HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/2008, 5 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A 0-FOOT SETBACK FOR A 9-FOOT TALL Council "
j Ac,EnbA izcpo12t I,..Number
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O 5
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared by: James David, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A
REQUEST FOR A O-FOOT SETBACK FOR A 9-FOOT TALL DECK IN
THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS, WHERE 5 FEET IS THE NORMALLY
REQUIRED SETBACK, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 128 TWIN
RIDGE IN THE R-1-PD ZONE.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's action
based on findings.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The appellant, Mason Medizade, constructed a large deck in his backyard without required
building permits. As a result of a complaint from a neighbor, a code enforcement case was
opened and it was determined that the deck is in violation of City setback requirements. The deck
is eight to nine feet tall at property lines, which creates overlook issues for adjacent neighbors,
departs from the traditional neighborhood pattern, and raises safety concerns because there is no
required guard rail. The appellant applied for a setback exception and was denied by the Hearing
Officer. The Planning Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision on a 5-0 vote.
DISCUSSION
Background
After receiving and verifying a complaint, a code enforcement case was opened on July 12, 2007
for 128 Twin Ridge. The enforcement action includes a non-permitted deck, setback
encroachment, concentrated drainage onto City-owned open space, and non-screened pool
equipment. Furthermore, the deck appears to be built five feet onto City property. The appellant
has indicated that the deck was a repair to San Simeon earthquake damage. The appellant
contends that the height of the deck and setback encroachment is necessary to hide cow
droppings on City open space from view (Attachment 2).
A 6-08 (Medizade)
128 Twin Ridge
Page 2
The appellant applied for a setback
exception on January 16, 2008 to allow a
zero-foot rear yard setback and a 14 inch
side yard setback for a deck at the rear of
the subject property at 128 Twin Ridge.
The required side and rear yard setback in -- f
the Low-Density residential zone(R-1-PD) IT
�'6��iIVI i�Pilh Ir, �i7itch �� 1'" Its d �
is five feet. The deck was constructed Pr ��+� "
without required planning entitlements and �� y u ,� ,� ���,���.,�„�
building permits. It exceeds 30 inches - r
from adjacent natural grade on the
northern and eastern property lines (eight -
to nine feet from grade), and therefore is vfewjrom Open Space
not allowed per the City's Municipal Code - -- - - -- =---- -— --
(MC 17.16.020D).
On June 20, 2008, the Hearing Officer denied the appellant's request for an exception based on
findings outlined in the attached decision letter (Attachment 7). The appellant filed an appeal of
the Hearing Officer's decision, which was denied by the Planning Commission at its meeting of
July 23, 2008 (Attachment 9). On July 28, 2008, the appellant filed an appeal to the City Council,
claiming that he was not given enough time to express his opinion at the Planning Commission
hearing(Attachment 10).
Site Description
The subject property's lot size is approximately 13,250 square feet. The property is located
adjacent to the Bishop's Peak Open Space, in the northwest corner of Tract 1182 (Ferrini
Heights). The parcel was lot 46 of the
Ferrini Annexation in 1978, and
subsequent subdivision (PD 0632) in
1984. The property is developed with a
single-family residence, swimming pool,
J( and deck. The rear yard slopes
significantly towards the rear property
line. Attachment 3 shows the approved
site plan (1990) and Attachment 4 is the
..„ 9 jeer high
approved plans for the original deck.
Drainage The surrounding area to the south, east,
C.
and west is residential in nature with
similar zoning and topographic
constraints. The area to the north is City-owned open space. Zoning surrounding the site is shown
in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1).
The process and circumstances appropriate for an exception are governed by the City's Zoning
Regulations (MCI 7.16.020)
s-0-k
A 6-08 (Medizade)
128 Twin Ridge
Page 3
Compliance with Zoning Regulations
The Director may allow side and rear yard setbacks through an exception to be reduced to zero
under either of the following circumstances:
1. When there exists an adequate recorded agreement running with the land to maintain at
least 10 feet of separation between buildings on adjacent parcels.
2. When the reduction is for either a minor addition to an existing legal structure which is
non-conforming with regard to yard requirements or for a detached single-story accessory
structure(MCI7.16.020E2d).
Here, there is no recorded easement
running with the land. The existing legal
structure is conforming with regard to yard
requirements which prevents it from ..
qualifying for the second circumstance.
Furthermore, the deck does not meet the
definition of an accessory structure
because it is larger than 450 square feet. '"
Based on plans submitted by the appellant, '
the approximate floor area of the deck is
1250 square feet. The project is not a
`'minor addition".
n
Because the project meets none of the `_. Approximate setback fine
requirements to warrant an exception, the
Director could not make the required findings to support a setback exception because the deck is
not a logical extension of the existing structure and is not consistent with the traditional
development of the neighborhood. For these reasons, the Hearing Officer denied the setback
exception request. At the administrative hearing, direction was provided to the appellant on how
to bring the deck into conformance with City regulations.
Does the project qualify for a variance?
Since the Findings for an exception can not be made, the only avenue available to the appellant
is a variance application. In order to approve a variance, the Director, Planning Commission or
Council must make each of the following findings:
1. That there are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography,
which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning.
2. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege — an entitlement
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning. �r,3
A 6-08 (Medizade)
128 Twin Ridge
Page 4
3. That the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working on the site or in the vicinity.
Regarding Finding #1, the site does not contain distinguishing characteristics — neighboring lots
are approximately the same size and shape, and share similar topographic constraints. Finding
#2 can not be affirmed since the variance would be a grant of special privilege because other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning are also not allowed to encroach into required rear
and side yard setbacks and no similar exception has been granted.
The deck is a safety hazard because it is 9 feet high from adjacent grade and there is no guardrail.
The required 42" safety barrier would raise the overall height of the structure at the property line
to 12.5 feet high. Due to the extreme slope at the rear yard property line, requiring the 5 foot
setback would significantly reduce its height from adjacent grade, making it safer. Complaints
received from the neighbors as part of the enforcement action are also an indication that the deck
is having an adverse impact on the welfare of the neighborhood. Thus, the third Finding can not
be supported since there is evidence that the project could adversely affect the welfare of the
neighborhood.
The site circumstances do not support a variance to allow the deck to remain in its current
configuration.
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan states that residential development shall respect site constraints such as
property size and shape, and ground slope(LUE 2.2.11).
The General Plan also states that residential development shall respect privacy and solar access
of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where additions may overlook backyards
of adjacent buildings (LUE 2.2.10B).
The project as constructed is not consistent with the General Plan. The deck does not step down
with the grade; instead it maintains a constant plane supported by concrete pillars. It begins at
grade near the house and ends up 8 to 9 feet from grade on the property line. The substantial
height of the deck above grade adversely impacts the privacy of neighboring property on the west
side. The owner of this property has submitted a formal complaint about privacy concerns.
