan policy carefully and consider the existing residential uses over the proposed car wash. Just because the car wash complies with City standards does not automatically justify the approval of the use.at.the proposed site. The Hearing Officer was comfortable that noise reduction will be provided that mitigates sound to a level greater than required by the City's Noise Element which is a level that will not exceed the ambient (existing)noise levels along the Monterey Street Corridor. LU 3.7.9 Noise Control Zoning Regulations and Architectural.Review Guidelines will include measures such as the following to prevent unacceptable noise exposure for residential areas or other noise-sensitive uses: location and shielding of mechanical equipment; location of truck loading, trash collection areas, and loudspeakers; landscaped setbacks or noise attenuation walls along property lines. The project proposal contains the necessary mitigation to bring the project into compliance or exceed the noise standards established in the City's Noise Element as discussed below. General Plan Noise Element (from Digest): N I.I.I:Noise Exposure Protection Protect people from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to noise. N 1.1.2:Noise Prevention Preserve the tranquility of residential neighborhoods by preventing noise-producing uses from encroaching upon existing or planned noise-sensitive uses. S AP-PC 131-03 Attachment 7 1308 Monterey Page 5 N 1.1.3:Public Education Help citizens understand the effects of exposure to excessive noise and the methods available for minimizing such exposure. The noise analysis prepared by David Lord helps to describe the potential impacts of the use and recommends logical mitigation to meet the ARC'S standard that noise levels not exceed the ambient. N 1.1.4:Emphasize Careful Site Planning Emphasize the reduction of noise impacts through careful site planning and project design, giving second preference to the use of noise barriers and structural features. This General Plan policy describes that although the project has structural features that will reduce the noise impacts, the proposed site of the car wash should be the primary consideration when analyzing the compatibility between this use and existing residential. N 1.1.5.Prevent Incompatible Land Uses Prevent incompatible land uses from encroaching on existing or planned uses which are desired parts of the community, but which produce noise. N 1.1.6..Noise Reduction Encourage practices and technologies which reduce noise. N 1.2.10:New or Modified Stationary Noise Sources Noise created by new stationary noise sources, or by existing stationary noise sources .which undergo..modifications that may increase noise levels, shall be mitigated to not exceed the noise level standards of Table 2,for lands designated for noise-sensitive uses. This policy does not apply to noise levels associated with agricultural operations. Table 2, from the City's Noise Element, establishes the maximum standards for stationary noise sources adjacent to a sensitive receptor such as a residential neighborhood. Table 2 Maximum Noise Exposure For Noise-Sensitive Uses Due To Stationary Noise Sources Duration Day u (7 a.m. to 10 pm) (10 gm.to 7 am.) HrnLdy L.al in dB'-' 50 45 Ilatizmum level in (111"' 70 65 .%LXhLdlBV-` dsice 65 GU noise ' As at the property line of the receives When determining effectiveness of noise mitigation measures,the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property-line noise mitigation measures. =Sound level numuremeam shall be made with slow meter response. Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter xesponse. SotucG BmwarBiiadn Associate C - �� AP-PC 131-03 Attachment 7 1308 Monterey Page 6 Based on the table above, the proposed use complies with Noise Element standards since the maximum daytime noise from the use (as measured at the residential property line), with proposed mitigation measures, will result in a maximum impulsive noise of 50 dB and the Noise Element would allow 65 dB. It is important to remember that the daytime ambient noise currently measured at the property line as a result of traffic is 52 dB. The new project, with the incorporation of a new building, new sound walls, and additional landscape could actually result in a reduction of the ambient traffic noise that is currently experienced at the residential properties to the north. The General Plan designation for this site is Commercial Retail, and the Zoning is Commercial Retail, which allows the use with approval of an Administrative Use Permit.. The Use Permit process allows the City to review the use for consistency with General Plan policies and property development standards. As conditioned by the Hearing Officer the Use complies with the site's property development standards and is consistent with the above-mentioned General Plan Policies. Regardless of the compliance with the General Plan designation and meeting the required City standards, the Planning Commission should consider the testimony of the appellants:in determining whether a car wash is an appropriate use for this particular site, given its close proximity to residential uses. Site Development Standards The proposed design complies with.Zoning Ordinance standards for lot coverage,.building height and yard requirements. The Zoning Regulations allow maximum lot coverage of 1009b' the new car: wash will cover approximately 5.5% of the lot adding to total cumulative lot coverage. of 28.9%1 well below the maximum allowed coverage. The maximum building height allowed is 45 feet. The . proposed building maximum height will be,approximately 17feet at the top of the°existing canopy above the fuel pumps. No setbacks are required in this district from adjacent commercial zonesor from adjacent streets, however a 5' setback is required between the commercial development and the north property line that contains residential development. The setback between the new car wash and the residential property line will be approximately 30 feet, most of which is a landscaped slope. Car washes require 2 parking spaces in addition to sufficient space for a waiting line. The fuel station requires one space for the attendant booth plus one space for four fuel pumps. Based on the proposed car wash and existing fuel service, the total parking requirement for this site has been calculated at 4 vehicle spaces. The site plan provides for four reconfigured parking spaces plus an additional 5`s space for accessible parking. Bicycle parking is proposed in the form of a bike rack at the east side of the existing attendant booth. The project as proposed complies with the parking standards for the number and size of parking spaces. 3. Building Design and Colors The proposed building will consist of a 17 by 52 foot car wash unit with an attached 11 by 32 foot mechanical room on the north side of the building. The exterior finish will be a stucco finish designed to match existing construction on the property. The proposed roof form is a mansard style r AP-PC 131-03 Attachment 7 1308 Monterey Page 7 roof with a Spanish tile roof designed to match existing construction on the property. Proposed wall color will be a light beige, with roof color to match existing, a terra cotta color tile. As shown in the photo to the left, the carwash would be located behind the existing attendant booth at the rear of the site within an existing paved area at • the base of the slope. No additional grading is required to accommodate the carwash and the existing retaining wall shown at the base of the slope will F. remain with the proposed car wash. This photo is the site as viewed from Johnson Avenue at the property line. . %lam _ , . IC•hrM1J�,.y,eL,µn Community Design Guidelines d - The;Community•Design Guidelines.contain .standards for all commercial development.and speak specifically to the.development of a Service Station. If the Planning.Commission approves the Use , Permit,••the application will proceed to the ARC for a review of the proposal.for consistency with•the Community Design Guidelines. Since this is an addition to:an existing facility, and the majority of the . site.will remain unchanged, staff finds-that the new construction can be found consistent with.the;. Guidelines. The location of the Wash Bay is probably the suited to it's proposed location due to the!+ hillside and existing and proposed landscaping and site improvements. The following standards are . found in section 3.4 D of the Guidelines. D. Service stations. A service station (with or without a car wash) is an intensive auto-oriented use that is characterized by large areas of pavement. 1. Site planning. Service station site plans should incorporate the following features. a. The site should be designed to accommodate anticipated car and truck (including fuel delivery truck)circulation patterns and minimize paving. b. Driveway cuts should be limited to two per site, unless otherwise allowed by the City Engineer for valid circulation reasons. c. Service and wash bays should not face streets or residential properties. The visibility of service and wash bays should be otherwise minimized. d. Gas pump canopies should be screened by the main building structure. The retail market/office building segment of the facility should be oriented along the street frontage, to encourage pedestrian use. Bicycle parking should be provided where the facility includes a convenience store. 2. Building design. Service station buildings should be designed to comply with the following guidelines. a. Site specific architectural design is strongly encouraged. Corporate or franchise "stock" design solutions are strongly discouraged. Attachment 7 AP-PC 131-03 1308 Monterey Page 8 b. All structures on the site should be architecturally consistent and related to an overall architectural theme. c. High quality building materials are encouraged. Reflective, glossy, and florescent surfaces are discouraged. d. The roof design of all structures, including pump canopies, should incorporate roof treatments with a low to moderate pitch. Flat roofs or mansard roof applications are strongly discouraged unless they are consistent with an established and attractive architectural theme in the site vicinity. e. Gas pump canopies should not be internally illuminated. Light fixtures shall be completely recessed into the canopy so that the light source is concealed. f. Each pump island should include stacking for at least two vehicles (40 feet) on-site, or at least at one end of the pump island. 