The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/02/2002, 2 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A 10-FOOT TALL MASONRY SOUND WAL council o° 02-02 j acEnaa RepoRt 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directgr�nn Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Planning Technician "V SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A 10-FOOT TALL MASONRY SOUND WALL WHERE A 6- FOOT TALL FENCE WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THE R-1 ZONE. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's action on the subject project. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 522 Broad Street Appellant: Robert Rice Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) General Plan: Low Density Residential Project Action Deadline: The Zoning Regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. Situation The appellant has filed an application with the Community Development Department for an exception to the City's standard fence height requirements. The request is for a 10-foot tall masonry sound wall surrounding much of the residence where a 6-foot tall fence was previously approved at 522 Broad Street. The previous approval provided for a 6-foot setback on Lincoln and a 12-foot setback on Broad. On April 5, 2002 the Community Development Director denied the request based on findings outlined in the decision letter(Attachment 3). On April 12, 2002, the applicant filed an appeal of the Director's decision. On May 22, 2002 the Planning Commission denied an appeal of the Director's action (Attachment 4). On May 31, 2002, the appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment 5). 2-1 Council Agenda Report—FH 19-02 July 2,2002 Page 2 Proiect Description The project is a request to allow a 10-foot tall masonry sound wall where a 6-foot tall fence was previously approved. Fence Height Exception A30-84 was approved for a 6-foot tall wood fence with a 6-foot setback on Lincoln and a 12-foot setback on Broad. The appellant is also requesting a 6-foot masonry sound wall on the property line along Broad Street between the proposed 10-foot wall and edge of driveway with a 10-foot return paralleling the driveway towards the house, as well as, along the northeasterly property line. Planning Commission Action On May 22, 2002, the Planning Commission voted four to one (Commissioner Caruso voting no, Aiken absent, Cooper refraining) to deny an appeal of the Director's action to allow a 10-foot tall masonry sound wall where a 6-foot tall fence was previously approved, based on findings, as indicated in the attached Resolution No. 5337-02 (Attachment 4), and directed the appellant to trim the existing hedge along Broad Street to comply with the City's hedge height standards. The Commission also asked staff to work with the neighborhood commercial uses in the area to see whether there were ways to reduce noise conflicts with the surrounding residential neighborhood with specific attention given to providing landscaping, establishing acceptable delivery hours and mitigating pay phone noise. Commission discussion focused on the massiveness of the wall, merits of the decision being precedent setting due to similar traffic and noise situations in residential neighborhoods throughout the city, and noise attenuation qualities of a 6-foot masonry wall to replace the existing wooden fence (see attached draft minutes from May 22, 2002, Attachment 6). Appeal Filed On May 31, 2002, Robert Rice filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment 5). The appellant believes that the 10-foot masonry sound wall is necessary along Broad and Lincoln to provide adequate sound attenuation for the property's outdoor usable space area, and is asking the City Council to approve the proposed sound wall where a 6-foot fence was previously approved through Fence Height Exception FH 19-02. Fence Height and Location Staff does not support the request to allow a 10-foot tall masonry sound wall where a 6-foot fence was previously approved along Lincoln and Broad for reasons outlined in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 7), which specifically addresses General Plan consistency, neighborhood compatibility and sightline visibility. Based on this staff analysis, it is recommended that the appellant replace the existing 6-foot wood fence with a 6-foot sound wall to achieve sound attenuation consistent with the City's standard for acceptable outdoor noise exposure levels for residences. Staff has not received any information from the appellant or the appellant's noise consultant that would indicate that a 6-foot masonry sound wall would not provide adequate sound attenuation at the subject site. 2-2 i Council Agenda Report—FH 19-02 July 2,2002 Page 3 Conclusion While staff sympathizes with the appellant's situation, the proposed 10-foot sound wall is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, is inconsistent with the General Plan, would be considered a grant of special privilege and would cause significant sight distance impacts for vehicles entering and exiting the property. Other sound attenuation alternatives are available to the appellant that would not necessitate the need for a 10-foot sound wall or any other exception to the City's fence height standards (see Planning Commission Staff Report Appeal Response#5, Attachment 7). CONCURRENCES The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was not distributed to other City departments. FISCAL UAPACT None.. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council may uphold the appeal and approve the request for a 10-foot sound wall where a 6-foot fence was previously approved. 2. The City Council may deny the appeal but approve a fence height exception with a lesser height or greater setback. 3. The City Council may continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the appellant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Director's Decision Letter Dated April 5, 2002 4. Planning Commission Resolution 5337-02 5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 31, 2002 6. Draft Planning Commission minutes of May 22, 2002 7. Planning Commission Staff Report 8. Draft Resolution "A" Deny the Appeal 9. Draft Resolution `B" Uphold the Appeal G:\Tcorey\CC\FH 19-02 Rice\FH 19-02 cc rpt.doc 2-3 hm nt - R- 0 R-0 �O R-1 �O C-N R- U. ' r -N O R-1 C/OS-5 R-1 R- VICINITY MAP FH 19-02 N 522 BROAD A 2-4 Attachment 2 Ro6er+ F'Cc_-e S�y - (o,;L7( 0-10-4 frocose J 10 ' t"&sorry wall r� J sfvr-e b u i-recvia Ohravr��— woi ' 3 1 P •� i I, 2-5 ��h��nlll�hlllllllllli�l�l��lu►i�i►►►►II IDI O� SAn LAs oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 April 5, 2002 Attachment 3 Bob Rice 522 Broad San Luis Obispo, CA 93422 Subject: 522 Broad (FH 19-02) Dear Mr. Rice: On April 5, 2002, I reviewed your request to allow a 10-foot sound wall along Lincoln and Broad Streets, where a 6-foot tall fence was previously approved with a 6-foot setback from property line in the Single Family Residential (R-1) zone. After careful consideration I have denied your request, based on findings. This decision is based on staff research which included a review of the project plans, visits to the project site, consideration of input provided by neighbors and a review of past decisions on fence height requests in the neighborhood. Findings: I. Approval of the proposed fence height exception at this location would constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 2. The proposed 10-fool sound wall would be greater than 8-feet which is the maximum allowable height for fences (SLOMC 17.16.050.B.1). 