Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/2006, PH2 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A HIGH OCCUPANCY FOR EIG councit Mmmy` j ac,Enaa RepoRt Ilmv Nmb. CITY -OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A HIGH OCCUPANCY FOR EIGHT ADULTS AT 520 GRAND AVENUE. (A 16-06) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal filed by RQN, thereby denying the Planning.Commission's action approving a use permit to allow a high occupancy for eight adults. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Planning Commission approved a high occupancy use permit to allow eight adults to reside at 520 Grand Avenue on May 24, 2006. The neighborhood group known as "Residents for Quality Neighborhoods" (RQN) has appealed the Commission's approval on the basis that the use, and the proposed changes to the property, is not consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone. They are concerned about the size and scale of the addition, and the conversion of the yard into a parking area. Staff's original recommendation to the Planning Commission was to deny the use permit based on neighborhood compatibility, a history of noise complaints at the property and the Council's past decision to deny a similar use permit request at this property. Staff agrees with RQN that the use permit should be denied based on inconsistency with the purpose of the R-1 zone. Additionally, the proposal is inconsistent with several General Plan policies. The noise complaint history and level of required property modifications to meet the high occupancy code requirements are likely to make approval of a high occupancy at this property problematic. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The applicant has applied for a use permit to allow eight adults to reside on an R-1 property located at the comer of Grand and Loomis. A high occupancy use permit is required in the R-1 zone when the occupancy of the dwelling consists of six or more adults. The application includes a proposal to construct an addition to the existing house to include three new bedrooms, modifications to the existing garage, and a new parking lot. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on May ,2. 7 Council Agenda Report—Y,anning Commission Appeal of Use Pe..,tit 16-06 520 Grand Ave Page 2 24, 2006 and voted 4-3 to approve the Use Permit (Attachments 3, 4 and 5). On June 5, 2006 an appeal was filed by RQN (Attachment 6). The Planning Commission reviewed a similar request for this property on September 11, 2002 and denied the proposal, based on findings that the use, and proposed site modifications would not be consistent with the R-1 district. The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on September 13, 2002 and the appeal was unanimously denied by the City Council on October 15, 2002. The Council denied the appeal request based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan (Attachment 7, Council resolution and minutes). At that time, the specific basis for the denial was related to the fact that the proposed new bedrooms for the residence were to be built within a detached guest-house structure. The current plans propose an attached addition to the existing residence to accommodate the additional bedrooms. Site Description The project site is an existing 9,000 square-foot lot in the R-1 zone. The property is located on a corner and is developed with a five-bedroom home and a detached, two-car garage. The project site is bordered by Highway 101 to the south, and similar single-family residential development to the north and east. The site has 150 feet of street frontage on Loomis Drive, with two existing driveway approaches. Project Description The applicant is requesting a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eights adults to live in a single-family home. The project includes a proposal to construct an additional bedroom on the ground floor to the rear of the house, and two bedrooms within a new upstairs addition_on the south side of the house adjacent to Highway 101. The existing detached two-car garage would be modified to allow the garage door to face towards the house (west) and a new parking area with space for five vehicles would be constructed in the yard between the garage and the house. Analysis RQN filed an appeal describing that the proposal is not consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone. Additionally, RQN is concerned that the design of the residence and its large parking area will not be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood development pattern. In addition to the adopted Municipal Code definition of the R-1 zone (MC 17.24) and the High Occupancy Use Regulations (MC 17.93), RQN has cited a series of General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies that contradict the proposed use of the property. Staff has provided the following analysis on the primary components of the appeal: Municipal Code 17.24- Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone: "The R-I zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for people who want private open space associated with individual dwellings. It is intended to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, provide for compatible infill development in such areas, and prescribe the overall character of newly subdivided low-density areas." 2 - 2 Council Agenda Report—r,anning Commission Appeal of Use Pt..nit 16-06 520 Grand Ave Page 3 _ Staff Response: The R-1 zone is not designed to accommodate boarding houses or other high density arrangements. Additionally, the design of residential properties in the R-1 zone needs to respect the design of the surrounding neighborhood. Regardless of the number of people living in a dwelling, the property should appear as a single family residence. The large parking area and unusual addition will be out of character with other properties in the surrounding R-1 zone. The site modifications will eliminate the sense of private open space around an individual dwelling. The property is not easily transitioned to a high-occupancy use without significant site modifications and a substantial addition. If the high-occupancy use is ever revoked or abandoned, restoration of this property back to a standard R-I residence could be problematic since the improvements such as the upstairs addition and the parking area would are substantial investments in the property. Overall, staff agrees with RQN regarding inconsistency with the adopted purpose of the R-1 zone. The Municipal Code policy does use the word "primarily". Exceptions to designs that are similar to the surrounding neighborhood, including parking and private open space areas, should only be approved if they do not affect or are not highly visible to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residence and parking area are highly visible. Noise likely to be generated at the site would be somewhat masked by the noise generated by Hwy 101 traffic, but would qualitatively be different and thus noticeable. Municipal Code 17.93- High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations "The purpose of the use permit is to ensure compliance with the performance standards and to ensure the compatibility of the use at particular locations". Staff Response: RQN believes that the proposed use is not consistent with MC 17.93 since the ordinance was designed to apply to existing, larger homes which have facilities available to support the additional occupancy with little or no modification required. However, the municipal code is not clear as to whether properties that do not meet existing high-occupancy standards are restricted from completing such modifications following use permit approval. With approval of former high occupancy requests, staff has required construction of additional parking spaces, and in some cases refinements to the dwelling to accommodate additional occupants. However, in no case has a former use permit required such extensive improvements and additions to a property to accommodate the use. In this case, the applicant is essentially adding to the house and property to accommodate the use when the property does not currently meet the code requirements to accommodate the additional occupants. The size and shape of the property result in providing additional parking in full view of the neighboring residences. This suggests that this property is no able to ,accommodate a high occupancy use without creating some incompatibility with nearby residences. However, staff does not believe that the use permit process is valid only for homes that currently contain existing provisions to accommodate the use. 2.- 3 n Council Agenda Report—Hanning Commission Appeal of Use Pe..nit 16-06 520 Grand Ave Page 4 Land Use Element Policy 2.2.10: Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group- living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. Staff Response: Staff agrees that the proposal is inconsistent with LU 2.2.10 since the proposed development would create a dwelling and site plan that is clearly different than the surrounding R-1 development. Removal of the outdoor yard area to replace it with vehicle parking spaces greatly reduces the amenities available to the property and is out of character with the established pattern of the homes and single family parking areas in the surrounding neighborhood. The only usable outdoor space in the rear yard would be a small space between the garage and the freeway, exposed to significant traffic noise. The remodel of the residence would result in a house that is primarily composed of bedroom and bathroom space with only a very small living room and dining space. Land Use Element Policy 2.2.12:Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: A)Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds; and oriented to receive light and sunshine; C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; E) Security and safety; G)Adequate parking and storage space; H) Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating a project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through them at regular intervals, and planting.) Staff Response: The project site does not meet the City's General Plan Land Use Element objectives for quality housing. The following points below relate specifically to the applicable components noted above. A) There is little privacy available for occupants or neighbors of the project since the project is at the comer of a busy intersection, adjacent to Highway 101. B)The proposal does not provide adequate, usable outdoor area that is sheltered from noise. E) Security and safety at the property is compromised due to a poor track record of noise complaints and other violations as noted in past Police records. G) Adequate parking for eight occupantsis challenging given the site configuration and vehicle maneuvering constraints. H) As discussed further in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 6); the property is exposed to significant noise as a result of immediate adjacency to Highway 101 and Grand Ave. Construction of a sound wall would not resolve this issue since the grade of the freeway is 6 to 8 feet above the grade of the property and the existing residence is too close to the highway and Grand Ave to provide adequate buffering. Council Agenda Report—rianning Commission Appeal of Use Pew shit 16-06 520 Grand Ave Page 5 Housing Element Policy 3.2.6-Neighborhood Preservation Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards, and overall character and quality of life of established neighborhoods. Staff Response: The proposal is not consistent with policy 3.2.6 since it significantly alters the character of the property making it different from the neighboring residences. Housing Element Policy 7.2.1: Character, Size, Density and Quality Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents: Staff Response: This policy became the focal discussion point at the previous hearing (in 2002) for this request. It was determined that the density and size of the new residential addition and paving over the yard to create parking would not be compatible with the neighborhood. The same concerns apply to the new project. Performance Standards The Planning Commission (PC) staff report (Attachment 5) describes how the project complies with the required performance standards by providing additional bedrooms, bathrooms and parking spaces. Also described in the PC report are staff's concerns regarding noise exposure from Highway 101. The project would require special construction techniques and mechanical ventilation devices to avoid exposing future tenants to significant noise impacts. Periodic Review and Enforcement The High Occupancy Use regulations require annual periodic review to insure compliance with the zoning provisions and to ensure that the use is not detrimental to the neighborhood. As described in the PC staff report, 520 Grand has been subject to a large number of noise violations over the past several years (since 2002 there have been 12 calls to City Police regarding potential noise violations at this property). The noise violations have been associated with parties and live music at the property. Typically, High Occupancy Use permits are revoked if more than two noise violations occur at the property within a six-month period. If a high occupancy use permit is approved for this site and the residence and site is extensively modified to accommodate it, revoking the permit would be problematic and difficult to enforce because the additional bedrooms and parking area will remain. Planning Commission Action Staff s recommendation to the Planning Commission was to deny the use permit based on inconsistency with the neighborhood and inconsistency with the General Plan. Staff's concerns focused on the location of the residence in terms of noise exposure to Highway 101 and the site's history of noise violations. However, the Planning Commission felt that the construction could be designed to mitigate the noise levels produced by the highway. Additionally, commissioners felt that the site's proximity, close to Cal Poly, was a reasonable location for a high occupancy use permit. It 2- s i Council Agenda Report—Punning Commission Appeal of Use Pe,.nit 16-06 520 Grand Ave Page 6 .. ,. .