Consistency with Community Design
Guidelines
The project as constructed also violates the
Community Design Guidelines. The
Community Design Guidelines require that each
project should be designed with careful
consideration of site character and constraints,
and minimize changes to natural features. The
ring property
View ajneighbo '5�-
A 6-08 (Medizade) _
128 Twin Ridge
Page 5
design and placement of site features should relate to building architecture and site topography
(Guidelines 2.1, 6.113). In this instance, the project as constructed is not consistent with the
Community Design Guidelines. The non-permitted deck was constructed without regard to site
constraints, site topography and the surrounding neighborhood. The deck does not step down
with the grade, and completely covers the rear yard. There are no other large, high structures
along the open space edge of the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Review
At the Planning Commission meeting on July 23d, the Commission voted unanimously to deny
the appeal. The Commission heard testimony from the appellant and neighbors and expressed
concern that building permits were not issued before construction (Attachment 8).
Conclusion
This is a code enforcement action and repeated notices of code violation have been issued for
noncompliance with the City's Zoning Regulations. The deck was not reviewed or approved by
the Community Development Department prior to its construction. To resolve the violations the
appellant must obtain the necessary permits or modify the deck to comply with the applicable
zoning and building codes. A setback exception is not warranted and findings to support a
variance cannot be made. The deck is not compatible with the site or surrounding neighborhood,
there are safety concerns due to excessive height and the lack of a guardrail, and there are
overlook privacy issues. The appellant has ample rear yard space for a deck and pool without
encroaching into required setbacks as shown on the approved plans for the original deck
(Attachment 4). Consistent with Planning Commission action, staff does not support a setback
exception or variance for the non-permitted deck, and recommends that it be modified to comply
with the City's zoning and building codes.
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. This project will have no fiscal
impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may uphold the appeal and approve the request for a setback exception for a
deck in the rear and side yards, provided that the Council can make the required findings for a
variance.
2. The Council may continue the item,if more information is needed. Direction should be given
to staff and the appellant.
5��
A 6-08 (Medizade)
128 Twin Ridge
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Applicant request letter, January 3, 2008
3. House site plan, approved August 13, 1990
4. Pool and deck site plan, approved August 9, 2001
5. Applicant deck site plan, received June 2, 2008
6. Public comment letter from concerned neighbor, June 19, 2008
7. Hearing Officer's Decision Letter, June 23,.2008
8: Planning Commission minutes from the July 23, 2008 meeting
9. Planning Commission's Decision Letter, July 25, 2008
10. Appeal Letter, July 28, 2008
11. Draft City Council Resolution
G:ICD-PLAMIDAVIDIAdmin HearinglA 6-081A 6-08(/28 Twin Ridge)_Council Report
O
W
co
R-1 PD Q
F
AN'gCApA
R-1-PD
R1
-o
n
C/OS-40-PD -1
VICINITY MAP A 6®®6 N
128 Twin RidgeS,�
Attachment 2
Date: 1/3/2008
Mr. James David
Planning Technician
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
93401
Dear Mr. James David:
As you know, we have submitted a permit to your office for the deck built in our
backyard by Jaime H Concrete. The construction was initiated to repair San Simon
earthquake which caused some damages to the area around the pool and made it unsafe to
use. We spent a lot of time and money and were ill advised by the contractor with respect
to the setback requirements on the.north side of the project. We are requesting that the
city considers special circumstances surrounding this project:
1- The repairs were related to San Simon earthquake
2- The repairs were done under supervision of Jaime H Concrete located in
Atascadero.
3- A wooden deck structure was found to be the best solution because of flexibility
on a downhill slope behind the pool.
4- The setback on the west side is adequate.
5- The setback on the east side has been discussed with our neighbor to the east. He
is willing to write a statement in support of it, if needed.
6- The property to north of the house is an open space. This location is rather flat
and is a very popular grazing area.for the cows living in that area. At the same
location,there is access for water for these animals. As a result of this we have
been observing cow's droppings accumulated behind our house(up to the fence)
and distort our views. The stuff also smells bad.
7- A concrete retain wall was built next and parallel to the north fence. The concrete
wall is used as support for the deck.
Individuals from the City have visited the site and they have agreed that the
construction is robust and the look is nice. The house has benefited from a better
view hiding cow's dropping behind the deck. We request that City considers the
special circumstances around this project.
Sincerely, I
r Iuson 1` 1a1utae-
Mason Medizade
128 Twinridge Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA93405
5. 0
\,
• ... �I _------ - � u �L 'Itis cw . . ..�
1 -I------
ISO
Of 3
AM
M .
N:.
pq
u. •. .r >c� �.. , .,,: ; ;: r� fin.. ��S :t, �R��' . . 1� 4
��.• •d.•�f�_" } Y�afi . h •• < ; lyr jc ajff,It c3� Q c. 11
"th. ;
? II®®®4441 1: U I �,� ®� .ds a • � 0 s s • • . • Am
• � •• . t • • , •• • s d • r
. � - ytat ILS `P: �,, V i Y • � ,1 •� O P P -♦ P • P.r,
r
P ® , ( , j
QDW7
v
py 4�!•,! R r 1:�° !11 IR ,' t; �pp{�S IiiRI 1{ t 1fP., Igllp
M1A'�ti�i �• 1 gfll. � F �! , r; 1 '�� � R� � S3 S Ill
=t �S�' s��f � � �h�� �� �h �� � ��� ��IE �i 1 � •} � IEE ..R l I ��+I( (� � �; � ��e��E�i �
- •c s . 4 = i. �. 1
i( i` if f f {
cele walry �
I M • _ :' win T OQIlDIKLt ! ,.,.�. ,..,.
r i+,'yr'�lrL•tifY,on#> urr on•ro. aureerna �� 7
c' ra ., �, Y j •r;vt Yt'y,h. ,' w' t .,j, y- i h rY `,f3' r r i!r �" a'�.ya 'k IY.F£. r P r x, q"r3 tl �. r^<+�y, S
F Y < r t jr S J' ri e < _� `XfI.E TF. �w �.v rI! f M
rfi. a", o r.l i� .r / rr, } k way ,,-t, ,ld :f ,a2t.t,, �.* ¢ - J n.
;l Y ,.. ;,{ .n.
+ 1, r ¢. ..F r 4I i' 5'' 1 i.., IN r, l.t,, ~r Y` .� a�I'(..
YY
y5
JF o,
I w } a k ' a 1 x ]i a r Lx, ��FY r, .. , rc 1•
r " La-• , r1.1.3 Mr,5' .,). s f k r-' J 7. ! k +8,r/ T J v �\t f r'R''..
1 11
: N 1 t .6: .a_
.y i � /t 6 35i Fav ri L ) 1 ti.' '.'f>r(~�fp_YJ m. .,. -tiro} :.1�.