4. Landscaping The existing landscape at,the south.side of the property and near the comer of Johnson, and Monterey is proposed to remain unchanged. Additional landscape including a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover is proposed for the area adjacent to the new car wash. Four new trees-we proposed, two near the car wash entrance and two near the car wash exit. A new planter that ranges in width from 5 feet to 10 feet is proposed between the existing slope at the rear:of the.site.and the new,building.:Tree:varieties include:Evergreen Pear;California Pepper and Crape.Myrtle.;•The;new. shrubs and groundcover include a drought tolerant mixture of species. The proposed landscape plan•-:.. :•.• ''-appears_to :be;satisfactory for the site; however staff recommends the following_ additions, to'.-the landscape,plan to'be reviewed by-the ARC: a. At least 3 additional trees should,be placed on the bare slope between the proposed car wash and the existing residences to the north: Tree varieties should consist of California-Pepper or Evergreen Pear. The additional trees will help screen the additional building from the adjacent residential district. b. Since the existing turf area at the Johnson Avenue frontage will be partially demolished due to the proposed construction and required street improvements, it should be converted to drought tolerant landscape with drip irrigation in order to comply with contemporary City landscape standards. S. Other Details Lighting: Some new lighting may be required for the new building. Lighting specifications have not been provided nor shown on the architectural plans. Staff has added a condition of approval stating that lighting shall be designed with full-cutoff shielded light fixtures designed to eliminate off-site glare and with a maximum foot-candle below the light source of 10-foot candles. Lighting will be reviewed by the ARC. Site access & circulation: The new car wash will not impact the site's circulation pattern related to fuel delivery vehicles nor customer vehicles. The applicant has provided schematic diagrams that identify how the truck access will work. One of the appellants currently works at the site and is f' 9 b AP-PC 131-03 Attachment 7 1308 Monterey Page 9 experienced with the fuel delivery truck access. This appellant claims that the new car wash will not allow the fuel delivery truck to access and exit the site without backing onto Monterey Street. Apparently the fuel delivery trucks currently use the rear driveway of the site to exit onto Johnson Avenue. This rear driveway is the proposed location of the new car wash. The applicant's truck circulation plan proposes trucks to enter the site from Johnson Avenue, drive beneath the canopy and exit onto Johnson Avenue. The appellant does not believe this will work. Since the applicant does not currently own the property and is currently under agreement to purchase the property, the truck circulation has not been tested with a truck on site. Instead the truck circulation route has been established utilizing the site plan and known truck circulation distance standards. Unocal staff has reviewed and approved the proposed truck circulation plan for this site (see attachment 7). Public Works staff and the project applicant have agreed that it would not be appropriate for trucks to back onto Monterey Street after unloading fuel, and have therefore accepted the proposed truck circulation route. Staff has created a condition of approval that requires trucks to follow.the: . circulation plan. The condition of approval requires the truck access to be tested prior to construction of the building. Following purchase of the site, if the truck circulation does not work; the addition of a new car wash building on the existing rear driveway would not be allowed; or other modifications will need to be made.to.the site to:ensure safe delivery of fuel. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS, The plans were routed to other City departments, including Public Works, Transportation and Utilities. The Public Works Department.has confirmed that the northerly approach along•Johnson Ave. shall be abandoned and replaced with curb, gutter & sidewalk per city standards. The southerly approach along Johnson Ave. will need to..be replaced because. of the cracked and damaged concrete, lack of gutter pan.and.subsequent damage to the street paving. This.project,is located within the Mission Style Sidewalk District. The district extends along the Monterey Street frontage. Any curb and gutter, sidewalk, street tree wells, and driveway ramp installations and/or replacements will need to be done in accordance with the City's Engineering Standard Details for a Mission Style sidewalk. The Transportation Division of Public Works has conditioned the project to ensure that delivery vehicles will enter and exit the property in a forward motion and at no time back up over the public sidewalk. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired information or items needed as revisions to plans. 2. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial, including but not limited to the various residential protection policies contained in the General Plan. S-1 /A AP-PC 131-03 Attachment 7 1308 Monterey Page 10 RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officers determination based on findings and subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 -Vicinity Map Attachment 2-Reduced scale plans Attachment 3-Administrative Use Permit Hearing meeting minutes Attachment 4-Hearing Officer approval letter with findings and conditions Attachment 5 -Appeal application forms Attachment 6 -Noise study prepared November 6, 2003 Attachment 7-Noise study prepared November 19, 2003 " Attachment 8-Truck circulation route Attachment 9- Planning Commission Resolution Full size plans were distributed to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Co mmunity'Development Department: �� 1 O Attachment 8 Flung Fee: $10G ," ,/ ECFIVER Pal d' fiats ecei ed JAN 2 P 2004 WA o CITY CLERK I City Of 'REFER TO SEC77ON 4 Mgmisan tins owpo APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECnON 1. APPELLANT INFORMA nON S-f&.A& whkt4o k t - , S-t,a g 34�i Name Mailing Address and Tp Code '1565 '1dE ec: %b6d146 `f: 'we �.-. Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Tp Code Title Phone Fax. SEC77ON 2 SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the-San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: s t.-0 �1✓��:ate ���.,�:�ss 1,ma (Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: .T-.4-vO . c4 % z u 4- 3. The application or project was entitled: V45 0 a S ,At-4L 13t -6 A 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. �t4 :� ��ytsSv+.elz� on (Staff Members Name and Department) (Date) . 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: r; t ' od art SECTION S. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actlon/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form conUnuss on the otherside. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal : . p ♦ >� yr'yy+• J'N5H'YJ a w _ z 1.•myy v i : d�r r`, i � ���r{F�� 'ry,T7�, �1� It , � M Yf,�q, rE� ay 'T��Y.�I11° F�''I�r rr + tl5 ' - ti 'I��..1�[,,�N1�Y t �Ilir �•1.p,,. `_4+SS. ? If��rL' • . x�cyC-?jF,:�i�rYt.G(T, �1�L1(di�yo�bl°jr`^YI^ti,iP1r�I° �. bl� Cblta°c5��,F'.W° . 9C4H1?-IiY \° a. Y �•��r;l r6]ry �'E i^ikN}�5�.1�,�J'�f ),i, - �r , � � A t o 61 q%s ihvi„ �cJ.�(.J '�:L-f• � �i I ;t a Y � :6lr• � • �° I 9• e �'S��'(`R A`• �,�9f�',ra{ u�o rl,�� 1 I t t j+�2�5�.n� Z. {�' .�,�-r�1�� � ?,- ,'�v �j 4 �. ++}} } f : ,s ., , < ,.', L,J• It rt+ it J+. �t,� '6i1; 6 Ad li• o e x: Ir•➢ re��y FPla 1•e$ J= l til d!•�I•a��Ote�((°7E e��JIPnY •Q 4 w� c�¢7h 7�° r !�e'�' '7 kr' '� �. "'.� w � Y�"� r �� �•7 ,5 3 l 't�.71 rr.�.-. ' ,�`.:xi� � {1 C i � � ,t.. '{,i2 io- , ` {�d -•� I ° ' ago �¢•: •G x • w� �e 1 _� 'e(1 �l�e f' ��I11115 ljl�.e t 1 1 t�/r r�C�,f� '.j,i�•llp�° .r: • • i •,Y 1 ':�. .A�?. �^�'°y�,ti�i�+�l. i.J'�^d Ir'y�: Pi.n�� �"�^it��.� :j�,� x jA' r„YdL 'fT-� 'f {,�"'�iIS•"T�i�'il Ift' '11' . r + IJZ Y n - ,c,��y,, ,�+.'tv am r�� �,;.�+n�,`�•a.x�.�"r�!1�'ti',?.�}J+6�5G rj�.l yyll, . c_ el e•. j :}r1 � It! -: o)xr �� a`'�9er�'7'-�115111.c�''�'�r} /�yFx'�°o7 PF.'�aj�lJ! �-°0� °�°t�lL Y i� • _ ..i=,1e�I9 :{S o e. °'-Fi7�.�r1ieF•4Yl�ifll r'�u��¢�"�`�,�1 i'sq ��R�h.��1 I#o� �yy'r>� •'�°f� ' .°_ 1•� 'I• �. � �. �(� }y`�1 � Q' �' � r ��� '1' :u�tj;.�c{� t .f 1 {1 �n t�1��1 `(5 L 'r � + f��r r ' ¢5 ••''Y jJ.-���{I�'( c� �`FM10 Jcl 3 ''Ui A' a illl e° qc � x A ¢ q'�o ' • Iie Y 1 e cf{ ry u� o.� .��,,{� kl1A1l I'I�I iH '�n Y r{y1p`��,��15 c �Il� _: ..4 P . 1 r 1; �et ��� i 1r • � �e kY MJi�,°� ;�G�,7 1�7j�• �1 !o r(o o[�of��'pi-6 � °.II i/� �° ••: _ ` e __ As ^� yy77�;� ��`i Y t .c , .�. i �� n�7,gv�-«. 'y� +wlt�! QP k '�'' r� LC'Y,;_el t Y ' Jt I' }vv" tl� �y'•9t .. i• 1 ! ►��`:�rl�'1•1 ile : • 0 0 �Y�i7'� f%Ilt"�Pl¢ ��A F- �yh {��f9k�,. �i°�.� �U _ a :0 1 • • b ►• b�ri(,l°• a fGt A� �.�Jj. -y��J ] Gq1 i.J� �y P w � A�.L„+`�'RJ^�E ��'�'+'- �� q �•'1` '�'f[1y�,• (�1�� ^'I- •I• x �f:4�y •1►• ey � a o oe��� 1 t � S: • .� • :�'trdl�,+'�yo 1 G°,"If����� �-t'°��W L�f¢^C t'•`i 1 ,1 it Y4a�rrd}o tti�'y�l� �t F�+�j y �a IF• 1 .'. ilk-,gip • °[k li���d� °llc�r�f pC E .� r„(t(( 1.lEY��`d`�]5f t�")�1 e7'�y.�1 e EFI�f�O�Ft' .(4 c .tJ'u� `F7o-n 4 •e� t •s' _.-fF 9,.,� 'I �71�r�.M y`v h! 'ri' i .'�1 n'4l i �+r�n( 6y t ::_ •1 �. t7�'S#.t,(( `;�1�Cyf�`'' ',.���i d�.f�`1f��1�J�°'jQ� .b�"I "' +It�r�"�'�,�,1�,�,4 ,-��'�p �' �`L�t�°�•�.�1 "., r,�a° �.'. ��� '"yy'f;a,.�6J�`� A f n4ly 'tR"`y✓ �� 4 1^X461'n�.,I!t' si YI y�.. .. y,.a4 f r 1 y/ r a d ':1l�- i { ty.+Z>• r�iy�p� sr^ p�l t ' G�[V'�•l 7 '��'': •�l Yi ai�;°4' • , ,f,; �1•� _ 'PIl.}'.�°�� °,�P �,itCc(�9 Y��yflplr r.,'�'k :yq F� G'k '. dJ. ���`^ ^;,L'°���•`' � 'Cie� � t �1 Jtr G��rr�C���i'I i nlira�:iP'+•a �`f 9K at"�4.t �i^�' �. � � • ..� W .L J'1�,�.4� r4 rc��l+ r�{� �, t I7 :(] •1 Y¢r �.,r�:�ril � 1F:" �fl�l l : 5 ,'A, ��''� t`�p���pl�A 'Rl°I°��;flV�';�•�.,5;.g,1c�I('t.^Iir r.`� to{ d i'i9,a aFI11,��k�,lay129r r"{�J'P4 f����3r�,�j�;'�. r ��'' ��r I ��**1 S .