- was noted that the site represented a poor location for standard R-1 use and that the high occupancy was better suited to the site. The Commission included a project condition to require a noise consultant to work with the applicant and the City to design an outdoor open space area that could comply with the City's noise standards. Ultimately the Commission approved the use permit on a 4- 3 vote. The Commissioners that disagreed with the motion felt that the design of the residence produced a low-quality living environment and did not fit the neighborhood. Conclusion The use permit process allows the City to utilize discretion to review the high occupancy request for consistency with General Plan policies and property development standards. Over the past 10 years, only eight such requests have been submitted to the City. Of the eight requests, three were withdrawn by the applicants after learning they could not complete the required improvements, two were denied by the City and three were approved (one of which was later revoked due .to noise violations). Therefore, only two High Occupancy Use Permits are currently known to exist citywide. In this case, the proposed occupancy triggers modifications to the property that are inconsistent with General Plan policy and the implementing sections of the Municipal Code. The staff conclusion that a high occupancy use permit would not be appropriate at this property generally agrees with the RQN points and the former (2002) City Council action regarding this property. CONCURRENCES The project was reviewed by other City Departments including Public Works, Utilities, Fire and Police. The new construction can be in conformance with standard code requirements. The Public Works Department believes that the proposed new .garage would be an improvement over the existing street parking. The Police Department provided staff with a record of violations that have occurred at the property, however specific concerns regarding the use were not expressed. 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. Since High Occupancy Use Permits are a discretionarily allowed use in the R-1 zone, the conversion of this residence would not create significant fiscal impacts. Furthermore, the applicant would be responsible for constructing public improvements and site improvements to serve the intended use. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the appeal, thereby approving the action of Planning Commission and allowing the use permit to allow eight adults to reside at 520 Grand Ave. 2. Deny the appeal, but restrict the high density occupancy permit to a fewer number of adults (possibly six) to limit the scale of the residence and potential parking and noise impacts. 3. Continue the item for additional analysis or research. — Ze I Council Agenda Report—kianning Commission Appeal of Use Perim"t 16-06 520 Grand Ave Page 7 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced scale plans Attachment 3: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 4: Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 5: Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 6: Appeal Attachment 7: Previous Council meeting minutes and resolution to deny (October 15, 2002) Attachment 8: Noise Analysis by David Lord Attachment 9: Draft Resolution upholding Planning Commission and approving Use Permit Attachment 10: Draft Resolution upholding appeal and denying Use Permit. GACD-PL.AWdunsmoreWse Permits\16-06 520 Grand\AP CC 16-06 8-1-06.doc �� 1111 ���� �ir . ��11 :�1: m u a U vio r 99ee Attachment 2 I e g FQ i -B p E It q t 2 illi � � �Y' �tiik �I"+E'•p fir. I 'I .. �� Q m Li rig rd ;':. � \/I•k V r ° p Q m u 42 LQ z o �° >oc A":i.C'y•e I`b� 1 y rt ti m P5E t°a1 _ Q 2 U a W � s . LU Pts rx' Cf) LL C V o cc y t d 13 S Imp fill I t.. I� J �m�- & c E 93 p I ^.I.' Q �u..wxo A�� 4'g fou# A}`I I It, IQ. --_—_e_'_ '—'-_ Lu L m j I ��m. °�@31 �.m �� WIOL y W �� `4', � ° I` iSl -I¢� Z $ �il � ° �'. III ��� q• Q � C mi o sip '4. a ei r �t a z ¢° u c a~ P 3t. Pie' E ��. OCn ` Q ¢ IS cc e >?RL 9 d r �\ .. Er t o Q Oii,Ice i _ _ `• �_ r q, to � ��. LL, lu osl — = i. If jC v r d 3ON3AV ONvds —�' �� � ° •..� � , ® _ 1 //-/ — g / Attachment 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 2006 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Peter Brown, Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, Vice-Chair Carlyn Christianson and Chairperson Andrea Miller Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, Contract Planner Whitney Mcllvaine, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The agenda was accepted as written. MINUTES: Minutes of May 10, 2006. The minutes of May 10, 2006 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 520 Grand Avenue. Use Permit Appl. A 16-06; Request for a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eight adults; R-1 zone; Grand Avenue Properties, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, discussed the code requirements, noise issues, apparent General Plan inconsistency such as neighborhood compatibility, and recommended denial based on findings which he outlined. Stephen Barasch, applicant's representative, explained the changes to the project compared to the prior request and discussed the reduced impact to the site, and proposed noise mitigation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dr. David Lord, SLO, acoustics and noise consultant, presented the Commission with his findings and discussed how noise measurements were taken over a 24-hour period. 2 -/o Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3 May 24, 2006 Page 2 William Ramsey, San Luis Obispo, supported the project because of the need for housing in San Luis Obispo. Paul Pedroni, San Luis Obispo, agreed with staff regarding noise and parking problems and opposed the project. Brett Cross, San Luis Obispo, discussed how this project does not comply with City regulations, and opposed the project. Leslie Halls, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project, partially because of the current condition of the property. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. McCoy questioned the height of a proposed sound wall in relation to the potential noise impact and expressed support for the project if it meets the General Pan requirements and parking requirements and has a usable outdoor area. Commr. Stevenson asked about the possibility of air conditioners; noted that he would like to see further noise testing; was concerned that noise study did not include outdoor noise; and discussed potential parking problems. Commr. Carter discussed his concerns with this project and felt its approval would set a negative precedent. Commr. Ashbaugh questioned the possibility of seven bedrooms instead of eight bedrooms. Commr. Brown felt the discussions and comments were all valid. Commr. Christianson agreed with Commrs. McCoy and Stevenson regarding the use of the lot, the need for housing; the uniqueness of the location, and supported the project with direction from staff. Commr. Miller expressed concern for the high-occupancy use in the R-1 zone and could not support the project. On motion by Commr. Christianson to approve the high-occupancy residential use permit allowing eight adults, with three conditions applied regarding parking, mechanical ventilation and outdoor noise-mitigation. Seconded by Commr. McCoy, AYES: Commrs. Brown, Christianson, McCoy and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Carter, Ashbaugh and Miller ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO.5452-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A HIGH-OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 520 GRAND STREET; APPLICATION NO.A 16-06 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 May 24, 2006, for the purpose of considering an application for a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, Application No. A 16-06, a request to allow occupancy of a single-family residence by eight adults; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Approval. The request to allow occupancy of a single-family residence by eight adults is hereby approved, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, as stated in the Zoning Regulations (SLOMC Section 17.24.010), because of the proposed improvements to the property and the size of the property and residence will accommodate this occupancy, such as the installation of a parking area constructed of turf block and with ample landscape, are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood development pattern. 2. The proposed use is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element policies that are intended to create quality living environments since outdoor yard space can be enhanced and protected from excessive noise, and indoor living areas can be constructed to mitigate existing noise impacts from Highway 101. 3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of residents living on site and in the vicinity since the project site is can be mitigated to reduce excessive traffic noise to acceptable levels. 4. The proposed parking configuration can be modified to comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. z-42- Attachment 4 Resolution No. 5452-06 Page 2 Conditions 1. Required modifications to the existing residence and site to accommodate 8 persons shall be subject to architectural review. These modifications shall include the following: A. The garage shall be modified to eliminate the garage door opening facing the street while providing a new garage door facing west. The street elevation shall be appropriately designed to complement the architecture of the residence through the use of exterior stucco finish, siding and gable end treatment. Windows or other articulation may be necessary. B. The parking area shall be constructed of turf block or similarly pervious "all weather" surfacing. All parking spaces shall be designed to exit the site in a forward manner in two maneuvers or less. Landscape shade trees may be required in the parking area in order to comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. C. The existing residence and proposed addition shall comply with the City's Noise Element and Guidebook and incorporate the recommendations provided by the Noise Consultant (David Lord). This shall include but is not limited to: mechanical ventilation, insulated windows, 2 x 6 construction, vent baffles, increased attic and wall insulation and other methods designed to increase interior noise levels to below 45dB. 2. The occupancy of the residence may not exceed 5 persons until all improvements to the residence and site have been completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. This approval is subject to the City's standards that regulate high occupancy residential uses as long as more than 5 adults occupy the residence at any time. 4. This approval shall allow no more than eight adults to occupy the residence at any one time. 5. Seven parking spaces (all of which must be in compliance with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards) shall remain available to occupants of the site at all times. This means that the garage may not be used for storage or other uses that preclude parking for operable vehicles at all times. 6. Any new construction, including new walls, electrical work, interior modifications, or a new carport shall require review and approval of a construction permit by the City. 7. All existing construction on the property must comply with the current building and fire code and the dwelling unit shall be subject to inspection by the Community Development Department prior to occupancy of more than 5 adults. 8. The parking layout shall be inspected and verified by planning staff of the Community Development Department prior to occupancy of more than 5 adults.. - Attachment 4 Resolution No. 5452-06 Page 3 9. The use permit may be reviewed at any time that the Community Development Director receives reasonable written complaints, or if two noise violations occur within a six-month period. At the review hearing the hearing officer may modify, add, or delete conditions, or revoke the use permit. A basis for revocation shall be failure to comply with the noise or the property maintenance regulations. 1OR compliance with the City's High Occupancy Use Regulations, the use permit shall be reviewed on an annual basis. The property owner is responsible for initiating the annual review and shall submit the review request in writing to the Community Development Department. At the review hearing'the hearing officer may modify, add, or delete conditions, or revoke the use permit. A basis for revocation shall be failure to comply with the noise or the property maintenance regulations. This Use Permit shall be reviewed in one year following occupancy of the residence with more than 5 adults. 