�. Yom. / a > f lIN a tY ' o r x. < v ,Yw Y• ♦ }iw
0.
i h x~' 1- :t a r't t' r I Y.w. t v +r y,I. i x+f .. ,y, R r k
' Z J f 5 Y. 3 {`l '� t L 1 R y_�i1 1tr.0 �SN
µ T , ! !T f d b A ice'}. i M 1 S t Y441 3 T {]
.3 K .F VA R T S h 1 J V �
!, r t.1f ttr },z��I �c i(y k rV. '> r I s l dH_a i� �` w r(`,,f�. a 5c 'F
Y_
I 1.1
�. iX_). .a i N a rfi. .. J 3 !p �pda i'7J {.i rII ,; iih -f,.
e n a �m >} ''t'r.t, >, 1 ¢ t a ra '.t.y.,+. �2 11
d t 4
als lF: '> to a >. r¢10 R a,! t 1, wi e r i '4 t r �+t a � r r ') tltMY r r f .:° t J�9
b # 7�{^�� 'i t r X _ s 6 -: rr M w., r vW A Af.
l:. `f+Ltii a .e, t "'Kr` ' 1. r r ,P. r d , MH r�K 5�"�✓`ac 53w1a`
4'q �E'i J Rt - t t t I I t11 1 t. 1 f M I.Fb
+ { a U f uta r Mk 'r .'+rt4R `hl !tl V 41
`Q,+ \9y Ir 4 l i (e -t t 9 1 a4k
t v�,r"Yoc \Jl�r .i *? r i; r r r re E C.Er .�� A2`Y 3{;-,3 t �4""'I r 'l.
y,. /4y� .a�T !.., fi 'fir`Yr '. i t i r"0 ' r w a'Ytt �rr(� ' w r j �$
r xi> Tt Z'ra - re 7 mP ,l 1 - R .i,Y t d A 7 k
li. 6 3a./ ,I i xl i a F -..f° y - "}z X z r yy .4
�f� y q%V J94 1.J' 9 -, Y yr M t D N # ('f�t R Yi 3�.' vl4aF f` i>}�1
M 1 r 5'r,'f i't>a i a'^ L r + , ;r L FI. y yh -0 f 2 1 -, {A aWIVF s Eli ,rfi z '`
6 4 ZZ
--9 _
1 Ir4�. `1 a Asx. $"� > ,.q J 4? w o > t r1 +.3' ' r'�r,arr r . �F' ¢a d 1 f
i r a .L m ¢ es ti
.�i>33 r � CM3 a r Yti a i s R 1 . r 1 4 '4. 1 ley. __ M h h r [9c
F .' va' F�r r+ 2 i .4 i * I rL ,,l,--,:A hSa^ '"4 -�Ax a t:t
9 r c { r t a J Kra n v. � f
y'1. k�' Y1 ) ',IL 1,} s : t �1 r Y ±M AeF 6� •.A ii A~✓a.-Y rj�5 .
ry r <
aP
�l'ra�k r c a�j u*' wa -A {/ ! �` 7 ? C ? I ,. r[ .£�'I Al �rt ''' k�iA
I L +.JF W s1. I _ 1 11K'fi Ix r 5J P alts r:
y3{
I O � 1)1 w a %. 3 r rq � , 1 ,'A'i, '.trr lY i _ S� kk
a - C i= 1. '" y r r ' I, r � P
r ,e%74%' r a' £ T �pG y1. .1 ! wKt» ku. a .:.w z ' 111<.
A
Jja y_y ^t. Fy t X $ r r r a ` h "
I--,'
rl r'� t. A t13. >ti� r1i a 1sT {ab „Slk v-`V11 l n
�, ¢E+E-; i` .i'; .O Q a `> "� y J�r n F r t s t , ; y;1F 'J �G, *, r ' hd t x .I i a • }5 �r0 gFla4 4_- -, 'cr ffa t� 1k '
[ r, x H\;tl. d 1 i > U' Y A >.F ( 5 h n,q 1... F'I, , [`I f . .'x,..iY''1 t i v1 ??" e ^ 7' v v -.'sr ` %Yte3"y Q
�'y'�b�_ 0 4 �.Y14 f. L \ d k n "T"fl. t 1! .f�'�I t1 6'i Y ` IC r 3 r I.
b1- 5 lA .i ' d t q 3, t I 1 I r I t• ;r d ✓`t a,y` , °tet �'fn4) I.'
< q� v + a I lir r • t ? v > r,f .t c s+ YT .1 ♦ J{Y k.
D a 'rFP r r 7 r . G tlw111 '.f's P ,� rt x w F, .
i ;�',, IEr i s .s.r fn frl S '{ s ' r 'i• n i .� +L �, r /� :1
1 k ♦ �' i / ?, l L ~.n 1 P 511
r P\fi h> Ti .. . f' r - f r f S" ~LT i _, at +jag
X'r ? t i. d 1 .[ , t 1, 1. '4 FRDPERTT.LIN.F y".4'.'11,.+1/(` t S r'.
... .y •I q s
h � 1.
4. T. y NY„1 'r F....,jr. L % .
..,�,.���e W v `k• > t ° t ♦ -n �A rY� JI' cr•fLv i ',y�.
rl r"�Py,p'"!� L'?¢ ¢ g Pil{j s . r .r r �^r r '"r?.qv ,n C F n {
Ta. . ie1 r'r a„ H{W 'NNOaN 1. H YNND ' l l". z[ .+.L
1 r3r� x- k 1 O - 'l Eti D. -r..-1-1-1 1 ' I 1 -1 1.Ci � Ye t 'Yi L.M. Jy r
.� S'4 1 = ( f H-I C m D D D D y.44i n-t N y t w y r 0 /(. t Y I >r
pc .�'` N I rt'I^ a + N 9:�a A I' G� -i;p. O .k ra, ) A -
. . a b-; R q .L Z Z,2!
2-1 D>,.9t r<'9 D1 -WT,4 u : , r+'.
p:,.i r. � m 7' i a- -1 m m m 111.7;61-' '0;=';k I�il P D IID t . "£1.."L ry ,4../t'`r i
i- Aa 2r;'4 m' .ju a; ' OGI'9 ti'rl T-Ir y-fl Z 9 tl r v r W,-I
iF 'S`! `'l e, it .� a c y�a 'm m mlp rl��lil nt.�'p t y.Cny4 i
,,� ,Z,;, ! 1_ i.4 , wY a,� t 18�ii: c L'wa'r y3l �nr�ir'-'i dv+�r}•w:ffW a / .,; + J
7; f 3 Ttr e m :y o v 9a�1� $=rA�- gD 7.v It 4 a ..
rr fiI > N r�. rr f R�r' j�MyO0r�.Fa,= r1 fm1 }'L.'";., .' ' r r.
1. 'rfi g Y'�r 1� '� ' ` t 1 mrll� t9�il��. 1. O-Il r.rAU'ry�1 t ,�4. 7'1. J"YM r,) S ..