� { r 1.L1} [��'4�rd (t�'/S->•�Rr�l� rt�`r�,l�jy(�i�o-�p"x r'r♦�' 'I•T�,�q�`L�{,l 4' 1 1 ]�¢Str H � ° r Attachment 8 AP-PC 131-03 1308 Monterey Street Reasons for Appeal • The noise study provided by the applicant to support the application is inadequate. We take issue with the ambient noise level calculations, the noise mitigation calculations, and the limited scope of the study. • We disagree with several Staff findings and statements that support the application, including those related to noise mitigation, site circulation, public safety, and compliance. • The project violates several General Plan provisions, Including LU 2.2.2 (page 26),. LU 2.1.3(page 25), and LU 2:2.4 (page 26). • The project violates several Community Design Guidelines, including A.5 (page 16), C.1.a (page 20), and D.1.a (page 42). • The project violates Use regulation F: °Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone." •The project contradicts the Community Development Department's mission to "support community values ... and protect public health and safety." • The project is incompatible with the predominantly residential character of the neighborhood and is strongly opposed by residents, property owners, and business owners in the neighborhood. Attachment 1 DAVID LORD,PH.D. —$aan Luis Obispo,CA 93405 299 Albert Drive Acoustics and Noise Consulting (805)549-8046 November 19, 2003 Noise Evaluation and Mitigation Recommendations Proposed Monterey Street Unocal Carwash Addition 1308 Monterey St San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 For Garcia Architecture+Design 1130 Garden St. Suite A San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Description and Noise Criteria The dimensions and layout used in this noise analysis are taken from drawings supplied by Garcia Architecture+Design. The ambient sound level is dominated by transportation sounds on Monterey St.and Johnson Avenue. The potential stationary noise is from a proposed Ryko Thrustpro with Noise silencing package,operating between the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. With regard to land use,potential noise conflict and noise mitigation measures,the noise level standards contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, 1996,are used to evaluate the location. The maximum acceptable noise exposure is judged from the property line of the receiving land use. The maximum acceptable stationary noise exposure level is listed(p. 5,Table 2)as: Hourly Leq =50 dBA Maximum level=70 dBA Existing Noise Levels Existing noise levels were measured on November 4—5 and.November 14- 15,2003. A series of individual on-site noise measurements(Leq=sound average level)were made over a total running time period of thirty six hours,using a Type I, integrating,recording noise analysis,Page I Attachment q sound.level meter,accurate to 1 dBA. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after all measurement sessions. Wind speed was less than 5 m.p.h. Representative points were selected along receptor property lines separating residential from commercial use(indicated on attached plan). The day-night noise level, LDN was then derived from the series of measurements for each location. Overall LDN at the nearby northside property line location indicated on the plan is measured and calculated at 52 dBA. LDN at the residential property line across the street(facing east) is indicated on the plan and is measured and calculated at 51 dBA. The ambient measured LDN sound level may be at variance with the Noise Data in the Technical Reference Document and the Noise Contours of the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element.The published Noise Contours are computer-generated and do not always reflect the actual noise conditions found in the field,due to topographical variations and obstructions,local built environment noise obstructions,etc. A mitigating factor for this location is the terraced retaining wall with a front ridge or brow that intercepts some line-of-sight noise from Monterey Street noise source to the north and across Johnson Avenue to the west. Monterey Street to the south is characterized by a full range of automobile and some truck traffic,traveling at about 20 to 30 m.p.h. Johnson Avenue is less traveled. Future exterior ambient noise levels will eventually rise above LDN 51 and 52 dBA but will remain within the allowable land use planning standard for outdoor activities of LDN 60 dBA level prescribed by the Noise Element of the General.Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo. Potential Stationary Noise from Proposed Unocal Carwash The following evaluations are derived from information supplied by Ryko Equipment,and from knowledge and experience of other comparable carwash operations in Santa Maria,CA noise analysis,page 2 Attachment 9 Hours of operation: The hours of operation from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm coincide with the daytime hours defined in the Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo for LDN Day-night sound level. If hours of operation were between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.there would be a 10 dBA sound level penalty for potential noise generated by the carwash. Intermittent Operation: The proposed Ryko carwash air dryer with noise attenuation package is anticipated to operate intermittently. The intermittent nature of the stationary sound would be perceptible at the residential property line to the north and to the west without additional noise mitigation at the source. Noise mitigation is recommended later in this report. Potential Sound Reflection from wall across Johnson Avenue. The potential sound reflections from the long concrete wall across Johnson Avenue are analyzed graphically with ray diagrams shown in a Figure 4 in this report. The direction of reflected sound is judged not to be a factor for the residential properties to the north and to the west. Proposed mitigation reduces the probability of reflected noise even fiuther. Potential Amphitheater Effect due to natural rising topography and two storefronts to the south of Monterey Street: This potential noise is evaluated based on the relative size of the reflector surfaces and the total distance that sound travels from the noise source to the reflector and back to the receptor. Sound levels diminish naturally by six dBA for every doubling of distance traveled. The total distance to the `amphitheater' reflector surfaces and back to residential receptors is greater than approximately four hundred feet,and will result in imperceptible reflected sound levels at the residential receptors to the north and to the west of the proposed carwash. Potential Stationary Noise at second floor level of nearby residential property. Evaluation is based on the geometric relationship of the proposed noise barrier wall to the 'line-of- sight' sound path toward the north from the carwash tunnel exit_. See Figure 4; the noise worse analysis,page 3 Attachment barrier wall partially blocks noise toward the second floor level. A"grazing effect" diminishes noise levels at or near the edges of`line-of-sight' and the full energy impact of noise is more toward the center of the `line-of-sight' which is upwards and away from habitable spaces. The noise barrier calculation(described in a figure later in this report) reveals that stationary equipment noise levels at the property line of the residential receptor are less than-50 dBA with a noise barrier in place. This is below the ambient LDN level of 52 dBA at the property line. Noise levels above the"noise shadow"are expected to be less than ambient levels. Recommended Noise Mitigation In order to remain within the average allowable stationary noise level of Hourly Leq=50 dBA at the residential property line,a noise barrier wall is recommended A continuous noise barrier wall shall be constructed of concrete or grouted masonry and shall extend to the top edge of the exit opening from the proposed carwash tunnel,approximately seven feet above finished floor level, so as to intercept noise emanating from the carwash dryer toward residential receptors. The layout of the noise barrier wall is shown in accompanying figures. The noise barrier wall follows a curved path north of-and adjacent to-the exit path followed by cars leaving the carwash tunnel. The noise barrier wall shall be attached to the carwash tunnel construction and either gasketed or caulked so that no air shall leak through or between the noise barrier wall and the car wash tunnel noise analysis,page 4 Attachment q X4omm=LDN=51 dBA _7;;LDN=52 dBA --1--- ( °o ° i (� W I W `\ z my °1 N IO 1 OJS'A91 OY1PImlf _.. ..T. i Z WX OWRA41 GL%= I 0 • ;i. J� I �^ 1 ( i y I I 1 Jf� I��\ IV�LiI IWKJ i • Ijr 1 1 I 1 ( o ( I I I ( I I I t �r jr s 1 { O ( O 1 ) ( ^1 MONTEREY STREET r � Site Plan MONTEREY STREET UNOCAL — CARWASH ADDITION N 0 R 7 H 1308 MONTEREY STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401 Figure 1. Plan of site showing locations of measured/calculated LDN(Day Night Noise Level). noise analysis,page 5 Alachne 1 d' ':'p:•.•.•.•.'.•. � o o rte•`-� Attenuat r's ``"'`. �` ( J •� OC 00 - :' :;':': CARWASH EQUIPM ---___-- :) : : - Noise Barrier Wall • . •.• . .' --- C -- '•'Y• EXI8TI"HIER _ l I r ti FO-1 FO 1 r t� Figure 2. Plan showing Noise Barrier Wall in Place,with relative noise distribution. Noise toward the north and west residential receptors is attenuated. noise analysis, page 6 �� 4 1 — — — Attachment 9 O Q w CU CU U o 4-0 9 CU i •• Noise Barrier Wall � ••• W •• i it b • I V'+^+ J • 1 N n � p�; R N _Z G r- p Ilull '�lJy' 0 Figure 3 Noise Wall Section;noise impact at property line noise analysis,page 7 -4 - Attachment ( 10� O O 0 0 1pO 1� o 0 0 > 00 r V` � ■ b ( /J o ■ proposed noise -barrier wall O ■ p ■ solid wall 1R CARM M dL souniit►11► I►Ilii►►Lpltlt►f ( o ° ■ 4 111►11►IL►It1Up11p1 ° ILIII►► ) 1 � r reflected solin dJ f • c o '� r - ■ I SpJ�a 1 ° o dice°� I Y r I lu ° I r a 1 ■ I 1 ) I j ' ■ 1 : I poteotiial `ampbitheat6r effect' sound path %distance study e ■ ■ s ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ s ■ Figure 4. Analysis of potential reflections and potential amphitheater effect. noise analysis, page 8 _ � +rai i 1 . Ar. �� a ..c. • j • + L% � /'a!•, LIS ,.I�f/!1 _),I Ss+ t� k!ir•,m� � .• 1 • ta,/'} •_� rir iI�}� if. r \,Lyr `tfit r t 7Y f rf Pa J! _ S :rrtiI, J . r ;JAI ltf. ,��.J-Jf i �r� ♦ f�+i}`,�; 4r r .� + 7 e 9T r� a • • F y > r♦ + .i t 1 �r , }F•'1+�?1- +f`� sig[ �. } y , tt 7,}E- t t , • r �7�1. i r . I t, . j + l i • r 1 t 1 1 1 e a )�Y � I) 3i " + +� �t k� � • 1((.4', �• k 1i4+,ii � J: • \ / y JatYf '�. '�� '�'t hy�. �..I• r� a•.1'"_frt f`h?� .• • er- %1 �� rtr •fi;�l `z'.',qq: r' " '�' i$F,'s-�I � 6 _i '•'! 1 • :Jrf.\ I Fiti ` ,'• 1"° i 4 `C'r .1 .J ry nt � �' • .a — fi r� j It i1 4 � r I J ! r•. l[�:� \�,' f.-t I +�fr�t�IS p �f f SI 7�,.1 � : a-, 1- i.A • . L +. yt � f l�l i h' J � � f.f 1�� 1. f .x.': 1. °�T••. 1+ ' ( •'S tti ��li`�� ��"il R� r d - a r t a Jll••G 1 • X ' t`t far`r ,� {+f��`;• f �_ � is 1 f,�.+_ � • • J J r + - � '' + ,ti ar�' kMJ� �3���G:[•.'a csi ai I �' �� 1 ` + cY ,Ix y�\ j�r11 'IYf>< tti � • 1 >` +_ 1 ' C� 7' C ' '� j}FrMls t t (' $` - .,s.0 }�ffi � _ • •I 1 �J r ��`'t l ��� Y t � 1. •� �'t r'E*}I! e- l+.a [? .?` I (�F ,a f J�r{ u-..y! t�.' ��t �� � 1 • • 1 1 • t� �•� � t�1.1 �^L , ,� t {jjj����-� i�. • 'I'P 4,w � + t7 ' T � 1 ` _ pp t t ) � 1 t .• 11111) ! f Ir 4 I 7 I �.'+: .ham f { ` � 1 \ • r , i r i r� • I Attachment Ct CNEL / L DN Calculation David Lad,Acoustics Consulting 299 Albert Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Monterey Street Unocal 1308 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 11/5/2003 through 11/15/2003 [facing south, wind < 5 m.p.h.] Measurements: Measured DAY SPL: 51.0 dBA Measured DAY SPL: 49.0 dBA Measured DAY SPL: 47.0 dBA Measured DAY SPL: 48.0 dBA Measured DAY/EVE.SPL: 47.0 dBA Measured NIGHT SPL: 45.0 dBA Measured NIGHT SPL: 40.0 dBA Measured NIGHT SPL: 47.0 dBA Lm Day/Night Level Calculation: Average 24hr SPL: 46.8 dBA LEQ 24 brs: 47.6 dBA Average Day SPL: 48.4 dBA LEQ Day: 48.7 dBA Average Night SPL: 44.0 dBA LEQ Night: 44.9 dBA LDN: 52.1 dBA CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level Calculation: Average 24hr SPL: 46.8 dBA LEQ 24 hrs`. 