11. A noise analysis shall be performed to determine the mitigation necessary to create a quality outdoor open space area. The open space area must be outside of the street yard (at least 20 feet from any street property line) and must be exclusively available for outdoor activity (not a parking area, driveway or other area). Any mitigation measures (i.e. a masonry wall) necessary in order to reduce the noise level to less than 60dB for the outdoor area must be completed prior to occupancy of more than 5 adults. On motion by Commr. Christianson seconded by Commr. Mc Coy, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Christianson, McCoy, Stevenson,Brown NOES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Carter, Miller REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24a'day of May, 2006. Planning Co ssion by: Doug Davidson, Secretary �7 Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522 MEETING DATE: May 24, 2006 FROM: Pam Ricci, IInterim Deputy Director- Development Review FILE NUMBER: A- 16-06 PROJECT ADDRESS: 520 Grand Avenue SUBJECT: Request for a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eight adults to live in a single-family home located on the southeast comer of Grand Avenue and Loomis Street near Highway 101. RECOMMENDATION Deny a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit for eight adults,based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review The applicant has applied for a use permit to allow eight adults to reside on a lot located at the corner of Grand and Loomis. The project site is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and is presently developed with a five-bedroom home. The application includes a proposal to construct an addition to the existing house to include three new bedrooms, modifications to the existing garage, and a new parking lot. Normally, use permits for High-Occupancy are handled administratively, however, due to a prior request for a.High Occupancy Residential Use Permit that sparked neighborhood issues and controversy, this item has been forwarded to the Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed a similar request for this property on September 11, 2002 and denied the proposal, based on findings (Attachment 4, Planning Commission resolution and minutes). The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on September 13, 2002 and the item was reviewed by the City Council on October 15, 2002. On a 5-0 vote, the Council denied the appeal request based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan and significant public testimony objecting to the proposal (Attachment 5, Council resolution and minutes). At that time, the specific basis for the denial was related to the fact that the proposed new bedrooms for the residence were to be built within a detached guest-house structure. The current plans propose an attached addition to the existing residence to accommodate the additional bedrooms. Data Summary Address: ' 520 Grand Avenue Applicant: Grand Avenue Properties Representative: Stephen B. Barasch, AIA, APA Zoning: R-1 (Low-Density Residential) General Plan: Low-Density Residential Environmental: Categorically exempt (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 and 15301) �s AttachrT. 5 A 16-06 (520 Grand) Page 2 Site Description The project site is an existing 9,000 square-foot lot in the R-1 zone. The property is located on a corner and is developed with a five-bedroom home and a detached, two-car garage. The project site is bordered by Highway 101 to the south, and similar single-family residential development to the north and east. The site has 150 feet of street frontage on Loomis Drive, with two existing driveway approaches. Prolect Description The applicant is requesting a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eights adults to live in a single-family home. The project includes a proposal to construct an additional bedroom on the ground floor to the rear of the house, and two bedrooms within anew upstairs addition on the south side of the house adjacent to. Highway 101. The existing detached two-car garage would be modified to allow the garage door to face towards the house (west) and a new parking area with space for five vehicles would be constructed in the yard between the garage and the house. EVALUATION High Occupancy Use Permits are allowed in the R-1 zone with approval of an Administrative Use Permit, based on particular requirements listed in SLOMC Chapter 17.93 "High Occupancy Use Regulations". The table below lists the performance standards in comparison with the proposed project. >Standard.. _. .L_e_.__. Re uir_ement a_ r.wPovided Minimum Floor 300 s.f. per occupant. 8 300+s.f.per adult or 2,900 s.f. gross Area adults requires 2,400 s.f. floor area proposed gross floor area. Parking One off-street parking space Seven parking spaces would be r adult occupant, less one. provided Bathrooms One bathroom is required for Three bathrooms would be provided for every three occupants. eight adults. Building, The building must meet all New construction will require a health,safety current codes and have been building permit. Existing dwelling will and fire codes built with all required need sound attenuation and inspections permits. to ensure current code compliance. In addition to achieving specific performance .standards, approval of a use permit relies on findings for consistency with the General Plan and more specifically, the Commission must find that the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. Former denial of this request was based on the project's inconsistency with General Plan Policies in addition to strong neighborhood opposition. At the previous Council hearing, neighborhood groups and area residents expressed concern about the added number of people living at the site and further noise and parking issues. It was felt that the added density at the property would set an unwelcome precedent for the neighborhood and —/Le Attachment 5 A 16-06 (520 Grand) Page 3 would not be consistent with the development pattern of this R-1 neighborhood. Many of the concerns expressed about the previous request were related to the fact that the proposed addition was within a detached "guest house" structure. Although the current proposal is improved from the previous attempt in that it proposes an attached addition to the existing house, there are outstanding concerns at this property that make it difficult for staff to support additional density. These issues include General Plan policy inconsistency, noise exposure, police violation records, and compliance with parking and driveway standards as discussed in further detail below. General Plan Both the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements encourage neighborhood quality and preservation of neighborhoods. Similar to the previous review, staff is concerned that this proposal is not consistent with the neighborhood, nor is it consistent with the City's goals for providing safe, quality housing. Staff has provided a commentary following each of the applicable polices below: LU 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: A) Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support;. E) Security and safety; G)Adequate parking and storage space; H)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating a project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through them at regular intervals, and planting.) J) Buffers from hazardous materials transport.routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department. Staff Response: The project site does not meet the City's General Plan Land Use Element objectives for quality housing. The following points below relate specifically to the applicable components noted above. A)There is little privacy available for occupants or neighbors of the project since the project is at the comer of a busy intersection, adjacent to Highway 101. B) The proposal does not provide adequate, usable outdoor area that is sheltered from noise. C) Natural indoor ventilation will be limited due to noise mitigation requirements that would need to be incorporated into the new construction. E) Security and safety at the property is compromised due to a poor track record of noise complaints and other violations as noted in past Police records. G) Adequate parking for eight occupants is challenging given the site configuration and vehicle 1, Attachment 5 A 16-06(520 Grand) Page 4 maneuvering constraints. H) As discussed further in the noise section below, the property is exposed to significant noise as a result of immediate adjacency to Highway 101 and Grand Ave. Construction of a sound wall would not resolve this issue since the grade of the freeway is 6 to 8 feet above the grade of the property and the existing residence is too close to the highway and Grand Ave to provide adequate buffering. J) Since Highway 101 is considered a hazardous materials transport route, there is little to no buffering from this route. LU 2.7.3:Amenities Multifamily housing likely to be occupied by students should provide the amenities which students seek in single-family areas, to provide an attractive alternative. Staff Response: Removal of the outdoor yard area to replace it with vehicle parking spaces greatly reduces the amenities available to the property and is out of character with the established development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. The only usable outdoor space in the rear yard would be a small space between the garage and the.freeway, exposed to significant traffic noise. The remodel of the residence would result in a house that is primarily composed of bedroom and bathroom space with only a very small living room and dining space. bi 7.2.1: Character, Size, Density and Quality Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. Staff Response: This policy became the discussion point at the previous hearing for this request. It was determined that the density and size of the new residential addition and paving over the yard to create parking would not be compatible with the neighborhood. The same concerns apply to the new project. NoiseAnalvsis The General Plan Noise Element indicates that this property is subject to excessive noise exposure due to its close proximity to Highway 101. City noise contour maps indicate that the residence is exposed to traffic noise in excess of 65 dB. Because of this, staff requested the applicant hire a consultant to perform a noise analysis to confirm the noise exposure and recommend mitigation measures. A City qualified noise consultant, David Lord, prepared the analysis (Attachment 3). At the location of the proposed addition near the south property line, the existing noise level was calculated to be LDN=7ldBA. According to the General Plan Noise Element, 71 dB is a noise level that is unacceptable to a residential land use. Mitigation measures requiring extensive soundproofing (including 2 x 6 construction with no openings facing the highway) would be required for the new construction in order to reduce interior noise to near acceptable levels. The maximum acceptable noise level for indoor areas is 45dB. Most noise mitigation techniques are only designed to reduce noise levels approximately 15 dB. A 15 dB reduction would still exceed interior thresholds at this location. Furthermore, ,,2—/e?— Affachment 5 A 16-06 (520 Grand) Page 5 there is no way to feasibly reduce outdoor noise levels at this property to acceptable levels. Acceptable outdoor noise levels must not exceed 60dB. Since the freeway is 6 to 8 feet higher than the existing grade of the property, construction of a sound wall for the yard area would not block the existing noise source unless the wall was greater than 8 feet in height. Staff believes that the existing noise and vibration caused by the close proximity of Highway 101 results in a less than satisfactory living condition. Increasing the residential occupancy at this site only exacerbates this issue. Due to this factor alone, it is challenging for the Commission to adopt the required use permit finding that the high occupancy use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. Police records Staff consulted with the City Police Department to confirm recent neighborhood testimony regarding excessive parties and violations at the property. Police records concur with neighborhood testimony that the residence is prone to parties and neighborhood disturbances. There have been 22 calls for service to 520 Grand since June of 2002 (the previous use permit request was in 2002). 