1 v,.* d;, r .N t ? r w £ �. s 'fl,9I..311 1t9u � C 3„cy., a 7, _Il �jk'
,. � .> r'a617ID 11 a ,'. 'p:, o�IN :�p-qu 17�t '`'f�` [*.+, �F tI Zr.
:1 f +l J� I l 1 4 �' = i.m E. �1 E
r' i)D.r� 1 .r , . ,tp-rl i I. . T' v .t s a eI 11.4
.1,1 r,vvxr i W V r- �l r y � I. ^r' 4r ,q c
I.
�,{..1 Aj A f ,- _
9 F \.
I.
I 4,T' I. ,�y*k d 1 �„t
11 1' V 4-as� r �1 t t1. d O. t s 7 y; 3ir k 'E' 'y A`r7 N
a
r i :a x .r r iyy > re ¢r t L _ ".. >g a .:n.�yt,. r. x' t w L_ ia!"r9.
1.11
s.
R ' '�, G ���II 1 rl \},4F..x p pp�� ::II ,il.���� iny�9 �rte11�� �,�LLee +F 7 t 4Y }�fL. ..t:! ei !(4YrS T yl
Ei ' ,.. .t 1q;. A 4cM-/ P. !9 I l`q K t •a � ..r Y Jtl�J�YQ4 C7�4L�tl'�YJ'y m h n,i�'rli'�.l-: �,r ur'�1 1 1\r° Iq,vw
E.... .. YY TTTT 4 1 f ,y ^Lr y y i' IF�r�E/VW✓l��r , . i i e-- rl ¢ I
_AT i $ ij cc 3 r ,r t r I \1 <
I ) } rIP 4fIII r n%F Jr r r +. i.n iX!}xl I` l - wl/ rL �! h '+
•x` > > f •( s [ 6 9 I irr S .J A i•v i RI�L"L4a�La��O+��'4{r�P .�O�G'6u'l C a rI vK '� r o rl a r • m _fic'taN fF
>'ytiy1.t ,f .-ieI. ra.Nt K Iry .c ♦' M £. ✓ ..Y .Y Y>d ,1
... Ed 1-rttt�4�. d%L. ii,ir wrw �J 3 .'qY� r .ryiY: tN .fr+ >�X ry r nYk i��
A f` r Y J
11
% y > _ "�''- i` lit
h r:' a 1911 r 4'
isS I R. PM to i "`
. IIII a
'} i
Attachment 5
r T�t�rr, a Qr• L)rc�
...... 14
s4.,s
171
I.ra� 1
To
* \ Y I
` IN
`
r /
.
ski.,
-' -' Attachment 6
BERT & CANDACE FORBES
140 Twin Ridge Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 USA
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUN 19 2008
June 19, 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City.of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Reference: Application #A 6-08 for 128 Twin Ridge Dr.
Attention: James David
Because we will not be in San Luis Obispo at the time of the hearing on June 20,
we would like this letter of comment read into the record of the hearing.
We have spoken with the applicant in the past and agreed that while the side
setback that he used for the deck (14 to 22 inches from our fence) is closer to our
property than we would like, it is not a significant issue for us because we have
planted landscaping to hide it.
However, his pool equipment is at the right rear corner of his property alongside
the deck and is both visible and somewhat noisy (as pool pumps can be,
especially as they age). We would request that he put some visually aesthetic
sound-proofing around the equipment so that we won't hear it in our bedrooms.
We have not planted any landscaping to hide the equipment, as it is under our
large redwood tree, which prevents most plants from growing. Even if we had
plants, landscaping does nothing to stop the noise.
Thank you for your consideration..We appreciate Masoud and Zoreh as good
neighbors.
Bert Forbes Candace M. Fo es
�►I��II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII{{{ I II�� I�I ` � of- F
Attachment 7
Cl S�►lr1 OBISPO
Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
June 23, 2008
Mason M. Medizade ETUX
128 Twin Ridge Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 6-08
128 Twin Ridge
Dear Mr. Medizade:
On Friday, June 20, 2008, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request to allow a 0-foot
setback exception for a deck in the rear yard where a 5-foot setback is normally required,
at the above location.
After reviewing the information presented, I denied your request, based on the following
findings:
Findings
1. The applicant has already constructed the deck without required planning
entitlements and building permits.
2. The project is not consistent with the General Plan because it does not respect site
constraints (LUE 2.2.11) and overlooks backyards of adjacent dwellings (LUE
2.2.1 OB).
3. The project does not meet required circumstances to warrant a setback exception
because there is no recorded 10-foot separation easement running with the land, it
is not an addition to a legal nonconforming structure, and it is not a detached single-
story accessory structure.
4. The deck is not consistent with the traditional development of the neighborhood
because no other property owners in the vicinity have decks that exceed height
requirements and encroach into required setbacks.
5. A variance of other yard requirements cannot be supported because land in the
vicinity with the same zoning has the same circumstances such as size, shape, and
topography, and it would constitute a grant of special privilege.
5- 15
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
1�"`� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
Attachment 7
A 6-08 (128 Twin Ridge)
Page 2
6. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303,
New Construction of Small Structures).
Direction to applicant
1. File a complete building permit application with the City including site plan. Site
plan can be hand drawn by you provided it shows appropriate dimensions, scale,
setbacks, and elevations.
2. Move your deck structure five feet off the rear and side property lines to comply with
City Code (17.16.020C3).
3. If you would like to leave a portion of the deck in a required other yard setback, it
can be no higher than 30 inches above grade (17.16.020D).
4. The 3-foot retaining wall may remain in the rear yard setback provided that it is
detached from the deck structure and meets the definition of a fence. You may
raise the overall height of the fence in the rear yard to 6 feet from adjacent grade to
help mitigate animal and human intruders (17.16.050).
5. Cut the existing drainage pipe back so it is on your property and disperse drainage
flow using riprap under and around the pipe.
6. Screen pool equipment with 3-foot high fence per approved building permit #15775.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the
action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are
available in the Community Development Department or on the City's website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
If you have any questions, please call James David at 781-7576.
Sincerely,
Doug Davidson
Hearing Officer
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Attachment 8
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 23, 2008
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners, Diana Gould, Dan Carpenter, Michael Multari, Vice-
Chair John Ashbaugh, and Chairperson Chuck Stevenson
Absent: Commissioners Christianson and Brodie
Staff: Deputy Director of Community Development Doug Davidson, Senior
Planner Jeff Hook, Planning Technician James David, Code
Enforcement Officer Gene Gailey, and Recording Secretary Michelle
Lakey
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as submitted.