47.6 dBA Average Day SPL: 48.8 dBA LEQ Day: 49.0 dBA Average Eve SPL: 47.0 dBA LEQ Eve: 47.0 dBA Average Night SPL: 44.0 dBA LEQ Night: 449 dBA C.N.E.L.: 52.4 dBA Figure 7. Sample Day Night Noise Level Calculation. noise analysis,page 11 ' AttachmentNoise Q Barrier Calculation s David Lord,Acoustics and Noise Consulting 299 Albert Dr. Sen Luis Obispo,CA 93405 11/1&700 12.55 (805)s49�046 dimension 2.1 in above grade hr,_ 1�:1 Z m,effeoive height A I feet B d1= Y2m h= source d2= ��12�:-m dl. d2 recover A= 2.3 m if source is 10 SBA h. 40.2%A received B- 12.1 m %%///%%%////%%%%%%%% %%%%�%------ hr= . m note:battier must have surface mass density>20 k8/mZ dl + d2 = 14 m Total Barrier ht.= 2.1 in (hl+h2) [A+B.d m 0344 m] total distance = 14.0 in [A+B= 143 m) I ZY TeCT - - cr«piency=MHz x Hz A sourcel Noise Reduction 9.9 dBA 84.0 dBA 50.1 dBA received (enter"1"or"2"below) T Noise.Source: 3<line source Sound Level under free-field conditions,absorptive ground,without barrier Temperature: ' 5 aC note: berms produce about 3 dB more attenuation than walls of the same height. The above relationship applies if the barrier is perpendicular to a line between the source and observer. Reference: Wilson,Miles E Koise Control,Mwsvrcment,Andyis,and Control of Sound and Vibration. Harper and Row,New YmL 1989. p.77-84. formulas Nval 1.0 NR 13 hLE.ea a 13se,1397 13 speed of sound in air 340.2 m/s sg2pN 2.522 Copyright®2000 David bard. Figure 8. Calculation of Noise Barrier performance. [not to scale] noise analysis,page 12 Attachment Appendix: dBA: A-weighted sound level. The ear does not respond equally to all frequencies,but is less sensitive at low and high frequencies than it is at medium or speech range frequencies. Thus,to obtain a single number representing the sound level of a noise containing a wide range of frequencies in a manner representative of the eaes response, it is necessary to reduce the effects of the low and high frequencies with respect to the medium frequencies. The resultant sound level is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dBA. The A-weighted sound level is also called the noise level. LDrr Day-night sound level. Equivalent sound level computed from A-weighted sound levels measured over a 24-hour period,with a 10 dBA penalty for sound contributions between 10 p.m. and 7 am. L,y The energy average sound level. Averaging time,commonly 1 hour, is indicated. L. The maximum loudness of any series of noise events. 1,50 The sound level exceeded 50%of the time. Corresponds to the median average level of noise in a particular setting,over time. Precision of Sound Level Meters. The American National Standards Institute(ANSI) specifies several types of sound level meters according to their precision. Types 1,2,and 3 are referred to as "precision," "general-purpose," and"survey" meters,respectively. Most measurements carefully taken with a type 1 sound level meter will have an error not exceeding 1 dB. The corresponding error for a type 2 sound level meter is about 2 dB.The sound level meter used for measurements shown.in this report is a Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 820. This meter meets all requirements of ANSI s 1.4,IEC 651 for Type 1 accuracy and includes the following features: 110 dB dynamic range for error free measurements. Measures FAST,SLOW,Unweighted PEAK,Weighted PEAK,Impulse,Lq, LDOD,LOSHA,Dose,Time Weighted Average, SEL,Lmax,Lmin,LDN. Time history sampling periods from 32 samples per second up to one sample every 255 seconds. Calibration of the meter is made before and after all field measurements with both an internal and external calibrator. Laboratory calibration of the meter is performed biannually and can be traced to the U.S.MST standard. noise analysis,page 13 Attachment 10 . RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH AT 1308 MONTEREY STREET AP-PC- 131-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 17, 2003 pursuant to the appeals received on November 25`h and upheld the Hearing officers determination, approving a use permit to allow the car wash subject to findings and conditions; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's determination to approve the use permit was received on January 22, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties and appellants, and evaluation and recommendations by staff an the Planning Commission; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findin s. 1. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions, complies with property development standards for the Commercial Retail zone since the project meets setback, height, lot coverage and parking standards. 2. The proposed car wash building at this location on the site will not impact site distance, site circulation, nor will it impede views to or from the site since it is at the rear of the site behind existing improvements on the property. 3. New landscape including additional tree plantings on the property will help to reduce any visual impacts of the new construction as it relates to adjacent residential properties. 4. The establishment of a new car wash, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. 5. Sound reducing equipment for the car wash, design elements of the new building and the site, including a 7 foot tall sound wall on the site, will reduce the noise output of the car wash to levels that are at or below the level of ambient noise currently measured at the nearest residential property line adjacent to the site. 6. The hours of operation of the car wash will allow the use to operate at noise levels that are below the requirements set by the City's Noise Ordinance therefore minimizing and potentially eliminating interference with nearby residential activities. 1j Attachment ,c Resolution No.XXXX(2004 series) Page 2 7. The new car wash will not interfere with regular vehicular access or fuel delivery truck access at the site since, as conditioned, vehicles and fuel delivery trucks will still be able to enter and exit the site without backing onto Monterey Street or Johnson Avenue. 8. The design of the car wash will be consistent or complementary to existing structures on the site and will be reviewed for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines by the Architectural Review Commission. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission determination and approves the use permit to allow the car wash subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval shall allow the proposed construction of a single bay, automated carwash to be located at the rear (north of existing attendant booth) of the site at 1308 Monterey Street, regardless of owner. 2. The car wash design and associated site improvements shall be subject to approval of architectural review and a construction permit. 3. The car wash mechanical dryer unit shall be fitted with the appropriate noise reduction package as supplied by the manufacturer. 4. The car wash shall be designed so as not to exceed a noise level of 50 decibels, as measured from the property line at the nearest residential property, when the mechanical wash unit or dryer unit is in operation. This shall be achieved through building orientation and a solid masonry wall as recommended by the noise analysis prepared by David Lord submitted to the City on November 19, 2003. The design of the wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 5. A strip drain shall be added to the exit driveway of the car wash to allow excess water to be appropriately drained from vehicles leaving the car wash. The location and design of the strip drain shall be provided on plans for review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 6. The site shall be designed so as to allow fuel delivery trucks to enter and exit the site without backing onto Monterey Street or Johnson Avenue. Evidence of the ability to allow adequate site circulation shall be submitted to the Architectural Review Commission with the proposed design plans. 7. The car wash and associated mechanical equipment shall not be operated or tested between 7 PM and 8 AM. 8. If, at any time in the future, operation of the carwash results in noise levels that exceed 50 decibels as measured from the nearest residential property line and the excessive noise results in complaints from the residential neighborhood, the use shall be discontinued until the noise can be brought into compliance with the conditions listed herein. �y Resolution No.XXXX (2004'avries) Attachment ip Page 3 9. The project shall provide 5 vehicle parking spaces and 4 bicycle parking spaces consistent with the architectural plans. 10. All proposed new exterior lighting shall be shown on the building plan check submittal and shall include all pertinent specifications. Fixtures shall be selected to coordinate with existing exterior lighting and be properly shielded to avoid off-site glare. 11. Applicant shall provide parking for bicycles in the amount and type required by City Zoning Regulations and at locations consistent with standards of the Bicycle Transportation Plan. All required bicycle facilities shall be shown on project plans. Code Requirements: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Works 1. If applicable, show the location of the fire service lateral, double-check assembly, fire department connection (FDC) on the site plan if a fire sprinkler upgrade is required. Show the location of the fire riser room on the interior of the building and confirm that an external riser is not allowed in accordance with the Planning Division architectural guidelines. 2. The existing curb, gutter & sidewalk and driveway approaches shall be repaired or replaced if damaged, offset, or are otherwise not in compliance with city standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The northerly approach along Johnson Ave. shall be abandoned and replaced with curb, gutter & sidewalk per city standards. The southerly approach along Johnson Ave. shall be replaced because of the cracked and damaged concrete, lack of gutter pan and subsequent damage to the street paving. 4. This project is located within the Mission Style Sidewalk District. The district extends along the Monterey Street frontage. Any curb and gutter, sidewalk, street tree wells, and driveway ramp installations and/or replacements shall be done in accordance with the City's Engineering Standard Details and Standard Specifications for Type 21 Mission Style sidewalk. 