12 of these calls for service were regarding noise complaints with 4 disturbance advisory cards and 2 citations issued. Other calls at this property were regarding burglary, vandalism and 1 sex offense. The location of the property, at close proximity to the campus and alongside a busy arterial roadway, Grand Avenue, put the property in a prime location for activity. Staff believes that an increase in occupancy at this property would only result in increased activity of this nature. This concern also makes it difficult for the Commission to adopt the required health, safety or welfare finding as discussed in the noise section above. Proposed addition/Parkina area The proposed addition and parking modifications have been evaluated by staff for consistency with the City's Property Development Standards of the Zoning Regulations and the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. As 7 7777 proposed, the addition conforms to height and setback standards and could rt_w o o o x t 4 be approved without exceptions (if ' . _ � , noise mitigation is found to be acceptable), requiring only a building 4s permit. The parking improvements, : however, are substantial and require re-orienting the garage door and constructing a new driveway approach to serve a new parking area in what is currently a yard area The existing garage faces Loomis Street and, because of its shallow (19 setback, causes vehicles to overhang Existing garage and vehicles at 520 Grand as seen from Loomis Street the sidewalk and the street when Attachment 5 A 16-06 (520 Grand) Page 6 parking in the driveway as shown in the photo on the previous page. The proposed parking configuration would require the garage to be remodeled, eliminating the street facing door, constructing new curb, gutter and sidewalk, and facing the garage door towards the house (west). Parking improvements would include construction of a parking lot that would accommodate five vehicle spaces plus two spaces inside the garage for a total of seven. According to the City's Parking and Driveway Standards, a parking lot with more than six spaces must be designed so that vehicles can exit onto a public street in a forward direction with no more than two maneuvers. As proposed, this parking lot does not comply with this standard since at least two of the spaces would require more than two maneuvers to exit the site in a forward direction. This condition would likely encourage drivers to back directly onto the street. Backing onto the street from this property is not desirable because of its corner location and the street's traffic volumes. In order to comply with standards, the proposed parking plan would have to be revised to meet City standards. However, there may not be sufficient area available to meet the requirements. CONCLUSION The High Occupancy Use Permit regulations are intended to require suitable improvements to meet the demands of increased occupancy levels. Preferably, these improvements could be removed or modified in the future so sites could transition back to single family uses without impacting future tenants or surrounding properties. The review process is set up to allow staff to analyze the property for neighborhood compatibility, safety, and reasonable amenities for the occupants. In this case, the property is clearly unsuitable for such occupancy, and the proposed addition and parking improvements would be of a scale and intensity that would not likely transition back to single-family use. Instead, the proposed improvements do not fit the property, and the property configuration does not result in a quality residential setting. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Planning Commission can continue the project if more information is needed to take action. The Commission should provide direction to staff on additional information necessary to make a recommendation. 2. The Planning Commission can approve the use permit if the decision is based on findings stating that the project would comply with the General Plan and the requirements of the High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations. Attachments: Attachment 1 Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Project Plans Attachment 3: Noise Analysis Attachment 4: Planning Commission resolution and meeting minutes,September 11, 2002 Attachment 5: City Council meeting minutes and resolution, October 15,2002 Attachment 6: Draft Resolution with the staff recommendation to deny the use permit. GAPdunsmon:Wse Permits\16.06 520 GmndW 16.06(520 Gmnd).doc z -zo _ Attachment 6 Filing Fee: $100.00 10A/o0 Paid Pifie1wME421 WA JUN 0 5 2006 of TOSECTM4 SLO CITY CLERK Glow LUIS OBISM APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPEIANT INFORMATION R. QW- 100.150)e /96ayj 5413._ CA ?3,VO (o Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 1305 -5-114-859 SD5- 9-44-o3AJ3 Phone Fax CYaNEY &04dpMA 2074 h74 s Z 9 34/a5 Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code C/fAiRPEr?staN 805-Sr/U-RS�i�/ Bos - 59 .0365 Title Phone Fax SECTION Z 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: SJ}IU 4 U5 bE4/Sea 0Lt3NN/&L9 CDAdtW1S5-1Q V (Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: Amy *g/, eZ DD6 3. The application or project was entitled: 6'a O 6RRND 44FODU4 -115F *00W r 17- APPL. , #416-06 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: Pft�L ZWAt 601DRF PLS RNit &ff on /YI/3Y .3/. 2WG (Staff Member's Name and Departrnent) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: MO SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and Mft you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Includewhatevi you have that supports your appeal. You may atm additional pages,if necessary. This form continues on the o#wsd% Page 1 of 3 h � / �.yit �+,r_fir � i� ' ��. M � c .*� 1�. •�h�'i�{���fS���u 1. I t ..1� L r °' i l��I x � t 1 1 r• � ! _:. ..t +- 4. Ct'M C 3+r 1- i e j 2 1 t r1 r ti' Y 1 J t lni _ 111 L Ali y: r1 S rl}SL ys i4�1 1 �r��ru Y ] h 6 '�- ',`r'� 1 1 k{r {,,"v.,S�,•p,,.^ I t! g�. �' �I I ' 1... r 4!P R -•,.J 1 a � ! _tl r L _ ,._ ]s c t 1 v'•S} � x� .,�i tt' ' } � Lr � I . t ,. . < GAr r'Rb T � - �,.�,,� 1 r ! .r 1 h� �� Y J 'C 4 n} '�.,•�+,h Y144+.ii, kl 1 •� Y r r Y *`r< }Z4 t !.ry r ,S J _.+ tl kl r { w . .�- � i r a a rJ Y _t t1ti. t rr•1Y't 7P +T;tI r r .•r. ..t of ;.tn __ i f3 1 c r �r� � t �',- 1 YC S zI IfIC i rn "i ?���; r� t SIF J-_v_ ..� r-. {. J { 1 '] _ 1].. CI i ! r 'z J 4} ri'�I� •[ L ti Y Iy� 1 Y �)Y4 y tt 1 '• r j 7 - 1 rf 4", -f� x°�!, 11!>•� r+, 1 n r a t o1 at � r Y ,.r'--F I� SIF ctt yF' M 4�J l t1 \`-1 ] F bRl JrYli Va t'��if iYy4 h F J rr, r i .,7. d' M � .. C r �.-^v Y ~J .e t f IS•-1 7< �3Y �^`� J #v1.... ITS . s • - Attachment 6 Attachment - 1 SWUM 3. RE45ON FOR APPEAL We are hereby appealing the (4-3) decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission rendered on May 24, 2006 approving a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eight adult tenants to reside at 520 Grand Avenue. (FlIe# A 16-06). The property is a five (5) bedroom rental home located in a low-density residential (R-1) zone. The permit application includes a request to construct three (3) additional bedrooms for the purpose of adding three (3) more tenants. This application is similar to one submitted by the same applicant in 2002. That application was denied (5-0) by the City Council. The denial was based on neighborhood incompatibility Issues and other inconsistencies with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. It is our belief that the Planning Commission erred in their determination that the current project is consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, and specifically that paving over the backyard to provide a five (5) car parking lot is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood development pattern. [MC 17.24 - Low Denser Residential (R-1) Zonel. Although the Planning Commission did not include a finding that the application is consistent with the statutory intent and purpose of the High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations, we believe it is not. The high occupancy ordinance was intended to apply to existing, larger homes which have facilities available to support the additional occupancy with little or no modification required. The ordinance was never envisioned as an entitlement to build mini- dormitories in R-1 neighborhoods. [MC 17.93-High O—e u�ncy Residential Use Regulations). We believe that the Planning Commission decision must be overturned because It is -inconsistent with specific zoning requirements set forth in the Municipal Code and further that it is inconsistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies, including but not limited to: LAND USE ELEMENT LU 2.2.10 - Compatible Development LU 2.2.12 - Residential Project Objectives LU 2.14-Neighborhood Compatibility LU 2.15-Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans HOUSING ELEMENT HE 3.2.6-Neighborhood Preservation HE 7.1 - Neighborhood Quality HE 7.2.1-Character, Size, Density and Quality GLOSSARY - Appendix M: Infill Housing Respectfully submitted, Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN RQN-Appeal - 520 Grand Ave(June 5, 2006)1.doc Attachment 7 City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, December 3,2 Obispo Fire Batta on Chiefs'Association for the period of July 1,200 rough June 30,2004; motion rried 5:0 C9. SAN LUISOBISP OL CE DEPARTMENTOMEN'S LOCKER ROOM DDITION, SPECIFlCATION N .900528.. ACTION: Moved Settle/Mulholland to 1)Award a contract In the a unt of $212,212 to Smith ectric Service for the"San Luis Obispo Police D rtment Women's Locker am Addition",Specification No.90052B. 2)Autho the Mayor to execute the con ct 3)Approve transfer of$61,300 from the Capi 1 Outlay Fund Completed Pro] Account to the project account; motion carried 5: . C10. GRANT MANAGE NT POLICY UPDATE. ACTION: Moved Settle/Mulholland to adopt Resolution No.. 397 Ser updating the City' giant management policy to authorize Departmen Heads to submit grant app! ons and accept awards when they are$5,000 a less,subject to conditions;m on carried 5:0. C11. FINAL ADOPTIO F ORDINANCENO. 1428 MAKING MINOR REVI i N AND CORRECTIONS T THE WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENt IMPACT FEE AND WATER AN SEWER SERVICE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL DE. ACTION: Moved y Settle/Mulholland to adopt Ordinance No. 8 0 2 ries ; motion carr 5: . X/00� PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TODENYA.PROPOSED-HIGH- OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT FOR EIGHT ADULTS ON 520 GRAND AVENUE fA 90-21.—(CONTINUED FROM 1011 Q). Associate Planner Codron presented the staff report.. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Steve BgM h.applicant/appellant,used visual aids to demonstrate the existing conditions on the property and to show other properties with similar occupancy concepts In the City. He spoke to the merits of the appeal. Soeak/na In onnosklon to the protect and In favor of denvino the anneal: Andrew Carter.1283 Woodside Drive Sandra Rowley.Sen Luis Obispo,(see memo on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Mary Both Schroder.2085 Wilding Lane Cvdnev Holcomb.Chair of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods Carol Winger.2041 Hays Street Brett Cross,1217 Mariners Cove Dottie Conner.216 Albert Drive Richard Schmid!.San Luis Obispo Camille Sma1L 711 Skyline Drive ' V.H.Watson.2804 Loomis Street �-` .ea Attachment 7 City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday,December 3,2002 Sbeaklna in snaaort: John Betscher,2606 El Cerrito Steve Delmartini.862 Mill Appellant Barasch provided rebuttal comments. Mavor.Romero closed the public hearing. Staff responded to Council questions. Individual comments followed Council Member Settle commented that he would support the Planning Commission red6m­mWditIdh and the public who spoke In favor of denying the appeal. Council Member Ewan concurred,adding that the property could handle another unit but this application is pushing the envelope too far. Vice Mayor Mulholland also spoke in opposition to the proposed project and,further,suggested to the applicant that it would be more genuine to request a rezoning. Council Member Schwartz remarked that the proposed project is Incompatible with the single family zoning concept. Mayor Romero asserted that the property Is suitable for student housing because it Is at the edge of a residential area right near the freeway,but observed that the proposed project is Inconsistent with the high occupancy ordinance. He stated that he would reluctantly concur with the remainder of the Council. ACTION: Moved by Settld/Ewan to deny the appeal and the request for a high- occupancy residential use permit,based on the Planning Commission recommendation,with modified findings provided by staff,motlon carried 5:0. Mayor Romero called a recess at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. 3 MINOR SU ITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT DEPTH K REQUIRE 53D O MS/ER 110-02 . Associate Pla r Codro presented the staff report. Mayor Romero opened public hearing. Steve Frank.engineer of cord/applicant's representative(440 Country ub Drive),spoke in favor of approval with the xceptions requested He responded.to quay ons from the Council_ Mayor Romero closed thpublic hearing. . Speaking in o osillon. a of llf: Richard Schmidt San Lu Obispo(see memo on file in the Office of City Clerk). David Hafemeister.553 S o Perry In+uh�.535 Serrano Madl Gates.125 Serrano ghts Richard Church(reMaw g Jim Gates), 125 Serrano Heights John Snetslrnder,510 Se o BiliBoldt.518 Serrano A Attachme t 7 M RESOLUTION NO.9398 (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A HIGH-OCCUPANCY - RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 520 GRAND STREET; APPLICATION NO. A 90-02 WHEREAS, the Council 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, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an application for a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, Application No. A 90-02, a request to allow occupancy of a single-family residence by eight adults; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on September 11, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application No. A 90-02, and denied the application; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the records of the August 16, 2002 Administrative Hearing and the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, and the records of the Planning Commission hearing on September 11, 2002;and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Denial. Based upon all the evidence, the Council denies the appeal and the proposed High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit,based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is not consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, as stated in the Zoning Regulations (SLOMC Section 17.24.010), because of the proposed occupancy level, which would not preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, and would lead to development of other properties in the neighborhood with detached buildings in a manner more typical of the City's higher density residential zones. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan, because the proposed occupancy level requires the construction of a detached, three-bedroom building, which is a type of improvement that is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.10 because it does not respect existing buildings in the neighborhood that contribute to architectural character in R 9398 Attachment 7 Resolution No. 9398 (2001 Series) Page 2 terms of size, spacing and variety. 3. The existing house on the project site is not large enough,based on the standards contained in the High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations,to allow for more than five adult occupants of the project site. The construction of multiple additional bedrooms in a new, detached building is not compatible with Housing Element Policy 7.2.1 because the proposed building is more typical of development in the City's higher density residential zones and the increased intensity of use on this lot would be obvious to neighbors as the occupants walk back and forth between the main house and the detached bedrooms. On motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Council Member Ewan and on the following roll call vote: AYES`. Council Members Ewan, Settle, and Schwartz, Vice Mayor Mulholland, and Mayor Romero NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of October,2002. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Lee Price,C.M.0 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: a.Pih ffr /G.J/rgen k3ty Attorney a� J __ Attachmznt 8 45dB.com 299 Albert Drive Acoustics and Noise San Luis ObispoCalifornia 93405 dl 4Sc�.com David Lord,Ph.D. Principal Consultant March 28,2006 Sound Level Assessment and Mitigation Recommendations RE: Proposed Residential Addition Requested by: Stephen B. Barasch, Architect 520 Grand Ave 225 Prado Rd., Suite H San Luis Obispo CA San Luis Obispo,.CA-93401 Description and Noise Criteria The dimensions and layout used in this sound level assessment are taken from drawings provided by Stephen B. Barasch, Architect. This assessment is limited to the noise issue of U.S. Highway 101 transportation noise source to the south of the proposed addition; potentially impacting the planned habitable spaces. Sound level samples emanating from U.S. Highway 101 are assessed with regard to sound level intensity over a 24-hour day, using the Day-Night Level (LDN)criterion specified in the Noise Element of the General Plan, 1996, of the City of San Luis Obispo. With regard to land use,potential noise conflict and noise mitigation measures, the noise level standards contained in the Noise Element are used to evaluate the location. This evaluation.is limited to interior noise levels in habitable spaces in the proposed addition. The maximum acceptable noise exposure is judged from the building line, which is set back from the property line on the side exposed to the noise source. Maximum acceptable transportation noise source is listed as: Maximum interior noise level from exterior sources is LDN = 45 dBA Figures showing architectural layout, location of sound level meter, and sound level measurement results are on the following pages. Sound Level Assessment,520 Grand Ave, page I of 11 45dB.com 805 549 8046 Attachment 8 I /M u p � f RoposED �R O Po S 6 0' Sa+ L g1:d�+OnM 70) ?YL a` F-+J77tY EN7RY �� g' —..i AnEAN csas R — I _ — -` -- — — Microphone Location LDN = 79 dBA . Primary Noise Source Illllllllllt1111ti1t1►Illlililllllillll IIIlI11U111►//Ip////,!/!I U. S. Highway 10 1 r north Plan of proposed addition, second floor,showing location of sound level measurement. Primary noise source is U.S. Highway 101, 35 feet to the south of the proposed residential addition. Sound Level Assessment, 520 Grand Ave. page 2 45dB.com 805.549.8046 � — � Attachment 8 0 V- co 3 vi �I�IIIUllllllll111111111111111�1111111111111�����` I U O • ff: S. aE �� .•� 1 . � •r M i EEJ y S West elevation showing existing dwelling and proposed addition. Location of sound level measurement is shown 13 feet above finished first floor level. Primary noise source is U.S. Highway 101, 35 feet to the south of the proposed addition, elevated above grade. Sound Level Assessment, 520 Grand Ave. page 3 45dB.com 805.549.8046 3'� Attachment 8 O oo U) 0 C4 E co _j 04 ....... ............ ....... U) ts E�=-, > --Z to ....... ...... .... 'Itt. C-4 LU C"l P. 04 N -25 CN 0 13 ........ ..... > 0 -- E 0 d U) 0' w Z' CD r- TL 2 2 E T> = C) vii g CL 'on dBA0 C%l 0 0 Ln tn Ir v 0 SomndLevelAssesmien4 520 GrandAve.,page 4 45dB.com 805.549.8046 0�2 Attachment 8 LDN Calculadon 45dB.COm 299 Albert Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 David Lord,Principal Consultant tel 805.549.8046 Proposed Addition fax 805.8882733 520 Grand Ave.,San Luis Obispo,CA South Side 3/21 arough 3a2 of 2006 LEQ (hour) calculated from 10 second continuous measurements dBA hour Calculated DAY LEQ: 68.5 0700 Calculated DAY LEQ: 68.0 0800 Calculated DAY LEQ: 67.1 0900 Calculated DAY LEQ: 67.5 1000 Calculated DAY LEQ: 68.0 1100 Calculated DAY LEQ: 67.9 1200 Calculated DAY LEQ: 67.9 1300 Calculated DAY LEQ: 68.5 1400 Calculated DAY LEQ: 68.9 1500 Calculated DAY LEQ: 69.0 1600 Calculated DAY LEQ: 67.7 1700 Calculated DAY LEQ: 66.7 1800 Calculated DAY/EVE.LEQ: 65.9 1900 66.4 LEQ 24 his: Calculated DAY/EVE.LEQ: 64.6 2000 67.6 LEQ Day 15hr. Calculated DAYIEVE.LEQ: 64.0 2100 68.0 LEQ Day 12hr. Calculated NIGHT LEQ: 62.7 2200 63.5 LEQ Night 9hr. Calculated NIGHT LEQ: 60.4 2300 65.0 LEQ Eve 3hr. Calculated NIGHT LEQ: 58.4 0000 Calculated NIGHT LEQ: 57.9 0100 Calculated NIGHT LEQ: 58.1 0200 Calculated NIGHT LEQ: 59.8 0300 Calculated NIGHT LEQ: 63.4 0400 Calculated NIGHT LEQ: 66.8 0500 Calculated NIGHT LEQ: 68.7 0600 (penalty added for evening or night hours) LDN: 71 dBA Day/Night Level Calculation C.N.E.L.: 71 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level Calculation LDN Calculation from continuous sound level measurements Noise Assessment,520 GrandAvet, San Lras Obispo, page 5 Attachment 8 Eidsting Sound bevels Existing sound levels were measured beginning Tuesday, March 21 through Wednesday, March 22, 2006. The representative point for the location of the sound level meter was selected at the south side of the proposed addition, facing the U.S. Highway 101 transportation noise source. Layout is indicated on the plan and elevation on pages 2 and 3 of this report. The sound level meter was used with the microphone placed at 13 feet above grade. A series of individual on-site sound level measurements were made every ten seconds over a total running time period of two hours, morning and afternoon. A sound average level (LEQ)value for each hour was then derived from the sound level measurements and from previous 24-hour measurements at nearby locations along U.S. Highway 101, from which the Day/Night Level (LDN) was determined See the Appendix of this report for further definitions. A Larson Davis model 812, Type 1, integrating, recording sound level meter, accurate to 1 dBA was used for all measurements. The sound level meter was calibrated with a Type I calibrator before and after all measurement sessions and found to be with 0.5 dB tolerance. A fiber windscreen was used to guard against microphone wind noise at all times. Weather information was obtained from records at California Polytechnic State University weather station, which is located about two miles northwest of the site. Wind speed on the site was generally less than 5 m.p.h. from the north and northwest. Transportation sound levels at this location are dominated by four lanesof.heavy traffic on U.S. Highway 101, which is characterized by medium to heavy traffic in two lanes of northbound and two lanes of southbound traffic, center divider located approximately 100 feet from the nearest south elevation of the proposed addition. Some mitigation of noise from U.S. Highway 101 is provided by the elevation of the roadway above the site, so that the nearest,southbound lane contributes most of the noise on the site. U.S. Highway 101 carries a substantial proportion of commercial vehicles on this stretch of road, with traffic flowing at about 60 to 70 m p.h. and consisting of about 15 percent truck traffic,half of which are medium trucks(having two'axles and six wheels). Because of their noise characteristics, buses and motorcycles are included in the medium truck category. The remaining half of the truck traffic is heavy trucks, having three or more axles and designed for the transportation of cargo with a gross weight greater than 25,000 lbs. Sound Levet Assessment, 520 Grand Ave, page 6 of 11 45dB.com 805.549.8046 Attachment 8 The existing day-night noise level was measured and calculated to be LDN=71 dBA at the second floor window area as indicated in the figures. With decreasing height along the south-facing elevation, the sensitive receptor areas are exposed to less of the highway noise. Existing sound levels impacting the south faeade of the proposed addition will therefore require noise mitigation to insure that interior sound levels do not exceed the allowable LDN=45 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 accurately reflect the actual noise conditions found in the field, due to topographical variations, obstructions and reflections. Future Noise Levels The Average Daily Traffic on Highway 101 is expected to increase gradually by the year 2020. An extrapolation based on traffic noise for similar locations in San Luis Obispo shows that the increased level of traffic will have the effect of raising the LDN at the site by less than a decibel by the year 2020, which does not significantly change the recommended noise mitigation for this site. Conclusion The south side at the north end of the site for this proposed residential development is at present above the maximum permissible sound level of LDN=60 dBA, and therefore requires noise mitigation beyond that provided by ordinary construction. Noise levels are more severe at higher elevations of the residence, therefore mitigation is increasingly important above ground floor to protect the interior habitable spaces with exposure toward the south side of the development. The insertion of this residential addition with a new, higher roofline will also have the beneficial effect of reducing noise transmitted from U.S. Highway 101 toward the neighborhood lying to the north. Recommended Construction for South-facing Elevation. The following construction specification mill result in the required performance of less than 45 dBA interior noise level. Mitigation is only required along the critical south side of the development, where construction assemblies for habitable spaces face the noise source. Noise mitigation may fail Sound Level Assessment,520 Grand Ave, page 7 of 11 4Sdxcom 80J 549 8046 � -3 y Attachment 8 to perform as expected if each and every following recommendation is not followed. A small crack or air leak in the construction may completely compromise all other sound-proofing. Vents and roof penetrations: Soffit vents,eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and roof penetrations shall be located on the walls and roofs facing away from the noise source (therefore, located on the west, east and north sides)wherever possible. Kitchen or bathroom fans on south wall shall require remote venting to other elevations, or to a stack with an opening protected on the south side. Wall: Only the south-facing exterior wall requires mitigation. The south-facing wall enclosing habitable spaces nearest the noise source shall be constructed with an S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class)rating of 35 or greater. For instance,stucco exterior, with 30 pound felt on 5/8"sheathing, on 2" x 6" stud walls with R-21 fiber glass batt insulation, a %z"layer of interior sound deadening board(Homasote 440 Sound Barrier or equivalent),and a layer of 5/8" Type X Gypsum Board will provide an S.T.C. rating of 35 or greater. Construction of the wall must include the liberal use of non-hardening acoustical sealant at all construction joints, including the header and footer construction and the edges and comers of gypsum board intersecting ceiling, walls and floor,especially behind papered joints. Apply Homasote 440 Sound Barrier directly to the interior side of conventional 2" x 6" framing, 16"o.c. using 5d adhesive coated nails. Space nails 3/8" from edges, 6" apart around panel edges and 12" apart on each stud in panel field. Countersink all nails at least 1/16" below surface. Provide agap of 1/8" between abutting edges, 1/4" between floor and ceiling. Using a good grade drywall laminating compound and a notched trowel, apply a 6" wide strip down the vertical center of 5/8"thick Type X Gypsum Board and a 6" wide strip down each side, 2" away from edges. Apply the compound coated Gypsum Board directly to the 440 Sound Barrien. Avoid coinciding butt joints of Gypsum with 440 Sound Barrier®joints. Secure Gypsum Nvith double headed nails,or bracing, until laminating compound sets. Apply resilient acoustical sealant to gaps at intersecting walls, ceiling and floor before taping and spackling Gypsum Board in conventional manner. Seal all peripheries and apertures and joints around windows. Acoustic Leaks: Common