MINUTES: The minutes of June 25 & July 9, 2008, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 128 Twin Ridge Drive. A 6-08: Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to deny the
request for a 0-foot setback exception for a deck in the rear and side yards; R-1-PD
zone; Mason Medizade, applicant. (James David)
James David, Planning Technician, presented the staff report, recommending the
Commission adopt the attached resolution (see staff report) denying the appeal and
uphold the Hearing Officer's action based on findings. He explained various code
violations at this property. He stated that the deck does not qualify for a setback
exception and the site circumstances do not support a variance. He explained that the
deck design does not respect site constraints such as ground slope. He stated that
adjacent neighbors have submitted written and verbal complaints about setback
encroachment, privacy, and pool equipment screening.
Gene Gailey, Code Enforcement Officer, explained the history of code violations on this
property and the interactions with the owner of the property.
Mason Medizade, property owner, stated he did not agree with the dates that were
stated by Gene Gailey as to when calls were made and letters were sent out to him by
the City. He asked that the Planning Commission review his previous testimony. He
alleged that the City knew about his deck and retaining wall before the construction
started and their first letter arrived in July 2007. He stated that the construction began
in December 2006 for earthquake repairs that were needed. He explained that the
5�tb'�
i
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 8
July 23, 2008
Page 2
initial complaint was about the side fencing only. He stated that the Planning Office
advised him to apply for a 0-foot setback exception and felt that they knew it would not
go through. He is disappointed that the City Planning Division advised him to do this
when it could never be approved. He felt that the City did not fairly consider his permit
request. He stated that the earthquake repairs were needed because concrete slabs
around the pool had started to separate. He stated that the barbed wire is at the
property line and his retaining wall is on his property. He felt that any changes that will
have to take place will not be his fault. He felt any repairs to his property did not require
a permit.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Helen Sipsas, San Luis Obispo, felt the deck impedes on her family's property. She
stated that Mr. Medizade pushed the barbed wire fence back to build his retaining wall
where he wanted. She disagreed that the cows in the open space behind the property
are a problem. She stated she informed the property owner before July 2007 that he
would need a permit for the project and that building into the City's open space would
be a problem, and Mr. Medizade's response was that it would not be a problem and no
one would care about it. She supports staffs recommendation.
Bert Forbes, San Luis Obispo, stated that the deck does not bother him because his
landscaping blocks his view of it. He stated that he does not like the noise of the pool
equipment but that the owner has stated he would cover it up. He stated that at the
edge of his property is an iron stake that he has always known to mark his property line
and that it meets right up with the barbed wire. He stated that the Commission should
not rely on the property lines drawn on the picture presented by Staff. He sent a letter
to the City saying he was fine with the property owner's construction of his deck and
retaining wall.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Multan felt that the property line issue on the City's open space should have
been explained more in the staff report. He is troubled most by this case that the
applicant did not get permits for this project. He understood that repairs to earthquake
damage were needed but that permits were needed to complete the repairs desired by
the applicant. He is not flexible with the fact that permits were not obtained and codes
were violated.
Commr. Gould felt that the applicant should have applied for a building permit and that
lack of knowledge on these issues should not be a reason that the Planning
Commission grants him the appeal. She stated that staff should work with the applicant
in achieving compliance on these issues. She felt that a plan of action that works on
staffs end and on the property owner's end should be figured out.
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment $
July 23, 2008
Page 3
Commr. Carpenter felt that paying to have the property line surveyed at this time is not
needed since there are so many other violations. He felt this is in complete disregard to
the City's policies. He supported staffs recommendation. He felt that staff has followed
procedures correctly.
Vice-Chair Ashbaugh felt the retaining wall and any of Mr. Medizade's construction
projects that encroach onto City's open space should be removed.
Chairperson Stevenson does not accept Mr. Medizade's assertion that staff withheld
information. He agreed with Mr. Gailey's statements about contacting the property
owner.
Directional Item #4 has been changed by Staff to say: "You may install a fence on the
rear yard property line up to 6 feet from adjacent grade to help mitigate animal
intruders."
On motion _by Commr. Carpenter, seconded. by Vice-Chair Ashbaugh, to deny the
appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action based on findings.
AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Ashbaugh, Multah, Gould, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Brodie and Christianson
The motion carried on a 5:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Carpenter, seconded by Vice-Chair Ashbaugh, to adopt the
amended directional items written by staff.
AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Ashbaugh, Multari, Gould, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Brodie and Christianson
The motion carried on a 5:0 vote.
2.—434othill Boulevard. TR/GP/R 200-07: Vesting Tent et-klap�and
rezoni;tn
ium-high density residential - ig -density residential (R-4)
to accew 16-unit projec - zone; SLO Investments, applicant.
(contiust 2008 ing) (Phil Dunsmore)
The Comimo agree continue this item to the August 13 meeting.
3. Ci 06: Review of the Draft h Broad Street Corridor Plan; City of
San Lpplicant. (Continued from Ju 2008, meeting) (Jeff Hook)
S-1?-
Attachment 9
i�ll��hl�lllllll811111 I ��I Inll11
IIIIIIIII III 1! kil_. OBISPO
Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
July 25, 2008
Mason M. Medizade
128 Twin Ridge Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT: A 6-08: 128 Twin Ridge
Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to deny the request for a
0-foot setback exception for a deck in the rear and side yards
Dear Mr. Medizade:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 23, 2008, denied your appeal and
upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, based on findings as outlined in the attached
resolution and with the following direction:
Direction to applicant
1. File a complete building permit application with the City including site plan. Site
plan can be hand drawn by you provided it shows appropriate dimensions,
scale, setbacks, and elevations.
2. Move your deck structure five feet off the rear and side property lines to comply
with City Code (17.16.020C3).
3. Decks in a required other side/rear yard setback can be no higher than 30
inches above grade (17.16.020D).
4. A fence may be installed on the rear yard property line up to 6 feet from
adjacent grade to help mitigate animalintruders (17.16.050).
5. Cut the existing drainage pipe back so it is on your property and disperse
drainage flow using riprap under and around the pipe.
6. Screen pool equipment with 3-foot-high fence per approved building permit
#15775.
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�_ Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
A 6-08(128 Twin Ridge) = Attachment 9
Appeal to Planning Commission
Page 2
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk's
office or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100
and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you have any questions, please contact James David at 781-7576.
Sincerely,
John Mandeville, Director
Community Development Department
Attachment: Resolution 5506-08
cc: SLO County Assessor's Office
07/28/2008 08:08 73387776665553322287
Attachment 10
WM2008
Mr_ James David
Planning Technician
City of San Luis Obispo
919 palm Street, San Luis Obispo
CA, 93401-3218
Dear Mr. David:
By this letter, I am appealing the ruling on our permit application on 712312008.
1 will stop by your office to complete the form and submit a $100.00 check_ I understand
we have 10 days to do so_
Sincerely,
Mason Medizade
128 Iwinridge Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805 756 1345
s-�
Filing Fee: $100.00' Attachment A
Paid
t city of N/A
SECTION 4
san lues oBlspo `REFER TO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
1� /Nl o n, i►?ED Z,4r��' 12-8 -77v,he-,dg Dr.