5. Any new or existing driveway approach shall be replaced or upgraded to the current city and ADA standard. The current standard includes a 4' wide accessible sidewalk extension behind the driveway ramp. 6. An encroachment permit will be required for any work or construction staging in the public right-of-way. Attachment (O Resolution No.XXXX(2004 Qaries) Page 4 7. A traffic control and/or pedestrian protection plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to encroachment permit issuance. 8. The building plans shall delineate the extent of the B flood zone. The plans shall show that the new building and any related building service equipment is locate outside of the B zone or is elevated a minimum of F above adjacent grade or is floodproofed if applicable. Utilities 9. A water allocation may be required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first- served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued. 10. If a larger water meter is required, Water and Wastewater Impact Fees will be charged, based on the increase in size. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter(s) serving the development with appropriate credit given for prior accounts on the property. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.. 11. Industrial waste/wastewater pretreatment requirements will apply. The project shall be coordinated with the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator for specific requirements. 12. Section 13.08.130B of the Municipal Code states that no polluted water may be discharged to a drainage system that flows to any creek or to the City storm drain system. The proposed car wash shall be designed so as to prevent any spills, contaminants, or wash water from flowing out to the gutter or storm drain. 13. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over$50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 14. The project presents an opportunity for the applicant to address possible defects to their sewer lateral. It is strongly recommended that the sewer lateral be video inspected and any needed repairs or replacement be performed as part of the overall project. The Wastewater Collections section of the City Utilities Department can assist in reviewing the video, evaluating the condition of the lateral, and making recommendations for repair or replacement. Transportation 15. Delivery vehicles shall enter and exit the property in a forward motion and at no time back up over the public sidewalk. An exhibit illustrating how this will be accomplished shall be submitted for review and approval with the project's building permit application. �- (PO Resolution No.XXXX (2004 zaries) Attachment 10 Page 5 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2004. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lowell City Attorney S- til Attachment J RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL,THEREBY, DENYING A USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH AT 1308 MONTEREY STREET AP-PC- 131-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 17, 2003 pursuant to the appeals received on November 250' and upheld the hearing officers determination, approving a use permit to allow the car wash subject to findings and conditions; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's determination to approve the use permit was received on January 22, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties and appellants, and evaluation and recommendations by staff an the Planning Commission; and NOW, THEREFORE,.BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The establishment of a new car wash will be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. 2. The car wash is not consistent with City General Plan policies, specifically LU 2.2.2, LU 2.1.3, and LU 2.2.4 since the development of this commercial property with a car wash adjacent to sensitive residential uses since the car wash will introduce additional noise and traffic to the site. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby denies the use permit to allow the car wash. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No.XXXX(2004. ries) Attachment Page 2 The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2004. David F. Romero,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona6AalZweU City Attorney CYDNEY HOLCOMB ,- BOS S34 0365 02/17/04 03:10pm P. 001 i RECEIVED FEB 17 2004 Aft Q SL CITY CL Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 DATE: February 16, 2004 FAXED TO: 781-7109 TO: San Luis Obispo City Council RE: Meeting Date: 2-17-04 Item # PH-5: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CAR WASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT 1308 MONTEREY STREET. (AP 131-03) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, RQN supports upholding the appeal filed by Steve Mann and Betty Aten, who represent their entire neighborhood In the above-entitled matter. At issue is a proposal to add a 1,226 square foot "mechanical" car wash on the site of an existing gas station within a C-R zone that is immediately adjacent to a medium-high density residential zone with a historical overlay (R-3-H). The appellants in their letter dated February 9, 2004 argue that the proposed car wash Is not compatible with their surrounding residential neighborhood. And, further that noise and traffic levels associated with the car wash will have a negative and deleterious effect on the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. We concur. In an analysis of Noise Element Policy 1.1.4 at page 5.35 of your agenda report, staff makes the following statement: This General Plan policy describes that although the proJect has structural features that will reduce the noise impacts, the_ proposed site of the car wash should be. the primary rnnsideratian when analyzing the compatibility between this use and existing residential". [Emphasis added.] In this instance, the proposed car wash site will be 45' from the nearest home. We are unaware of any other mechanized car wash installation in the City that is so dose to an existing residential neighborhood. In fact, a review of MC 17.21 Table 9, Uses Allowed by Zone, reveals that prior to May 2003 when the Commercial Zoning Regulations were revised, a "mechanical" car wash would not have been allowed in the C-R zone. (See: Attachment A). Although no distinction between "mechanical" and non-mechanical car washes is made in the zoning regulations we assume the difference is related to the fact that the "mechanical" we of car wash generates"noise". --- JINCIL = CDD DIR RED FILE ;-;ICAO 2 FIN DIR �ACAO AFIRE CHIEF M ING AGENDA aATTORNEY DPW DIR DATE ITEM CLERKIORIG y POLICE CHF 1 ❑ DEPTFADS �REC DIR 1 if r'LV)i tib -aUTILDIR CYDNEY HOLCOMB,--- SOS S34 m3SS 02/17/04 03:10pm P. 002 February 16, 2004 1308 Monterey Street Page 2 Noise is an environmental issue. Noise causes stress and stress is a leading cause of illness. And, noise volume is only one component of Its effect on humans. Other factors to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound and whether the listener has any control over it. It should be noted that the decibel scale is logarithmic and an increase of just 3dB means twice as much sound. The HUD Annual Housing Survey (1975, 1976) indicates that noise is the most frequently cited undesirable neighborhood condition, surprisingly ranking higher than crime. Noise is often given as the reason for residents wantino to move from their neiahborhoods The "Noise Evaluation and Mitigation Recommendations" document provided by the applicant's consultant is not an "independent study". It does not indicate whether there may be other noises associated with the use of a mechanical car wash and it does not suggest that there may be other alternatives for controlling the noise that will be generated by the car wash. In fact, it fails to mention the most obvious alternative which would be to remove the source of the sound altogether. It is not clear to us whether the mitigation measures suggested will actually allow the car wash to operate at noise levels that are below the requirements set by the City's Noise Ordinance (5odB). This places the burden on the neighborhood to monitor the noise and initiate the required action for non-compliance. This is not the way the City should be handling these issues. In summation, we support the comments made by staff in the Conclusion of your agenda report at Page 5-5, and we feel that they bear repeating: The project's location adjacent to a residential neighborhood requires spedal review and care to ensure that the commercial venture will not negatively effect resident's enjoyment of their homes. It is therefore important that the City Council consider the testimony of the appellants in determining whether a car wash is an appropriate use for this particular site. Respectfully submitted, 61 Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN Attachment c: Steve Mann & Betty Aten CYDNEY HOLCOMB,--- 905 SS4 03SS 02/17/04 03:10pm P. 003 •- `1 r V to m to � �oa yc id EP_ 9° O � �. O• oe � �K,• �• .�+ � �' QO � O �.� S � 7' C 1�9 � n G'T C rA 3 m g ya mW p � {A m u� b b a a v f%I a A fes] e g c' PO N a 6' 6 w H H A � b so gPC = �. a v � o o � n � Cr U V f �• Oo in (�j FSI w v a � a a G o � e b Q� N h A v v n O n A a v a v v n O v n a a v a v v a a v v v V v a a a a a a a a v v 3 Attachment A Barbara Ehrbar-tjonterey St. Car Wast Page 1 RECEIVED FEB 17 2004 From: "Jennifer" <jennifer070@earthlink.net> To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> SLC `!TY CLERK Date: 2/17104 1:49PM Subject: Monterey St. Car Wash Jennifer Robinson 1. ----� Feb 14,2004 PO Box 15046 !