acoustic leaks and wall penetrations,such as electrical outlets, water and gas pipes, dryer vents,HVAC ducts, flues and other breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof insulation and construction on the east side of the apartments nearest transportation noise source shall receive special attention during construction. All construction openings and joints through the gypsum board on south-facing walls shall be insulated,sealed and caulked with expanding foam for large voids and acoustical sealant, as appropriate. All such openings and joints shall be airtight to maintain sound isolation. All vent or duct openings shall be turned to face away from the noise source. Windows: To meet the interior LDN 45 dBA requirements,windows for habitable spaces on second floor of the affected east elevation facing the noise source shall be of double-glazed construction with one light of laminated glass, and installed in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer. The windows shall be fully gasketed, with an S.T.C. rating of 40 or better,as determined in testing by an accredited acoustical laboratory. A commonly available example that meets this requirement is Milgard Quiet Line windows with laminated glass. Sound Level Assessment,510 Grand Ave, page 8 of 11 45dRcom 805 549 8046 Z-3s ' - r Attachment 8 Acoustical Sealants: Acoustical sealants are to be used where specified, such as USG "Sheetrock"brand acoustical sealant, or equivalent, SIGNED: March 28,2006 for 45dB.com Appendix I: Definitions,Terms,Sources Sound Level,dB: Sound level -Ten times the common logarithm of the ratio of the square of the measured A-weighted sound pressure to the square of the standard reference pressure of 20 micropascals, SLOW time response, in accordance with ANSI S 1.4-1971 (R1976) Unit: decibels(dB). dBA or dB(A): A-weighted sound level. The ear does not respond equally to all frequencies,bud 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 ear's response,it is necessary to reduce the effects of the low and high frequencies with respect to the medium frequencies. The resultant sound lever is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dBA. The A-weighted sound level is also called the noise level. A-weighted,slow response time measurements are used exclusively for this assessment. CNEL/LDN: Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night—because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep—a 24-hour descriptor has been developed that incorporates an artificial noise penalty added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise . Equivalent Level,CNEL, is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening(7- 10 p.m.)and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10 p.m -7 am.)noise levels. The Day-Night Average Sound Level,LDN, is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this 3-hour period are grouped into the day-time period with no dB penalty. LEQ The equivalent energy average sound level. Averaging time, commonly 1 hour,is indicated. Subjective Loudness Changes. In addition to precision measurement of sound level changes, there is a subjective characteristic which describes how most people respond to sound: A change in sound level of 3 dBA is barely perceptible by most listeners. A change in level of 6 dBA is clearly perceptible. A change of 10 dBA is perceived by most people as being twice (or hao as loud. Sound Level Assessment,520 Grand Ave, page 9 of]] 45dAcom 805:549.8046 2 3� -- Attachment 8 Sound Transmission Class (S.T.C.)The measure of sound transmission through elements of the building shell,such as a wall,door or window construction is the sound transmission coefficient or S.T.C. The S.T.C. in a specified frequency band is the fraction of the airborne sound incident on the partition that is transmitted by the partition and radiated on the other side. Appendix II: Instrument Specifications,Measurement Protocol Wind Measurement Wind speed and direction were noted throughout the measurement period and compared with data from the Cal Poly Weather Station. A magnetic compass was used to estimate wind direction. A Davis Turbo Wind meter was used to measure wind speed. The Turbo Wind meter is a high performance wind.speed indicator with exceptional accuracy. Features of the Turbo Wind Meter: Sapphire jewel bearings and Infra-red speed sensor provide almost no friction allowing the precision turbine to tum at a speed directly proportionate to wind velocity; Measures low wind speeds accurately Sound Level Meters Precision: 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 meters used for measurements.shown in this report are Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 812 and Model 820. These meters meet all requirements of ANSI s1.4, IEC 651 for Type 1 accuracy and include the following features: 110 dB dynamic range for error free measurements. Measures FAST,SLOW, Unweighted PEAK, Weighted PEAK,Impulse, Lam, 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 an external calibrator. Laboratory calibration of the meter is performed biannually and can be traced to the U.S. NIST standard. Sound Level Meter Used for this Study: Type 1 Larson Davis model 812 Sound Level Meter,with 2560 microphone, Serial Number 489. Preamp 828, Serial Number 1482 Microphone 2560, Serial Number 3153 Sowed Level Assessment,520 Grand Ave, page 10 of l l 45d&com 805.549.8046 y Attachment 8 Certificate of Calibration and Conformance issued 26 Oct.2005. The instrument meets factory specifications. Calibration due 26 Oct 2007. Calibrator used in this study Larson Davis CAL250 Acoustic Calibrator, Serial Number 1931. Certificate of Calibration and Conformance, Certificate Number 2005-66284. Calibrated on 02-22-2006. The instrument meets factory specifications per Procedure 130001.8192. The instrument was found to be in calibration as received. Calibration due 02-22-2008. Full calibration report available on request. Performed by Scott Montgomery, Larson Davis,Provo, UT. Tel 801.375.0177. The Larson Davis Model CAL250 is an ultra precise microphone calibrator delivering a full 114.0 dB level output signal. Its accuracy has been verified against the reference issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology(formerly National Bureau of Standards). Sound Level Measurement Protocol: The protocol for conducting sound level measurements is prescribed in detail by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)in their E 1014 publication. The procedures and standards in that document are met or exceeded for most sound level measurements shown in this report. Wind speed and direction data and temperature data are taken from National Weather Service records and Cal Poly Weather Station. Measurements were taken at times when wind speed was less than 20 km/h at the Cal Poly Weather Station. Wind speed measured at the microphone sites never exceeded 20 km/h. Urban density tends to slow the wind speed in the city, compared to the airport. Wind protection for all microphones was in place at all times. The standards of E 1014 are exceeded in the present assessment by using Type 1 sound level meters for all measurements instead of the less accurate Type 2 meters called for in the standard. Therefore, the precision of the measurements in this report is likely to be nearer plus or minus 1 dB. Sound Level Assessment,520 Grand Ave, page Il of I1 45diLcom 805.549.8046 RESOLUTION NO.XXXX-06 Attachment 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING A HIGH- OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 520 GRAND STREET; APPLICATION NO. A 60-06 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 May 24, 2006, for the purpose of considering an application for a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, Application No. A 60-06,a request to allow occupancy of a single-family residence by eight adults; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission approved the Use Permit to allow 8 adults to reside at 520 Grand Ave, based on findings and subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, An appeal of the Planning Commission's action was received by the City on June 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Approval. The request to allow occupancy of a single-family residence by eight adults is hereby approved, based on the following findings and subject to conditions: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, as stated in the Zoning Regulations (SLOMC Section 17.24.010), because of the proposed occupancy level and the changes to the site to accommodate this occupancy, such as the installation of a large parking lot, are suitable considering the surrounding neighborhood development pattern. 2. The proposed use is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element policies that are intended to create quality living environments since outdoor yard space is acceptable, and indoor living areas are appropriately shielded from excessive noise. 3. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of residents living on site and in the vicinity since the project site is 4. The proposed parking configuration conditionally complies with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. 2 ,39 Attachment 9 Resolution No. [ ] Page 2 1. Required modifications to the existing residence'and site to accommodate 8 persons shall be subject to architectural review. These modifications shall include the following: A. The garage shall be modified to eliminate the garage door opening facing the street while providing a new garage door facing west. The street elevation shall be appropriately designed to complement the architecture of the residence through the use of exterior stucco finish, siding and gable end treatment. Windows or other articulation may be necessary. B. The parking area shall be constructed of turf block or similarly pervious "all weather" surfacing. All parking spaces shall be designed to exit the site in a forward manner in two maneuvers or less. Landscape shade trees may be required in the parking area in order to comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. C. The existing residence and proposed addition shall comply with the City's Noise Element and Guidebook and incorporate the recommendations provided by the Noise Consultant (David Lord). This shall include but is not limited to: mechanical ventilation, insulated windows, 2 x 6 construction, vent baffles, increased attic and wall insulation and other methods designed to increase interior noise levels to below 45dB. 2. The occupancy of the residence may not exceed 5 persons until all improvements to the residence and site have been completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. This approval is subject to the City's standards that regulate high occupancy residential uses as Iona as more than 5 adults occupy the residence at any time. 4. This approval shall allow no more than eight adults to occupy the residence at any one time. 5. Seven parking spaces (all of which must be in compliance with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards) shall remain available to occupants of the site at all times. This means that the garage may not be used for storage or other uses that preclude parking for operable vehicles at all times. 6. Any new construction, including new walls, electrical work, interior modifications, or a new carport shall require review and approval of a construction permit by the City. 7. All existing construction on the property must comply with the current building and fire code and the dwelling unit shall be subject to inspection by the Community Development Department prior to occupancy of more than 5 adults. 8. The parking layout shall be inspected and verified by planning staff of the Community Development Department prior to occupancy of more than 5 adults. 9. The use permit may be reviewed at any time that the Community Development Director receives reasonable written complaints, or if two noise violations occur within a six-month period. At the Attachment 9 Resolution No. [ ] Page 3 review hearing the hearing officer may modify, add, or delete conditions, or revoke the use permit. A basis for revocation shall be failure to comply with the noise or the property maintenance regulations. 10.In compliance with the City's High Occupancy Use Regulations, the use permit shall be reviewed on an annual basis. The property owner is responsible for initiating the annual review and shall submit the review request in writing to the Community Development Department. At the review hearing the hearing officer may modify, add, or delete conditions, or revoke the use permit. A basis for revocation shall be failure to comply with the noise or the property maintenance regulations. This Use Permit shall be reviewed in one year following occupancy of the residence with more than 5 adults. 11. A noise analysis shall be performed to determine the mitigation necessary to create a quality outdoor open space area. The open space area must be outside of the street yard (at least 20 feet from any street property line) and must be exclusively available for outdoor activity (not a parking area, driveway or other area). Any mitigation measures (i.e. a masonry wall) necessary in order to reduce the noise level to less than 60dB for the outdoor area must be completed prior to occupancy of more than 5 adults. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2006. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney � -yr RESOLUTION NO.XXXX-06 Attachment 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL AND DENYING A HIGH- OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 520 GRAND STREET; APPLICATION NO. A 60-06 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 May 24, 2006, for the purpose of considering an application for a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit,.Application No. A 60-06, a request to allow occupancy of a single-family residence by eight adults; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission approved the Use Permit to allow 8 adults to reside at 520 Grand Ave, based on findings and subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, An appeal of the Planning Commission's action was received by the City on June 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by,staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Denial. The request to allow occupancy of a single-family residence by eight adults is hereby denied,based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is not consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, as stated in the Zoning Regulations (SLOMC Section 17.24.010), because of the proposed occupancy level and the changes to the site to accommodate this occupancy, such as the installation of a large packing lot, are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood development pattern. 2. The proposed use is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element policies that are intended to create quality living environments since outdoor yard space is very minimal, and indoor living areas are significantly compromised by ambient noise. 3. The proposed use requires improvements to the property that are not consistent with the development pattern found in the surrounding neighborhood, therefore the use is inconsistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies 2.2.10 and 2.2.12 and Housing Element.Policies 3.2.6 and 7.2.1. 3. The proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of residents living on site and in the vicinity since the project site is exposed to excessive traffic noise and the project site has a history of violations associated with misconduct. Adding additional density to this property is likely to exacerbate these issues. �-yam Resolution No. [ ] Attachment 10 Page 2 4. The proposed parking.configuration does not comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2006. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPRO S TO FO Jo athan Lowell, City Attorney � -y3 ` Filing Fee: $100.00 Paid `/ FFREGEUEDNIA N 0 5 2005 a w of. •REFER TOSEMON4 CITY CLERK san lues ompo APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION 9 - 0 - A)- Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 805 -5-yz/- 857c/!V Bos- 5-SU-b3A S Phone Fax. CYZD/UE'Y f QL-C-Q W3 267A H?1V2 ST 3/-,a eek 914/65 Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Cf,FARPer2saN 605-.5-q el-A (4 Soy - 5'7Y-036S Title Phone Fax SECTION Z SUBJECT OF APPEAL 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: 5)3AJ L4//5 tpA,1SPA P1-,3Nil// q CDn�M/SsI�N (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: A1/9Y a,YeZ 006 3. The application or project was entitled: �O 6 RA/1J7) *4VEi U49 145E PEf2M/T APPZ- , A16-06 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: PH& DMV6~OVE, 004A/V/V/N9 on M6Y 3/,, a?00G (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: MO SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/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 fort continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued 14L4enS F SEE 0917_1:�C.t/MENT — SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a Mina fee of$100,which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from fling this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted,that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. c P� sang 6- s= o (Sig re of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item h ccalendared for_ I' '—od& C: City Attorney v City Administrative Officer sem✓ �r�' �® �p�5 Department Head - Advisory Body Chairperson City Cleric(original) _- •D0LJ' I d Page 2 of 3 8/03 .3. .r �L Attachment - 1 SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL We are hereby appealing the (4-3) decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission rendered on May 24, 2006 approving a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eight adult tenants to reside at 520 Grand Avenue. (File# A 16-06). The property is a five (5) bedroom rental home located in a low-density residential (R-1) zone. The permit application includes a request to construct three (3) additional bedrooms for the purpose of adding three (3) more tenants. This application is similar to one submitted by the same applicant in 2002. That application was denied (5-0) by the City Council. The denial was based on neighborhood incompatibility issues and other inconsistencies with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. It is our belief that the Planning Commission erred in their determination that the current project is consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, and specifically that paving over the backyard to provide a five (5) car parking lot is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood development pattern. [MC 17.24 - Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone]. Although the Planning Commission did not include a finding that the application is consistent with the statutory intent and purpose of the High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations, we believe it is not. The high occupancy ordinance was intended to apply to existing, larger homes which have facilities available to support the additional occupancy with Tittle or no modification required. The ordinance was never envisioned as an entitlement to build mini- dormitories in R-1 neighborhoods. [MC 17.93-High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations]. We believe that the Planning Commission decision must be overturned because it is inconsistent with specific zoning requirements set forth in the Municipal Code and further that it is inconsistent. with applicable General Plan goals and policies, including but not limited to: LAND USE ELEMENT LU 2.2.10 - Compatible Development LU 2.2.12 - Residential Project Objectives LU 2.14-Neighborhood Compatibility LU 2.15-Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans HOUSING ELEMENT HE 3.2.6-Neighborhood Preservation HE 7.1 - Neighborhood Quality HE 7.2.1-Character, Size, Density and Quality GLOSSARY - Appendix M: Infill Housing Respectfully submitted, C/L� Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN RQN -Appeal 520 Grand Ave (June 5, 2006)I.doc i Department of Communi evelo ment City of San Luis Obispo p � p _ 990 Palm Street Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7172 Project Address 520 GRAND Parcel# 052-232-001 Project Title Legal Description CY SLO PHILLIPS SYN ADD BL 25 LT 8&9 Zoning 1 R-1 Zoning 2 Property Owner BARASCH STEPHEN B TRE EiAL In Care Of Owner Address 1697 SYDNEY ST SLO CA 93401-4655 Applicant.Name GRAND AVENUE PROPERTIES Day Phone(805)544-2600 Address 225 PRADO ROAD,SUITE W,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Representative STEPHEN BARASCH Day Phone(805)544-2600 Address 225 PRADO ROAD-SUITE H,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Appellant#1 R.O.N. Day Phone(594)036-5 Address P.O.Box 12604 San Luis Obispo Send correspondence to Applicant;Owner Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Planning Services Summary _ Application# Type of Application Received Fee A 16-06 Request for High Occupancy Use Permit 2/7/2006 $708 AP-CC 16-06 Appeal Planning Commission Use Permit A 6/5/2006 $100 16-06 Total fees $808 Received By BRIAN LEVEILLE Fee Paid by Applicant ( 708) Appellant#1 ( 100) Assigned planner PHIL DUNSMORE Hearings A PC Hearing 5/24/2006 Ph I I DU pl 0,A CL C9� K�L I � � a JUN-09-2006 09:51 From:CYDNEY HOL_COMB 805 594 0365 To:8057817109 P.1/1 ■V Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O.Box 12604.San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 RECEIVED JUN 09 2096 SLO CITY CLERK Date: June 9, 2006 To: Audrey Hooper, San Luis Obispo City Clerk Via: Fax to 781-7109 SUBJECT: 520 Grand Avenue, Use permit Appl. A 16-06 RE: Appeal Hearing Date Dear Audrey, This letter is to inform you that. RQN has no objection to continuing the council hearing On the above-entitled matter to August 1, 2006 or later. However, as I mentioned during our phone conversation, we would be most appreciative if it could be calendared when all the council members are scheduled to be present. Sincerely, 01YG Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN Page 1 of 2 Allen Settle - appeal of bad planing commission decision From: "Paul Bonjour" <paulbonjour@msn.com> To: "dromero" <dromero@slocity.org>, "asettle" <asettle@slocity.org>, "cmulholland" <cmulholland@slocity.org>, "jewan" <jewan@slocity.org>, "pbrown" <pbrown@slocity.org> Date: 7/30/2006 9:41 PM Subject: appeal of bad planing commission decision 2D eo L/ �- CC: <cholcomb@charter.net> COUNCIL CDD DIR IN-DIR !Q'ACAO E2FFIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY 5PW DIR why would you even consider the following amendment in an r-1 zone? CLERK/ORIG I�OPOLICE CHF Paul Bonjour ❑ DEPT HEADS REC DIR Vice President Laguna Neighbors RECEIVED �— &44 UJ DIR 1582 Oceanaire Or PI -- - - HR elA San Luis Obispo, C93405 IUl 3 20Q6 �,qo SLO CITY CLERK SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL We are hereby appealing the (4-3) decision of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission rendered on May 24, 2006 approving a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eight adult tenants to reside at 520 Grand Avenue. (File# A 16-06). The property is a five (5) bedroom rental home located in a low-density residential (R-1) zone. The permit application includes a request to construct three (3) additional bedrooms for the purpose of adding three (3) more tenants. This application is similar to one submitted by the same applicant in 2002. That application was denied (5-0) by the City Council. The denial was based on neighborhood incompatibility issues and other inconsistencies with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. It is our belief that the Planning Commission erred in their determination that the current project is consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, and specifically that paving over the backyard to provide a five (5) car parking lot is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood development pattern. [MC 17.24 - Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone]. Although the Planning Commission did not include a finding that the application is consistent with the statutory intent and purpose of the High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations, we believe it is not. The high occupancy ordinance was intended to apply to existing, larger homes which have facilities available to support the additional occupancy with little or no modification required. The ordinance was never envisioned as an entitlement to build mini-dormitories in R-1 neighborhoods. [MC 17.93 ? High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations]. We believe that the Planning Commission decision must be overturned because it is inconsistent with specific zoning requirements set forth in the Municipal Code and further that it is inconsistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies, including but not limited to: LAND USE ELEMENT LU 2.2.10 - Compatible Development LU 2.2.12 - Residential Project Objectives RED FILE LU 2.14 ? Neighborhood Compatibility MEETING AGENDA LU 2.15 ? Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans DATE ITEM # L)- HOUSING ELEMENT HE 3.2.6 ? Neighborhood Preservation HE 7.1 - Neighborhood Quality HE 72.1 ? Character,_Size,_Density_and Quality _GL OS SARY_Appendix M: Infill Housing file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}0000I.HTM 7/31/2006 Aug 01 06 03: 51p Wes-Conner Consultant 805 547 1281 P. 1 FAX TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED from AUG Ol 2006 Dotty & Wes Conner 216 Albert Drive,San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 SLO CITY CLERK Phone(805)543 8182:FAX(805)5471281 Date:.Aug. 1, 2006 FAX No: 781 7109 To: Members of San Luis Obispo City Council; Paul Brown, John Ewan, Christine Mulholland, Allen Settle, Attention: Mayor Dave Romero Subi.: Residents for Quality Neighborhoods appeal of Planning Commission's approval of high occupancy residential use permit to 520 Grand Avenue Comments: We trust that the council will uphold this appeal because the application is inconsistent with the specific zoning requirements set forth in the Municipal Code and the Goals of the General Plan. This application is similar to the one submitted by the applicant in 2002, which the City Council denied at that time. w � 6 C RED FILE itC0UCA0NCIL oD DIR MEE71PG AGENDA PYACAO 'FIRE CHIEF DA Z"/ ITEM #, WTTORNEY IffPW DIR �MLERK/ORIG CrPOLICE CHF 0 DFeT HEADS -�F REC DIR H'UTIL DIR «`" Z-HR DIR 'P C� Council Members: RECEIVED Dave Romero, dromero@slocit .orora Ally 0 12006 Allen Settle, asettle@slocity.orQ Christine Mulholland, cmulholland@slocity.org SLO CITY CLERK John Ewan,jewan@slocity.org Paul Brown,pbrown@slocity.org Dear Council Member, I am writing in regards to the appeal put before the City Council to rescind the approval of allowing a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit to add three more bedrooms on to a now five-bedroom home located at 520 Grand Avenue. The outdoor patio/BBQ area of the original 3 bedroom home was converted into two new bedrooms without a permit. Obtaining a permit after the fact should never have been allowed in the first place. Now to allow three more bedrooms to be added, thereby increasing the number of rentable rooms to 8, is nothing more than an assault on the rules and regulations that everyone else in a R-1 area is expected to abide by. To allow this type of occurrence sets a precedent to anyone who wishes to increase their income by illegally adding rooms and applying for permits later. Also to pave a part of the yard to permit parking for seven vehicles should not be allowed. This type of improvement would be more appropriate for an apartment in a High Density area—not a home in an R-1 area. This area is still a residential area where many long time residents have lived for numerous years. It is already overrun with rentals that allow 5 -- or more-- students per home. Noise, traffic and parking are a continual problem that destroys the normal tranquility people living in an R-1 area expect and desire. Please rescind the approval of a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit that would add an additional three bedrooms to a home that is now a five-bedroom home. Enough is enough. Sincerely, ' ER-,COUNCIL CDD DIR wi Ione and Darn Donati RED FILE �cAO PIN DIR 1990 Hope St. E'ACAO 5e FIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA Eff ATTORNEY - PW DIR San Luis Obispo, Ca 93405CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF 8"i DAT ITEM # Zi 2 �j D%HEADS REC DIR donati@thearid.net Fd UTIL DIR / E HR DIR Y 11Ex.C- Page 1 of 1 j Allen Settle - Barasch_proposal From: "Diane Halsted" <dhalsted@sbcglobal.net> To: <pbrown@slodty.org>, <jewan@slodty.