Name MailinWe ss and Tr
.��LL C/�- 3
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
..
pi A
Title Phone
Fax
A, •r
SECTION 2. 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:.
9Axtip, /'0 m rrr, s s iv,,,
(Name of Officer, Committee or Ccfnmission decision being appealed) ,
2, The date the decision being appealed was rendered: -7 12;k
3. The application or project was entitled:
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
on
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
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 form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
J Attachment 10
Reason for Appeal continued // '7/2.
__ p h
T Gi/O lel c� l e 4d A4aeQir �_� �S•In
I y
1
Al dp ION K
I
k � �
t
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 filing 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 filing 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.
-- (g to a 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 is hereby calendared for
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
City Clerk(original)
Page 2 of 3/
8/03 ^1,a;L-
i
Attachment 11
RESOLUTION NO. (2008 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING
AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 128 TWIN RIDGE,A 6-08
WHEREAS, the City opened a code enforcement case for the subject property on July
127 2007, for the construction of an illegal deck without required building permits in the rear and
side yard area; and
WHEREAS, the appellant, on January 16, 2008, submitted an application for an
exception to the City's standard setback requirements;and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer, at an administrative hearing held in the Council
Meeting Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 20, 2008,
denied a request to allow a 9-foot tall structure to remain on the property line in the R-1-PD
zone; and
WHEREAS, Mason Medizade, filed an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action on June
27, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo, at a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
July 23, 2008, denied an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action for Application No. A 6-08; and
WHEREAS, Mason Medizade, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
July 28, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 16, 2008, for the
purpose of considering the appeal of the Planning Commission's action for property located at
128 Twin Ridge (A 6-08); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the appellant, interested parties, the records of the administrative hearing, the records of the
Planning Commission hearing, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Section L Denial of Appeal. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action denying
the setback exception for a deck in the rear and side yards at property located at 128 Twin Ridge
is hereby denied, based on the following findings:
1. The applicant has already constructed the deck without required planning entitlements
and building permits.
2. The project is not consistent with the General Plan because it does not respect site
constraints (LUE 2.2.11) and overlooks backyards of adjacent dwellings (LUE 2.2.10B).
�•d J
— Attachment 11
Council Resolution XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 2
3. The project does not meet required circumstances to warrant a setback exception because
there is no recorded 10-foot separation easement running with the land, it is not an
addition to a legal nonconforming structure)and it is not a detached single-story accessory
structure.
4. The deck is not consistent with the traditional development of the neighborhood because
no other property owners in the vicinity have decks that exceed height requirements and
encroach into required setbacks.
5. A variance of other yard requirements cannot be supported because land in the vicinity
with the same zoning has the same circumstances such as size, shape, and topography,
and it would constitute a grant of special privilege.
6. The deck is potentially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare because it is 9
feet high from adjacent grade and does not have the required 42" safety barrier.
7. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303,
New Construction of Small Structures).
Section 2. Action. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby deny an appeal
of the Planning Commission's decision, Application No. A 6-08.
Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of , 2008.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
: Filing Fee: $100.00
Paid Rrmgwsped
-_ - N/A J U L 3 n 2008
�tct 'ai',umt".j Y I�L�Cd l)1'UT
- -- *REFER TO SECTION SLO CITY CLERK
1, san WIS OBIspo
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
D r• M 4 S o iv 14 F D i zsz) Or
Name Mailings 1 r s.r�i Zi ycfe y�
.��CC�. /-�- y3
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
P/OL tin Ii/It ZomM1 55��H
(Name of Officer, Committee or Cotnmission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 7112 3 e Z o o J!
3. The application or project was entitled: /2$ :V2LX4 Le
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
on
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
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 form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
i
Reason for Appeal continued
// ' ' �e . o ri 7�Z
T ����� l/•IL.0 rl 1 0 Q4ae4-D
l
104
/ // ,{►
CS-��' �bb�ls'��f
e
J
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 filing 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 filing this form. You will be
notified in writing of theexact 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.
(S gnature 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 is hereby calendared for � .6
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer ! ,
Department Head — ?77 A—,,L �/�(.�6
Advisory Body Chairperson
Ci Clerk(originayl)
/?i Page.2 of 3
8103
7Jif S�oK� CAV D"- dizao�e- ICAC . .
ka
4,6 i
Cano, Elaina
From: Mason Medizade [mmedizad@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:53 PM
To: john@belsherandbecker.com; Cano, Elaina
Cc: abrezden@belsherandbecker.com
Subject: RE: 128 Twinridage
Hi,
September 16 is fine with me if John does not have any objections.
My best..........
-----Original Message-----
From:john@belsherandbecker.com [mailto:john@belsherandbecher.com]
Sent:Friday,August 01,20085:11 AM
To: Mason Medizade
Cc:abrezden@belsherandbecher.com
Subject RE:128 Twinridage
Sure its okay. However when I return from vacation we want to see if we can work this out with planning
staff.
Angela can confirm the date.
-------- Original Message--------
Subject 128 Twinridage
From: "Mason Medizade" <mmedizad@calpoly.edu>
Date:Thu,July 31,2008 10-05 am
To:"john@belsherandbecker.com" <john@belsherandbecker.com>
Ca "siolaw@belsherandbecker.com" <slolaw@belsherandbecker.com>
Dear John,
I went to the planning office and filed an appeal. She called me today and wanted to know if 9/16 is
agreeable to us. She said 9/16 is three days out of the 45 day window. You can call her at 805 7817102 and
her name is Elena.
Let me know what you advise.
My best
t
i
Have a great day,
Dr. Mason Medizade
Professor
Mechanical Engineering Department
Cal Poly State University
2
Page 1 of 1
Cano, Elaina
From: Davidson, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:00 PM
To: Cano, Elaina
Subject: Incoming appeal
Elaina, re: the incoming appeal we talked about earlier, the project planner(James) is out of the office on Set. 2nd
then, so September 161h is the appropriate date. I know that's a little over the 45-day period for an appeal
hearing, but a delay is beneficial to the appellant. If we tell him the appeal date is 9/16, there will be no problem
(unless he's out of town then, too—let's hope not). Thanks
Doug Davidson, AICP
City of San Luis Obispo
Deputy Director, Development Review
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-781-7177
8/5/2008
►��������►��i i i►h►�111!!111 �►i�� �����111 _ ��
IIII IIII
C� oOBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
August 5, 2008
Dr. Mason Medizade
128 Twinridge Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION REGARDING 128
TWINRIDGE DRIVE
Dear Dr. Medizade:
In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal
to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting,but in no event later than
forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City
Clerk.
Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day
deadline (i.e. September 19, 2008), we require a signed acknowledgement.
Therefore,fl ease sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than
August 19 . An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-7104.