��OUtdCI� N Din �„AO AFIRE CHIEF ACAO F;-::W DIR San Luis Obispo, CA TTORhEY C❑ LERKIORIG L IzOUCECHF 93406 DE T HEADS ,rREC DIR i 1a'lJT1L DIR ✓� 1I_l� DIR805 787-0895 - - City Council San Luis Obispo, CA RED FILE ME rING AGENDA RE: Proposed Car Wash at 1308 Monterey St. DATE i"I ITEM Dear City Council Members, My name is Jennifer Robinson and I am a member of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods. I just heard about the proposed car wash at 1308 Monterey St., and I would like to speak up on behalf of the residents who are opposed to it. I feel that the noise that will most likely be generated from the proposed use is not at all compatible with a residential neighborhood. I am not an expert on car washes, however I am someone who currently lives downtown in a mixed business and residential neighborhood, and I am very familiar with noise issues. I have been dealing with two major noise problems for the past two years-a very noisy nightclub (SLO Brew), and transient vehicles with extremely noisy car stereos and/or extremely loud unmufflered exhaust systems. I read the Council Agenda Report regarding the car wash, and it seemed to only take into account the expected noise of the car wash itself.The report did not address the fact that having a car wash in addition to a gas station will no doubt increase the overall amount of traffic at the location, and the length of time that vehicles will be spending there.This issue alone of having more vehicles in the area for a longer period of time makes a car wash incompatible with a residential neighborhood because of the noise levels that are generated from vehicles these days. We have many thousands of young male drivers in San Luis, and the latest trend among a lot of them is to °compete on the street"with their loud car stereos that have extremely loud booming bass blasting out of j Barbara Ehrbar- Monterey St. Car Wasl- Page 2 their speakers. Having excessive amounts of this sort of noise in a residential neighborhood, and trying to deal with it effectively, is a nightmare. I'm sure with the gas station at this location,the neighborhood already gets its fair share of vehicle noise. Allowing a car wash to be there as well would be just asking for more, and would be adversarial to the needs of the residents in the neighborhood who have a right to peace and quiet. My experience with dealing with noise issues in San Luis Obispo is this: most of the time the burden for educating oneself and others about noise information and laws, and monitoring noise levels and proving that they are violating the law,falls upon the residents who have an issue with the noise: I personally have had to obtain a noise meter, go out of my way to use it on a number of occasions, and then provide the results to the police department. Despite all this initiative that I have taken, and despite consistent violations being factually proven,the illegal noise at the nightclub persists almost a year later. In addition, the regular weekly number of noise violations from vehicles in the area nearby to where I am has at least doubled since I moved here two years ago, if not more so. As a result of these issues still not being resolved, I have decided to leave my home and garden that I love in order to move to a quieter area. I have invested an enormous amount of time and energy into where I currently live to improve the building and the landscaping, and it breaks my heart to leave. However,the price of not having peace is just too high. Living with constant excessive noise is very stressful, and unhealthy in every way-emotionally, mentally and physically. In order to be fair, I would like to say that I have dealt with officers who are sympathetic to noise issues, say they want to help, and at times have done so. However, it.is clear after two years of dealing with noise problems that continue to go unresolved, (some of which have gotten worse), that the city and/or SLO PD on the whole are not willing and/or not able to consistently enforce the noise laws at this time. I have been told that they are doing the best they can, however, this unfortunately appears not to be adequate, as overall the noise problems in downtown San Luis Obispo are continuing to get worse. I hope in the future that some way can be found to improve the situation, but in the meantime, what can be done is to not open the door to any more potentially noisy situations that might require consistent police monitoring and enforcement. The best possible way for the city to be considerate of the residents near this proposed car wash in regards to noise, is just to not allow it to be there in the first place.Noise-wise, it is just a problem waiting to happen. If I were considering moving to this area and found out that it had a car wash nearby, I would chose not to live there. I am speaking up on behalf of the Monterey St. area residents, because I don't want them to have to go through anything like I have, and I especially don't want any of them to have to move because of noise issues-especially noise from a car wash that could have been avoided by not being allowed to be there in the first place,which would be the appropriate thing to do. In order for the city to be considerate to the Monterey St. area residents, and not risk them having to deal with serious noise issues, I feel strongly that the proposed car wash should be located in a non-residential area, instead of in its current proposed location. Barbara Ehrbar- Monterey St. Car Wash Page 3 Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Jennifer Robinson council m e m o na n o u m DATE: October 6, 2003 FRECEIED TO: City Council 2004 VIA: Ken Hampian, CAOLERK FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direcl?w BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing item 5: AP-PC 131-03 Appeal of Planning Commission action for 1308 Monterey Street (Car wash). Please note Attachment 6 of the staff report (Planning Commission Resolution upholding the Hearing Officer's determination) is missing 2 pages as a result of a copying error. A complete copy of the resolution is attached for reference. The City Council resolution recommending upholding the Planning Commission determination contains an identical set of findings and conditions and is correct as Attachment 10 in the City Council staff report. LnNkoCOUNCIL !DD DIR i CAO FIN DIR ACAO if, FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY DPW DIR t DL-RK/ORIG Er POLICE CHF GOT HEADS E!rREC DIR P,— � HR DIR/H R i' ' RED FILE — ME INO AGENDA DATE ITEM # Council Memo red file t RESOLUTION NO.5381-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION UPHOLDING THE HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH AT 1308 MONTEREY STREET AP-PC 131-03 WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 21, 2003 and approved a Use Permit to allow a car wash at 1308 Monterey Street subject to findings and condition; and WHEREAS, two official applications appealing the Hearing Officers determination were received on November 25, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 17, 2003 pursuant to the appeals received on November 25`s; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested . parties and appellants, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions, complies with property development standards for the Commercial Retail zone since the project meets setback, height, lot coverage and parking standards. 2. The proposed car wash building at this location on the site will not impact site distance, site circulation, nor will it impede views to or from the site since it is at the rear of the site behind existing improvements on the property. 3. New landscape including additional tree plantings on the property will help to reduce any visual impacts of the new construction as it relates to adjacent residential properties. 4. The establishment of a new car wash, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. 5. Sound reducing equipment for the car wash, design elements of the new building and the site, including a 7 foot tall sound wall on the site, will reduce the noise output of the car wash to levels that are at or below the level of ambient noise currently measured at the nearest residential property line adjacent to the site. 6. The hours of operation of the car wash will allow the use to operate at noise levels that are � l Resolution No.5381-04 Page 2 below the requirements set by the City's Noise Ordinance, therefore minimizing and potentially eliminating interference with nearby residential activities. 7. The new car wash will not interfere with regular vehicular access or fuel delivery truck access at the site since, as conditioned, vehicles and fuel delivery trucks will still be able to enter and exit the site without backing onto Monterey Street or Johnson Avenue. 8. The design of the car wash will be consistent or complementary to existing structures on the site and will be reviewed for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines by the Architectural Review Commission. SECTION 2. Action. The Commission hereby upholds the Hearing Officers determination and approves the Use Pbrmit to allow the car wash subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. This approval shall allow the proposed construction of a single bay, automated carwash to be located at the rear(north of existing attendant booth) of the site at 1308 Monterey Street, regardless of owner. 2. The car wash design and associated site improvements shall be subject to approval of architectural review and a construction permit. 3. The car wash mechanical dryer unit shall be fitted with the appropriate noise reduction package as supplied by the manufacturer. 4. The car wash shall be designed so as not to exceed a noise level of 50 decibels, as measured from the property line at the nearest residential property, when the mechanical wash unit or dryer unit is in operation. This shall be achieved through building orientation and a solid masonry wall as recommended by the noise analysis prepared by David.Lord submitted to the City on November 19, 2003. The design of the wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 5. A strip drain shall be added to the exit driveway of the car wash to allow excess water to be appropriately drained from vehicles leaving the car wash. The location and design of the strip drain shall be provided on plans for review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 6. The site shall be designed so as to allow fuel delivery trucks to enter and exit the site without backing onto Monterey Street or Johnson Avenue. Evidence of the ability to allow adequate site circulation shall be submitted to the Architectural Review Commission with the proposed design plans. 7. The car wash and associated mechanical equipment shall not be operated or tested between'] PM and 6 AM. Resolution No.5381-04 Page 3 8. If, at any time in the future, operation of the carwash results in noise levels that exceed 50 decibels as measured from the nearest residential property line and the excessive noise results in complaints from the residential neighborhood, the use shall be discontinued until the noise can be brought into compliance with the conditions listed herein. 9. The project shall provide 5 vehicle parking spaces and 4 bicycle parking spaces consistent with the architectural plans. 10. All proposed new exterior lighting shall be shown on the building plan check submittal and shall include all pertinent specifications. Fixtures shall be selected to coordinate with existing exterior lighting and be properly shielded to avoid off-site glare. 11. Applicant shall provide parking for bicycles in the amount and type required by City Zoning Regulations and at locations consistent with standards of the Bicycle Transportation Plan. All required bicycle facilities shall be shown on project plans. Code Requirements: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Works 1. If applicable, show the location of the fire service lateral, double-check assembly, fire department connection (FDC) on the site plan if a fire sprinkler upgrade is required. Show the location of the fire riser room on the interior of the building and confirm that an external riser is not allowed in accordance with the Planning Division architectural guidelines. 