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org> Date: 7/31/2006 9:02 AM Subject: Barasch proposal Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, I urge you to uphold the city zoning laws with respect to R-1 housing and RECEIVED deny Mn Barasch's request to operate a dormitory in a residential area.The AUG 01 1006 proliferation of student housing into what were once lovely family neighborhoods is the single greatest problem the city faces from the SLO CITY CLERK persepctive of this thirty-year resident. Cal Poly should never have been allowed to grow so large in so small a town. I have watched the destruction of quality neighborhoods increase hugely over the last fifteen years. Streets are impassible because students' vehicles block traffic, once well kept homes are destroyed and landscaping is not maintained, and noise has become a problem in every neighborhood in town. High housing costs have, in part, been driven higher by Cal Poly students taking over family residences and paying high rents to entrepreneurs. Incoming faculty and others would be able to rent housing if students didn't offer landowners the opportunity to make huge profits. I believe the RED FILE Planning Commission's decision was based on incorrect interpretation of the MEETING AGENDA R-1 zone. Here is your opportunity to make a statement that neighborhoods will be preserved. Please uphold the zoning regulations and refuse Mr. DA _9,Y/ O(r ITEM #_aLZ_ Barasch's request. And please devote sufficient funds to enforcement so that student-occupied housing meets requirements for off-street parking and occupants observe maximum occupancy laws and noise ordinances. Diane Halsted (805) 544-8995 'P COUNCIL 5� CDD DIR E?CAO FIN DIR 0 ACAO 1� FIRE CHIEF No virus found in this outgoing message. 'ATTORNEY C�PW DIR Checked by AVG Free Edition. 0 CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF Version: 7.1.394/Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 7/28/2006 0 DEPT HEADS REC DIR Q -7— R — P UTIL DIR Cap2 HR DIR 1° CRU file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 8/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle-Appeal Regarding 5�_urand �rom: Sandra Rowley<macsar99 @ yahoo.com> o: Allen Settle<aSettle@SLOcity.org>,Christine Mulholland<cMulholland@SLOcity.org>,Dave Romero <dRomero@SLOcity.org>,John Ewan<jewan@slocity.org>,Paul Brown<pbrown@slocity.org> Date: 8/1/2006 9:34 AM Subject: Appeal Regarding 520 Grand CC: Ken Hampian<kHampian@SLOcity.org> Dear Mr.Mayor and City Council Members, <!--[if!supportEmptyParas]--> Reference Public Hearing Item#2,request you uphold the appeal and,again,deny this project to add three more bedrooms and parking spaces on the lot at 520 Grand. <!--[if!supportEmptyParas]--> I have seen the plans and I agree with the staff's conclusions. The design of the project is more indicative of an R-3 boardinghouse,with a residence and adjoining parking lot,than it is of a home in an R-1 neighborhood. The project does not conform to the character of this neighborhood nor does it comply with R-1 standards to provide private,usable open space for residents(and no cars in the yard). <!--[if!supportEmptyParas]--> Thank you for your time and:attention. Sandra Rowley RECEIVED Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. AUG 0 12006 SLO CITY CLERK G z . Z_ E COUNCIL CDC, d;d CAO RN DiR I GbACAO C)eFIRE CHIEF RED FILE IR ATTORNEY I+PW DiR ® CLERK/ORIG POLICE cH MEET NG AGENDA ❑ DEPT HEADS �AEC D!R DATE____� � ITEM # UT!L DiR FrHR ^ I file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 8/1/2006""`- Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle-520 Grand Ave RECEIVED From: "John Sherry" <JohnSherry@elite4loans.com> To: <asettle@slocity.org> AUG 01 2006 Date: 8/1/2006 10:53 AM Subject: 520 Grand Ave SLQ CIN CLERK Dear Mr. Settle, Please DO NOT allow a high occupancy use permit for 520 Grand Ave.One of the solutions they propose for getting around the Parking Requirement is to pave the back yard.That action would be a detriment,to the quality of life in the neighborhood and would set a dangerous precedent. The paving of front, side and back yards to get around parking requirements or to circumvent the purpose of.Residential Parking Districts in San Luis goes counter to both City and resident's efforts to maintain a quality of life in our neighborhoods. I personally have"busted"two homes in our College Highlands Parking District that had paved their front yards to hold 4 cars across the front of the house, (to pack more student renters in)! Please help protect the quality of Iife in our neighborhoods and vote against a high occupancy use permit at 520 Grand. Regards, John Sherry 805-5443839 635 Stanford Drive San Luis Obispo I:.OP rEffrATTORNEY NCIL C D p vim RED FILE lql,.,p,/z MMING AGENDA O yo flee�IEF TPWDA oL ITEM # RK0 T)_!_;apg REC DI 2e itTrC 0 2(f3un�E !T H�Aliz. file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 8/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle-High Density Housing Aeguest From: Karen Adler<fudge805@charter.net> To: John Ewan<jewan@slocity.org>,Paul Brown<pbrown@slocity.org>,Christine Mulholland <cmulholl@slocity.org>,Allen Settle<asettle@slocity.org> Date: 7/30/2006 9:15 PM Subject: High Density Housing Reguest Dear City Council Members: Once again the property owner at 520 Grand Ave.is requesting special privileges that are NOT consistent in a low density residential (R-1) zone. This area already has enough problems with the over built rental housing on Mc Collum St. &Leroy Ct. Please do not add to the melee' of student rentals in this area.. It is incompatible with the neighborhood. Paving over a back yard to provide off street parking is simply at odds with the neighborhood development pattern. This owner keeps coming back to find new ways to get more tenants on his property. This request should be denied. Thank you, Karen Corda Adler 11 a . 0 `PCOUNCIL 'CDD DIR 2, RECEIVED If CAO . FIN DIR ®ACAO TZ FIRE CHIEF RED FILE ,II)I. 3 12006 P ATTORNEY ? PW DIR MEETING AGENDA EF CLERK/ORIG e POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK ❑ DEPT HEADS FREC DIR DA i ITEM P LI;FUTIL DIP, fl 7i2/�c.Y� R HR DIR P C',r2c file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 7/31/2006 RECEIVED JUL 31 2006 SLO CITY CLERK July 31, 2006 Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members, The proposed development of R-1 property on Grand and Loomis by Mr. Barasch is clearly an absurd proposal to create "dorm-style" living in a residential neighborhood. If Mr. Barasch desires to own and operate an apartment building, he should be encouraged to invest in an R-3 or R-4 property. Utilizing R-1 zoned homes to house multiple unrelated adults has already taken its toll on family neighborhoods in many areas of our city. Another heart breaking example is occurring on my friend's street of Stanford Dr. When I polled the neighborhoods and reported to you in 2002, Stanford Drive had one property used as student rental. It now has 8-10 such rentals. Where sweet little girls played children's games in the front yard across the street, drunken 20 yr. olds now play beer ping pong to loud music in the middle of once-peaceful afternoons. Some of this trend you are powerless to stop; some items come before you to vote on. I encourage you to "just say no" to Mr. Barasch. An individual's profits should not take precedence over neighborhood wellness. Thank you for considering what is best for your city. Sincerely, L Camille Small COUNCIL "DD DIR [Q CAO �?FiNDIR MACAO AFIRE CHIEF RED FILE S;�ATTORNEY PW DIR RCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF MEETING AGENDA ❑ DEPT HEADS aEC DIR DATE RZIA& ITEM # ff2 `,] 9/i4 UTIL DIR FP 7.P/,3 We__ HR DIR Jul 31 06 03:34p Pete & Marilyn Pedroni 805.543.7391 p.1 I RECEIVED To: City Council Member JUL 31 2006 From: Marilyn&Peter Pedroni SLO CITY CLERK Subject High Occupancy Permit at 520 Grand (August 1 Agenda Item) Dear Council Members: We are writing you to urge your support of the appeal by the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) to deny a high-occupancy use permit for the property at 520 Grand Avenue. We are the owners of the property at 1866 Loomis Street,which is across Loomis Street from the 520 Grand property. We believe that converting this single-family residence into an 8- bedroom rooming house with a 5-car parking lot in place of a backyard is not consistent with the R-1 neighborhood. Furthermore, these changes are only likely to make worse the documented noise complaint problems at this location. We believe that the neighborhood should continue to be one in which both working people and students can comfortably live. Upholding the appeal to deny the high-occupancy permit will work toward this goal. Thank you for your consideration Marilyn and Pete Pedroni 0,0,'COUNCIL CDD DIR RED FILE CACAO FIN DIPi Q ACAO FIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA ATTORNEY Pw DIFi 06 ITEM #. CLERK/ORI4 ret,POLICE CHF DA DEPT HEADS 4 AEC Dif pl K. ,,,3 Uti�Dia gp T�iRa,�� HR 0I.R t° CC.� o Page 1 of 1 f 1 Allen.Settle-Appeal of 520 Grant,..ve. From: Kathryn Stephens<kathrynstephens@sbcglobal.net> To: <dromero@slocity.org>,<asettle@slocity.org>,<cmulholland@slocity.org>,<jewan@slocity.org>, <pbrown @ slocity.org> Date: 8/1/2006 4:42 PM Subject: Appeal of 520 Grand Ave. CC: Jason Stephens<jstephens@cameronfinancial.com>,me<kathrynstephens@sbcglobal.net> Dear Council Members, First of all,thank you for taking the time to read this. The property in question is two doors down from our family home. We purchased 1837 Loomis 2 years ago and are raising our daughters here. The matter before the council was just brought to our attention and we are unable to attend tonight's meeting. Since there are only 3 properties on our side of the street,the re-zoning of one of them is a concern. Especially since two of the three properties are owned by the same party. At present,the properties have a few tenants,but come Fall I expect to see them overflowing again. The matter before the Council will most likely not only determine the fate of 520 Grand,but once the variance is obtained for the first property,won't the chances of a request for the second be strengthened? Our neighborhood is close to Poly and it is a mix of homeowners and renters,but all single family. There is not currently a shortage of student housing and just across the freeway there is ample multi-family housing available. That trend has not yet pushed its way into our neighborhood,until now. My contention is that to increase the nubmber of tenants at 520 Grand would not be compatible with our neighborhood's quality,preservation and appropriate density. The home in question is already maxed out and the quality of living for the students who reside there would definatley decrease. Furthermore,if approval is given for this property then the adjacent property is likely to pass through approval too. Attached area couple of snapshots of both properties. During the school year,I believe they are already exceeding occupancy and certainly parking requirements. Permitted parking ends at the edge of our property,so the overflow parking has already extended to the vacant land on the other side of us. 520 Grand is located on a very busy corner that has traffic from the freeway offramp intersecting traffic from the university. There is simply no additional room for extra cars. Paving the backyard will likely be insufficient. Again,I appreciate your consideration of these facts and of the feelings of the homeowners who WILL be affected by this decision. Thank you, Kathryn Stephens 805-543-3555 RECEIVED GAU AUG 0 2 2006 ,qcA v SLO CITY CLERK R 77-1 /37 As✓rJElir.G,C� file://C:\Documents%o20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 8/2/2006 \�a�aR�®��-...y • "aVF. .tom_• '�.�=N��'i-_=. .� l:P.... y ' ryYr b .�� -�4•�-3vY[r� .F r Allen Settle Summer 2006 173.jpg_, %d6 `eD. 3p °Co -o^^, }s a• h >..�Y Y/) / _+�' i � / + .1 �4TH'♦'- ,r.......�A y '- - +- �� .J� _ ��l/ pct'• F..e..:� 1 F