Dr. Mason Medizade
Sincerely,
),t4
Ally—,Audrey Ho er
City Clerk
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
Filing Fee: $100.00
Paid 1 "
N/A AUG 0 4 2008
Cly/ 0
*REFER TOSECTION 4 SLO CITY CLERK
san IDIS OBIspo
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
Stxnime�th�ll5
(oanCLM Nome 3503 irimpleo S�,,293t/
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
- 5 yq-96c/31S—
Phone Fax
Te6t c) Lctn q le y 3503 Fire pIPO 5� . ste SCG 934/6%
Representative's Na a MailingAdder d Zip Code
(ohm,);I 61i (YAAa r Ac c.5-w-9093 R05 -5 V-/1-6 a/.S—
Title
S-Title J Phone Fax
SECTION 2. 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:
clkk a San Wim Orni,SQa-r{e� Comm A-E- e.e_ -
(Name of Officer, Committee or Com mission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 98 D008
3. The application or project was entitled: 4154 Gc)d gIpL1 Poi n 52k�io� SrV .
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
on
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
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 form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
Reason for Appeal continued
��ea�� s�E A��achecl
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 filing fee.of$1100% 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 filing 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 hereb agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said a is sc a uled for a public hearing before the City Council.
gLl
(Signatu Ap el nt) (Date)
Exceptions to the fee: 1)4116ealsaree 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 is hereby calendared.for
C: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head — LJ c—(.feR
Advisory Body Chairperson
Ci Cie (on Ig al)
2• r I�• �(,,vrr Page 2 of 3
8/03
SUMMERHILLS GARDEN HOMES OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
3563 Empleo Street, Suite B, San Luis Obispo CA 93401
(805) 544 - 9093 (Fax) 544 - 6215
August 4, 2008
The Board of Directors expressed concerns regarding the size, location and general maintenance
of the large Alder trees at 4124 and 4154 Poinsettia. Thus, I began to collect information
regarding general maintenance or removal of the trees from local experts.
Both the local contractors and the City Tree Committee agreed and 4124 Poinsettia has been
approved for removal due to the size of the tree and proximity to the home. However, 4154
Poinsettia was not approved for removal by the Committee.
The Board of Directors understands the City's desire to maintain the natural beauty of the area
and preserve local trees. However the Board of Directors is asking the City Council to revisit the
issue of removal of the Alder tree at 4154 Poinsettia. Enclosed with the request are four estimates
provided by local contractors and pictures of the tree in question. Each vendor recommends
removal based on the current size of the tree, the possibility of the tree doubling in size, the
potential safety issue as this type of tree has an abundance of surface roots that will damage the
sidewalk, and the fact that root pruning could damage the integrity of the tree.
Furthermore the Board would like to bring to your attention that the tree is owned in common by
the Homeowners in the Association and while we understand the current tenants desire to keep
the tree the Board must make business decisions based on what is best for the Association as a
whole.
If the Alder tree is to remain regular upkeep will be needed including root pruning and trimming
and thinning the tree. For a tree as large as the Aldar regular maintenance is a great expense and
the cost is shared by all owners and reflected in the required homeowners' assessment. Many of
the residents within Summerhills Garden Homes Owners' Association are on a fixed income and
rely on the Board of Directors to do all they can to keep the monthly assessments as low as
possible.
The Board of Directors trusts that with the information contained herein the City Council will
allow the removal of the large Alder tree and allow the Association to plant a more appropriate
tree for the available space.
Best regards,
By Direction of the Board of Directors
mine arden Homes Owners' Association
Devin Lang A
Community Manager
Goetz Manderley
G T q
rU
7, y
dp
OR
'41ems1.st ^
43
71t CIOol,FVV1 '�
�/ it - 000 o c � 0°e tem o .� � J'�-•>
/ £
CL a
6 Qv`� �� � b°Al
i
mgJ e_ 4.
caw
A G
s
IF
o
ca, °o �.
°
y89 c
_ 1
, 1
I!
1
/ y 1
°
r�
e
J �
SUMMERHILLS GARDEN HOMES OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
3563 Empleo Street, Suite B, San Luis Obispo CA 93401
(805) 544 - 9093 (Fax) 544 - 6215
Fax
June 18, 2008
RE: Request for a Proposal
The Board of Directors for Summerhills Garden Homes Owners' Association has authorized
me to seek recommendations and proposals for the Alder trees located at 4124 and 4154
Poinsettia. If your recommendation is removal please also include a price for grinding the
stump.
You are welcome to inspect the trees at your convenience, as they are located in the common
area in front of each home. Please submit your proposal for consideration no later than July
14, 2008
I look forward to any questions you may have.
Best regards,
By Direction of the Board of Directors
Summerhills ar�len Homes Owners' Association
Devin Lan ey, CA
Community Manager
Goetz Manderley
805-801-9710 Cellular
GREEN LE 'TREE CO.
P.O. Box 13234 o San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 1 AMI
805. .1124 • 805.772.8500
CellIV/
e: 805.235.5175 STEVE FRANZMANN
State License rist#730795
Certified Arborist#941
Mame Billing Date
Address (�J� c7 Address Cell Phone n
City&Ztp —/S/2 City&Zip Fax
Phone: 90/- 8710 Phone:
❑ Aerial Lift ❑ Big Stump Grinder ❑ Little Stump Grinder ❑ Wood Splitter ❑Lowering Device,Bull Ropes ❑ Wood Dolly ❑ Wood Cart
JOB SPECIFICATIONS
I
I
$!� e i
n 'Y� SI K
. j
� I
lvs
n
'<i2e_ A�' At 617'T//... ape-" I-IL
r ,I -r raj a,
447eOl
t re.,
❑Cut Wood ❑ Leave Wood ❑ Remove Wood ❑ Grin$S
ps ❑Remove Grindings ❑ G•ave Grindings
We propose hereby to furnish material and labor,complete with above specifications.Any a'te ation or deviation from the above specifications involving
extra costs will be made only upon written agreement.Tree removals do not include stump grinding unless specified.Ali completed work includes full
insurance coverage.This proposal may be withdrawn by us at any time before acceptance.
Dollars
GREENVALE TRREE-CO:
Acceptance of Estimate Date
T.d ST29"Go0i ££L829bS08 33& 311JANMN9:1402U dTS:90 8002-92-8UW
VV
QUOTE
Dote:June 30,2008
i d
To Devin Langley
Summerhills Garden HOA
3563 Empleo St.Ste9
Son Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Salesperson Job Payment Terms Due Date
- ---- ---
Ron Rinelli 4124&5154 Poinsettia-SLO i Due on receipt
...........................................- -- --- .__.._._.......--------......--::-...._...-......................._....-...........
�..,,..,.....,._..,- ....__.;.- ----._.....,........ -.,..---- -.......
Qty Description Unit Price Line Total
14124 POhlseft
Remove Tree Of House) -
!._...---------__........._-__...__-------.................-------- ..__.