2. The existing curb, gutter&sidewalk and driveway approaches shall be repaired or replaced if damaged, offset, or are otherwise not in compliance with city standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The northerly approach along Johnson Ave. shall be abandoned and replaced with curb, gutter & sidewalk per city standards. The southerly approach along Johnson Ave. shall be replaced because of the cracked and damaged concrete, lack of gutter pan and subsequent damage to the street paving. 4. This project is located within the Mission Style Sidewalk District. The district extends along the Monterey Street frontage. Any curb and gutter, sidewalk, street tree wells, and driveway ramp installations and/or replacements shall be done in accordance with the City's Engineering Standard Details and Standard Specifications for Type 2, Mission Style sidewalk. Resolution No.5381-04•_ Page 4 5. Any new or existing driveway approach shall be replaced or upgraded to the current city and ADA standard. The current standard includes a 4' wide accessible sidewalk extension behind the driveway ramp. 6. An encroachment permit will be required for any work or construction staging in the public right-of-way. 7. A traffic control and/or pedestrian protection plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to encroachment permit issuance. 8. The building plans shall delineate the extent of the B flood zone. The plans shall show that the new building and any related building service equipment is locate outside of the B zone or is elevated a minimum of 1' above adjacent grade or is floodproofed if applicable. Utilities Ac 1. A water allocation may be required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued. 2. If a larger water meter is required,Water and Wastewater Impact Fees will be charged,based on the increase in size. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter(s) serving the development with appropriate credit given for prior accounts on the property. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 3. Industrial waste/wastewater pretreatment requirements will apply. The project shall be coordinated with the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator for specific requirements. 4. Section 13.08.130B of the Municipal Code states that no polluted water may be discharged to a drainage system that flows to any creek or to the City storm drain system. The proposed car wash shall be designed so as to prevent any spills,contaminants,or wash water from flowing out to the gutter or storm drain. 5. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over$50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 6. The project presents an opportunity for the applicant to address possible defects to their sewer lateral. It is strongly recommended that the sewer lateral be video inspected and any needed repairs or replacement be performed as part of the overall project. The Wastewater Collections section of the City Utilities Department can assist in reviewing the video, evaluating the condition of the lateral, and making recommendations for repair or replacement. Resolution No.5381-04 Page 5 Transportation 1. Delivery vehicles shall enter and exit the property in a forward motion and at no time back up over the public sidewalk. An exhibit illustrating how this will be accomplished shall be submitted for review and approval with the project's building permit application. On motion by Commissioner Caruso, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Caruso, Christianson and Chairperson Osborne NOES: Commrs. Loh, Boswell REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of January 2004. ozz , onal -senand, Secretary Planning Commission Barbara Ehrbar- Page 1 From: Henry Santos<henry@sitesantos.com> To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Um Date: 2117/04 10:10AMCity Council Members and Staff:I am against the proposed mechanized car wash at the comer of Palm Street and Johnson Avenue. I live just up the street at 1259 Palm Street. Please consider the well-being of my community-and we truly are a community in need of your help. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Henry Santos _i COUNCIL , CDD DIP CAO g-FIN DIP ACA0 ZFIRE CHIEF eATTORNEY 2!�PW DIP RED FILE Z'CLERK/ORIG �2'P0LICE CHF DEPT HEADS_ ZREC DIP MEETING AGENDA _(3 SHR DIR DAT�ITEM # Barbara Ehrbar-Car Wash @ 1308 Mor- -4y Street Page 1 11 RECEIVED From: "Jen Santos" <jen @ earthscapes.biz> FEB 17 2004 To: <slocitycouncil @ slocity.org> Date: 2/17/04 8:58AM SLO CITY CLERK Subject: Car Wash @ 1308 Monterey Street Hello City Council members, I'm writing to you today urging you to deny this drive through car wash at 1308 Monterey. I also ask that you visit the site and see it for yourself...try to understand how it will negatively impact the adjacent neighborhood.The General Plan clearly protects the neighborhood above this car wash, but I, as well as all of my neighbors feel that the general plan has been ignored in previous proceedings. Please vote to protect the residential community tonight.Thank you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Jennifer Santos, neighborhood residence since the early nineties 1259 Palm Street, Apt'A' SLO, CA 93401 (805)544-6502 jen@sitesantos.com ,2!, COUNCI- J_ CDD DIR i ,Z-CAO ZEIN DIR �ACAO AFIRE CHIEF rATTORNEY F FW DIR CLERK/ORIG Z-POLICE CHF DEP EADS T REC DIR ly ;w UTIL DIR -- r R DIR RED FILE M ING AGENDA DAT MTEM # � RED Fl� Fe-COUNCIL —'CDD DIR MEETING AGENDA 1 ACA FIN C FH8 ED La ACAO .@ FIRE CHIEF DATE, ITEM #-2115 i-n ATTORNEY DPW DIR 2oo., CLERK/ORIGGPOLICE CHFTO: The City Council ❑ DEPT HEADS C AEC DIRFROM: Steve Mann and Betty Aten, Appella; B-UTIL DIR LERK SHR DIR Date: February 9, 2004 RE: Proposed Car Wash at 1308 Monterey Street We are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission allowing an automated car wash to be added to the existing gas station at 1308 Monterey Street. We believe there are serious issues regarding noise, public health and safety, and neighborhood compatibility. Although only our two names appear as official appellants, we represent the views of many of our neighbors who have asked us to be their spokespersons. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views in writing prior to the appeal meeting. NOISE Noise Study The applicant has commissioned a study to support his assertion that the car wash noise levels will never exceed 50 dBA, the current site ambient noise level.This is an operating condition prescribed by the Architectural Review Committee. We believe the study has several flaws. 1) The noise calculation is faulty. The noise calculation, shown in ATTACHMENT 1, shows the noise level at the car wash exit as 84 dBA. However, ATTACHMENT 3, taken from the applicant's original ARC application, shows a noise level of 84 dBA 10 feet from the car wash exit A 10 foot discrepancy can make a big difference when the nearest residential property line is only 45 feet away. In fact, we recently took noise measurements at the exit to the Madonna Shell car wash. The noise at the exit was over 90 dBA, another indication that the attenuation calculation in the noise study is using wrong assumptions. 2) The sound wall will not mitigate the noise as described. The applicant is proposing to build a seven foot wall to attenuate the noise generated by the blower at the car wash exit. The calculations supporting the attenuation (ATTACHMENT 1) show the noise source, the drying blower, at or below seven feet. There are many times, however, when the blower is above seven feet. The drying blower is mounted on the car wash ceiling, which is higher than seven feet. It drops down as a vehicle nears the exit and follows the profile of the vehicle (ATTACHMENT 2), then retracts back up to the ceiling when the vehicle exits. Part of the blower is always above the proposed seven-foot wall.As it drops down, and retracts back up, all of the blower is above the sound wall.Also, if a vehicle is taller than about six feet, most of the blower is always above the wall. When the dryer is higher than seven feet, the only thing blocking the noise is the exit sign. The unattenuated noise will shoot straight out of the car wash and up the hill to the north and across the street to the west where there are multi-unit residential properties in both directions. 3) The noise study addresses only exit noise. Other noise sources are not considered. ATTACHMENT 3 shows noise output of 83 dB 10 feet outside the car wash entrance. This is only one dB less than the exit noise level. Both are the same distance from the closest residential property line. There is no noise attenuation proposed for the entrance. There is also a vacuuming station on site. It has not been factored into the noise calculations. Our sound measurements at the Madonna Shell car wash registered more than 100 dBA for the vacuum. This is louder than the car wash itself. Finally, the combination of simultaneous noise sources: entrance, exit, vacuum, and an idling queue of vehicles will certainly exceed the maximum allowable 50 dBA limit. This has not been addressed. Staff Findings Even though City Planning staff have added several conditions designed to ensure compliance with the the ARC's noise level condition, there are problems with two of these conditions. 1) Staff condition #4 restrictively interprets the ARC's noise limiting condition. Condition #4 states that the "car wash shall be designed so as not to exceed a noise level of 50 dB, as measured from the property line, at the nearest residential property line, when the mechanical wash unit or drying unit is in operation." The ARC didn't put any limitations on its noise requirement by defining what equipment is covered by the condition. The Commission said that the noise created by the facility, not just certain parts of the facility, should never exceed the current ambient noise level at the site. There is a discrepancy between staff condition and the ARC recommendation. 