-- - 650 DO ...
Grind Stump
150.00
Trim Tree
250.00 !
! 4154 PolnsefHa
-..' _Remove Tree V..__- -_ ..._... _,..,_.._... _._._...._.....__ -- -........._,._....... 400-
_
Grind Stump
„L _ ..........��--_
------ ........... ! 250.00
Trim Tree -- - ---
- -
200.00
!..._.—_._..._ � � .....ems
Recommendation:Removal of Both trees- Must apply for permit in I
order to remove the trees. ;
Subtotal
Sales Tax i
Total
Quotation prepared by:Ron Rinell
This is a quotation on the goods named,sualect to the condltlons noted t)e;ow:(Describe any conditions pertaining to these prices
and any additional terms of the agreement.You may want to include contingencies that will affect the Quotation.)
To accept this qualaiion,sign here and return:
Thank you for your businessIl
l�CiNYC.)N itR�Js.'Rce SEKY•CE
LUi$ $110,4.f 1):.W.
?hoi!e 5i 1.:47.1933 Fax EyJ^.5Ct.2ii%
k;unycnbr^suu♦]igplpnFi.crmt
06/26/2008 16:17 80552827" CENTRAL COAST TR''-,S PAGE 01
43 Years lxd < �-
Experience
2nd generation
Tree Trimmer ., ISM
• Trimming c�..,��. s ra o... ?• A
• Shapmg c _
• Complete TreeC�� .. \ NN%V_
Removal
• Cablin • Chipper 1�' -�s�.ja%-� Z.X 3 -�
• Shrub & Hedge Na in �
• Stump Remove=
• Root Pruning
smo u mesas —�
Fdy u��
Leslie M. Faust
35 Years in the Area
til..ti
.� i 4- se e
JUL _U
CUSTOMER'S ORDER NO. PHONE DATE
NAME _
ADDRESS
TSOLD BY CASH C.O.D. CHARGE ON ACCT. MDSE.RET'D. PAID Olff .
PRICE
• DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
! l'���_ -<Zr_""err✓E" --
(a—
;7D,iib -76 51
I
' I
I
I
I
Alci^."soca;bh Fur=_.r,a a TO r.y Yr,n 'dl [afc
1 es 0 ,s ?-;�. u.;d. TAX I
RECEIVED BY TOTAL
I
o All claims and returned goods MUST he accompanied by this hill.
i 20,1f THANK YOU
t'
v
Filing Fee: $100.00 per,
Paid
NIA VAUG 0 6 2008
CrtY Of *REFER TO SECTION 4 :"SLO CITY CLERK
San US OBISPO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION ,
NameMailing Address and Zip Code
£its sq -)
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code(copy attached). I hereby appeal the decision of the:
(Name of Officer,Committee or on decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 0 A-L '�-M -�. -
3. The application or project was entitled: V%
4. 1 discussed the matterlwith the following City staff member. on
(Wtiambees Nam and Departrn (fie)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom:
.J 11 ke—
SECTION I REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain speclicatly what actionts you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
T 'd ESESLas d -1 auolsuooW etugweD daT =To so 90 2ny
Rug 06 08 01 : 18p Cambria Moonstone L P 9275392 p. 2
Reason for Appeal continued A
� t
SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all fomes 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 filing fee of$106%which must accompany the
appeal fotln.
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 filing 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 find 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 atter 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 app tiled for a ubric hearing before the City Council.
$ ' fie _09/
nature ofAppellant) (Date)
Exceptions to the fee 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid
the city slot►to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body.�7
This item is hereby ealendared for ��,c,YL�e „ z.
G City Attomey
City AdminIsbative OfNcei
DeparbnerrtWaid GcJa �L�Gr
Advisory Body Chairperson
Zv»zhS �3. 4nGA-, Page 2of3
1-O 64aYZ 4c/e.ys
08/06/2008 11:02 8055429868 CORP YARD PAGE 01/01
c,, l vv� c-t' -7 S
CLt sGu3 s
July 8 2008
Robert F Nadler
604 Her dersah AV Sabe 200
San LuR'Obk*i%CA 93401
866 997 5100 fas 866 597 5151
ArbodSt
Cdgof9ao tab Obtsm CA-
FBI to:
a,•FBsto
5429568
Obi to tom&Perm*for removd of trent
1374 Plow Straet
Bash: C Mmbd c dcs2rggtWD of habfdat, earheft of tht areas aad iwz"Asteat
wfM1i vow city pram6re ie this arae
Xon , l�
Robert e9er
KEITH PELLEMEMR
malft Mn sw er4301 FYAtex'aln�eMnmear
urban Formucoaued sarwm
• san Luis omspo
2100,CA DMM- 14
MR M--7032'FAX fly 142-PNO
E-ar@IWaBEme4,ledgorg ww..�Ocftym0
t •d Z6ESf.Z6 d 1 auo;suooW eFJgwBS dss:To BD so 2nm
E'd asesL26 d -1 auo%suooW eijgWe0 0181 ; TO 80 90 Sued
` IIIII!IIII���������tIIPllI!!,
.:: 1� 17NA/Cfc HEHOJ 4NDUH
DATE: September 15,2008
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO&-
FROM: Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Request for Continuance—Public Hearing#5, September 16''Council Agenda
City staff has received a request for continuance of the above-referenced item from the
applicant's representative, John Belsher. The CAO recommends granting the continuance to
allow staff and the applicant additional time to review the corrective actions Mr. Medizade is
working on. Staff recommends the item be continued to a date uncertain, but no later than
February 17, 2009.
Please call Doug Davidson at extension#177(781-7177) if you have any questions.
k*?-2 CoP,.( �itf►c�
OUNCIL �DDD DIR
RED FILE �AO L'7 FIN DIR
MEETING AGENDA Gl TTORNEY ET-PWCAO CHIEF
DATE' ITEM # f �P�✓DIR
/ / CLERK/ORIC3 )
LIC
CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS PPSIR
El PI-�' IR
1&UX)&4_
C-R
C
RECEIVE®
SEP 16 2008
SLO CITY CLERK
From:John Belsher[mailto:john@belsherandbecker.com)
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Lowell, Jonathan P
Subject: Medizade
Dear Jonathan:
I represent Mason Medizade concerning his appeal to the City Council, set for tomorrow evening. Mr.
Medizade requests a continuance of one month in order to work with staff on some corrective actions Mr.
Medizade is working on.
Please confirm this continuance request is received and advise how it might be processed. I have
another engagement tomorrow evening and will be unable to make the City Council meeting. I left a
similar message with planner James David as well as Christine Dietrich. As both have been unavailable
this afternoon I decided to leave this message directly with you.
John W. Belsher
BELSHER & BECKER
412 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Telephone: (805)542-9900
Facsimile: (805)542-9949