2) Staff condition #8 inappropriately places the burden of proof on the neighborhood. This condition, supposedly designed to protect the neighborhood, states that if the noise level at the property line ever exceeds 50 dBA, and there are complaints, then the car wash should be closed down until the problem can be fixed. This places the burden of proof and the cost to support such a closure--hiring a sound consultant, filing an appeal, navigating city bureaucracy, and so on--on the neighborhood. The burden of proof should be on the applicant before this facility ever gets built. The applicant should be required to prove, beyond any doubt, that this facility will not impact the neighborhood. Building the new facility, only to have it later shut down, makes no sense. General Plan Noise Goals The car wash violates the following noise goals of the SLO General Plan: • N 1.1.1: Noise Exposure Protection Protect people from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to noise. • N 1.1.2 Noise Prevention - Preserve the tranquility of residential neighborhoods by preventing noise-producing uses from encroaching upon existing. . . noise- sensitive areas. • N 1.1.4 Emphasize Careful Site Planning - Emphasize the reduction of noise impacts through careful site planning and project design, giving second preference to the use of noise barriers and structural features. • N 1.1.5 Prevent Incompatible Land Uses - Prevent incompatible land uses from encroaching on existing. . . uses which are desired parts of the community, but which produce noise. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY We feel the car wash endangers public health and safety in several ways. 1) Fuel Truck Circulation Community Design Guideline D.1 states that "Service station site plans should ... accommodate anticipated car and truck (including fuel delivery truck) circulation patterns." The applicant has shown on paper and video that the proposed fuel truck circulation plan works. In an ideal world, that's probably true. However, cars waiting to enter the car wash will interfere with fuel truck circulation. The applicant.has countered that all fuel deliveries will be made at night. That cannot be realistically enforced. The gas station manager, who has years of on-site experience, says that even with the current site layout, the delivery trucks regularly back onto Monterey and Johnson streets. The manager suspects that with the re-designed smaller site, the problem will be worse. With the amount of traffic in the neighborhood, especially the drivers catapulting down Johnson Avenue at high speed, this is a disaster just waiting to happen. To enforce this design guideline, Planning staff has added two conditions: • "The site shall be designed to allow fuel delivery trucks to enter and exit without backing onto Monterey Street or Johnson Avenue" and • "Delivery vehicles shall enter and exit the property in a forward motion and at no time back up over the public sidewalk." Unfortunately, staff cannot require drivers to follow the recommended circulation pattern. The drivers will do whatever is expedient. Like the noise level condition, it would fall on the neighbors to ensure compliance with this condition. 2) Vehicle Circulation for Customers Community Design Guideline A.5 states that "Each [commercial] project should ... design parking and internal circulation areas to avoid awkward or cramped turning movements." Staff Findings state that the car wash "will not impact ... site circulation." We disagree. The proposed site, shown in ATTACHMENT 4, has a circulation bottleneck that doesn't currently exist: • The vacuum and air/water stations are located such that they can only be accessed if no one is pumping gas at the pump closest to the stations and there is no refueling truck on site. So, for example, if someone pulls in to the water station to top off their radiator and someone else pulls up to the closest gas pump, the first person is trapped until the other person finishes fueling their car. • Anyone using the air/water station or the vacuum will have to back out across one or more of the refueling pump lanes to get to the car wash. If there is a queue for the car wash, it will be even more difficult. The fuel tanks are located such that in order for them to be filled, the parking spaces have to be empty. 3) Air Pollution Staff finds that the car wash "will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity." This assertion is unfounded. This car wash is a drive-through facility. It will create additional pollution from automobile emissions and airborne solvents from the washing equipment. There is a 4-unit residential building located only 45 feet from this facility, and additional multi-unit residences within a 100-foot radius. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND COMMUNITY VALUES One of the city goals for 2003-2005 is Neighborhood Wellness. The neighborhood bordering the proposed car wash consists of multi-unit residential buildings housing a excellent mixture of working people, retirees, and students. While a majority of the residents are renters, some have lived in this neighborhood as long as 20 years. One owner has lived in his house for 49 years. This is the kind of neighborhood that the city should support and preserve. The Monterey Street Commercial Corridor has been undergoing a positive transition over the past several years.A pet store, bicycle shop, cafes, antique stores and an art gallery are among the recent additions.A car wash would do nothing to enhance this section of Monterey, which so many visitors pass on their way downtown. In addition, approximately 20 community groups such as churches, fraternities, sororities and other civic organizations use the gas station site for fund-raising car washes. Three have already been held so far this month. One recent church group was raising money to house workers as they built houses for low income families in Mexico. A sorority uses the fund-raiser to provide scholarship money for a new member each year. These opportunities and others like them are lost if the mechanized car wash is allowed. This project also violates several Zoning uses and General Plan provisions. 1) Zoning Use Regulation F "Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone." The regulation was added to the city zoning ordinances to minimize pollution and traffic problems from drive-through facilities. Car washes can be exempt from that definition by applying for a use permit. We have no problem with car washes, per se but they should only be allowed where appropriate. Immediately adjacent to a densely populated residential area is not appropriate. 2) General Plan Provision LU 2.1.3 "Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic." This project will increase neighborhood traffic. 3) General Plan Provision LU 2.2.2 "Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities." This project encroaches on the residential area with noise, pollution and traffic. I 4) General Plan Provision LU 2.2.4 "In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority." This project prioritizes commercial development over existing residential uses. SUMMARY We feel that this car wash is incompatible with the predominantly residential character of the neighborhood. It is strongly opposed by residents, property owners, and business owners in the neighborhood. There are many locations in San Luis Obispo that are suitable for a car wash.This is not one of them. Does the City Council want to set a precedent that allows car washes next to residential neighborhoods? Would you want one of these facilities 45 feet from your living room? We hope not. We look forward to presenting our appeal at the City Council meeting on February 17. In the meantime, please feel free to contact us if you have questions. Steve Mann Betty Aten 784.9461 784.9401 steve@slorevo.com betty@slorevo.com INoise Barrier • Monterey Unocal Carwash David Lord,Acoustics and Noise Consuiiing 299 Albert Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 11/1&200 12:55 (805)549.8046 dimension 2.1 m above grade hz= 1:"12 m,eseetie height A feet B d1= .2 m hr d2- 12_ m fD1m` d 1 d 2 °00C11Cf A= 2.3 m if source is 84.0 dBA b 40.2 A received B= 121m /%%%//%%////////�///%//%//////%// m w=barrier must have surface mass density>20 kg/m2 ill + d2 = 14 m Total Barrier bt.= 2.1 m (hl+h2) [A+ad- 03" m] total distance = 14.0 m [A+B= 143 m] a led -� frequency=F 500 Hz • source) 1 1 Noise Reduction 9.9 dBA 84.0 dBA 50.1 dBA received {eats'I•or'r below[ Noise Source: 2<lne source Sound Level ander free-field conditions,absorptive ground,without barrier —� Temperature: 15` °C note: berms produce about 3 dB more attenuation than walls of the same height. The above relationship applies if the barrier is perpendicular to a line between the source and observer. Rd== W03 m,Charles E.,Nbbe Cmbv&dfem w=4 Anal*and C°nboi of&und and V&vh m. Harper sad Row,New Yo&1989. p.77-84. fomadas Nval 1.0 NR 13 urea a13K IN7 13 speed of sound in air 340.2 m/s sg2pN 2.522 Copyright®2000 David Lord. Figure 8. Calculation of Noise Barrier performance. [not to scale] noise analysis,page 12 Attachment 1 _ n �LT S ` FT F a � i I 1 ' T V Attachment 2 84 d BA MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LI-0 PROPERTY UNE70 dB 83 d BA '"YUM ALLOWABM ed,p PROPERTY UN70 J _ DE_ dB T- L_ _—_ �d�- - 1 d o e o'/o o\ — = L_ I O '! l ok PROPOSED CARWASH TUNNEL \\''ri \ >_ /CAA�PJ�ASH I rr m 0 N T E R E Y S T R E E T Exhibit "A" - Ryko "ThrustPro" dB Levels N 0 R T N SCALE: 10=24' DATE: 09/30/03 Attachment 3 Ai r/Water Vacuum Refuel i ng Parking C.k"M EQLPWNi ass:aaa � s�siafr.� r O O -' r �.4 oar .r`� • I 0 liDzU 0=01l ® r 1 1 I 1 r I 1 r r '\. . �� 1 ♦ .Iii Attachment 4 J • ,Ps -ti kit• Ir I � �. �r 'L•�� 'fit ..i ±.t7:. 'q.,TS�j��� ''/ T (. .Y.^¢ � Y R='�•..P�'h ���Sta41 Y `Ie' � ai '.a. • ,. . y>--.'.h' �(f-� - .may� t .�•. 1�1\�• 3 h 6j��yy �. J44 5 3 'rte �•� ( � .e�;�'4 tf vim•7 'iRC !; (+� t J 1+�r.L+�� j� +/• Ct •d.•=-� �t u �?1t. r'a.t. Yom. t yyl ,A'•►y !-a . � r N M � 5 t G it, k *t';��F.p���M�x1.'fw•'(xv � a � Pial.. :Y.� L.(�..�� �'!�F1U�!.b'��11�f�'�r",+��Y5��2�\y1� �+� 1 -fir>`+► � r 4 �/� x f +'dtt� •t u � •t n^M `fir` �'�" bt'�'+�`'— � '�� —� � �� 1 e 3 ✓lr��of _. ` `\ � ` ��� /Yl L �Y\+ � ��5 {'`, � ��f \� j� . ray ..✓"' 'K.^• � �\.34^ t��\` \qtr d�d I i P � \ � \'J t� � it �'�fr, � '� Vit♦ ` \\` �",l' �' \ bt / t,r rad �'` a .ey3�a`f`j•• ':,r. iv '1�;�T,((li•�p�I,yr� �� '\t .i%y G rkr�{'• -+�y �1ii.4,y����l�.r- 1 I�'yt' ! r�.`� . �? kr'•fj� 4% 4 ��N�ir_ �1' ���1����y� ,Yi•�,G, 1 �ra 1 ,��\ ^.\.�\\\\\. e��� ��,a�1-w,_ ) Z `'.1""5 d° ,b7`� 1r •i�•v� r.t {. ../ - \\\ • r f Iy .°' +'h.! �•1't�^ t�"�.CJ.�c;a�� ryf"'t���+H[`,S,Y;,y'��YIY�_/4�. M r ��• f+7�i7 ,,�.;� �t,yL� �,�y. ,��' �,,„���,J'/�9 '�p�e '�1�'afkn�' K+✓r�jf'YY,rly�i �fid Sa Y %. �-Jr�' • iii 3141 .tea~ �"�., h^. 4 y�'4�1,,"A7�.U'1 ,9(./ X r � �t�.a+y; ��`� N y�• r 'tib�y � rn. 5 �1p.�: �v�, �"yH�Q+r� `,9�',��'w�"f: v �.`N r v� ''��ti �..! ( 1M � q`� �ly r rrtt^Sr 1:3 �..""Me9'ii'S..`r ✓r�rj-�1�.�u��' <-rl'� m � .. �G`.t f+f`��, C.. G'•r .s `�J �,t'Ta�Y�• yr�l�A/r �y•�I�i�/ :\ -��y�. � �� S \ - �..�\.\ \ UAW v�CZrrpT 1 t(��a.,µ� Hui 9.i1?•� �f��,�t�kYJI' L!(:r - -_.�\. . �h �r y.- �+._. iii ..t'tA w��• k:-, it` ?, �� rC.' J yy �yoY1�<.'t'�•y •�„ +�y ESM : / . s .hop- Y f�yN•t�,, L �.'JlII.1}Y eSr�'� sF.,� ��\' 1� 7Ffi3 5x rJ pp ✓� r '� I h rr ! �, r; y Wit.. ����,/ / ...,. _ �,i,�,t,�R� � __gid✓_:, �1��',a��i`;.`�, '�'�! � "' `