3. The proposed sound wall is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies 2.2.12.H & 6.6.2 because it would isolate and block the outward street appearance of a Contributing Historical Resource from a public right-of-way. 4. The proposed sound wall is not consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy 1.27.4 because the creation of walled-off residential properties inhibits functioning neighborhoods. 5. There are other options available to the applicant in terms of noise mitigation such as replacing the existing 6-foot wood fence with a 6-foot sound wall and replacing the existing house windows for sound attenuation. 6. The proposed 10-foot tall sound wall is architecturally incompatible with development on the site and surrounding neighborhood because it is at least 4-feet higher than any other fence in the neighborhood. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of this action. If you have any questions about the appeal process, please call Tyler Corey at 781-7169. Sincerely, Ro isenand Deputy Directo of Community Development cc: Project File The 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)781-7411). 22 Attachnien t 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5337-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 522 BROAD STREET, FH 19-02 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, on April 5, 2002, denied a request to allow a 10-foot sound wall in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Robert Rice, filed an appeal of the Director's action on April 12, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 22, 2002, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Director's action for Application No. FH 19-02; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties; the records of the Director's actions, 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. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. Approval of the proposed fence height exception at this location would constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning because similar exceptions have not been granted in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed 10-foot sound wall would be greater than 8-feet which is the maximum allowable height for walls and fences (SLOMC 17.16.050.B.1). 3. The proposed sound wall is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.6:2 because the outward street appearance of the subject building would be completely blocked from public view. 4. The proposed sound wall is not consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy 1.27.4 because the walling-off of this residential property would inhibit its ability to cohesively function with the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The proposed sound wall is not consistent with General Plan Noise Element Policy 8.4 because preferred approaches for noise mitigation could be used to reduce the noise at the subject property to an acceptable level established by the General Plan. 6. The proposed 10-foot sound wall is architecturally incompatible with development on the site and surrounding neighborhood because it is at least 4-feet taller than any other approved fence in the neighborhood. 2-7 Attachment 4 Resolution No. 5337-02 Page 2 7. The proposed masonry sound wall would pose significant site distance impacts for vehicles entering and exiting the property. Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny the appeal of FH 19-02. On motion by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commr Osborne, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Osborne, Boswell, Loh NOES: Commr. Caruso REFRAIN: Commr. Cooper ABSENT: Commr. Aiken The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of May 2002. Ronald hisenand, Secretary Planning Commission by: 2'S � ICEIVED Date Received MAY 3 12002 4.ur i 4city Of Attachment 5 •. � SLO CITY CLERK SM LUIS OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT IINFORMAT70N Name ! Mailing Address and Zip Code } Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing.Address and Tsp Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2 'SUBJECT OF APPAL 1. in accordance with the procedures set forth in Tine 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision.of.the: (Name of Office. Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the deo;sion being appealed was rendered: Sam f :Z 3. The application or pr^*ct vas entitled: --IY u — d-1 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: -7 7(-7/ 4, (smA Aembes dame and De mnent) (Date) SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically 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 additionsd pages, if necessary. This=form continues.on the ofher silo Page 1 of 2-9 Attachment 5 l Reason for Appeal continued CS y♦ t (' ift/F_fl,_// �/}� �J/Q �J3� f fr� Tfns.Sats r� twat; Ytrriaer�,tt � ar�ccurages.s�#ar�is�i�ett srt�rte7t'ib�t��t�r, ?Tia§��.as�i`�a"c�e�ritit- ! charge a fee#or fnung as appeal. -iirnrsce .ep si eicre ifie cny and requires { oonsiderabfe-wotx.$�6�cssf,lncici ing ageri :prc tiri uc n. Therefore, es. iV ru r`*an appeal,please undersfanti;uaaiTi 'heat�i in jdays;frnrt�.ming s fom�..You W be J rtoUf'ted in:writing of the a et to yAur-appeai wilt ae i adcnW o be tear i re.. he Council. You or your representative v4 be xt�eet d eto attend AheViblic heanag,and to be prepared to make your case: Your testim'.0 iy,is iimitecl- .i'G riiirirtias. A continuance may be grantedunder certain and unusuaVdirc urnstances. ff you:feei you need.to request a continuance;you must submit your-request-in wratina-to-f --City Clerk. Please be 1 advised that If your request for continuance is-reoeived after the appeal is noticed to the public;the Council may not be-able to grant the request-for ooti€ihuianoe:. Submrttingzi request far continuance ' does not guara_rltea that It wiif.be.granted;that action b-s#-the discris#ion of the CITY Cou—ii. 1 l'hcreby cgrea to ri7r?"*er-w L.7dlor sand a to Cn my haftzlf L:'I'= sald a ..ee is sahedtrlod f_r ubE m. w .. Fr----= ..P.,_..c kaislri�,Lie._ L.,..GIt,�.CcstrncfL. I .g .uae of BTM .µ This item is hereby caiendared for - -W City Aftonmy My Admirftbutive. E443gatment fend Pmtge 2 of 3 2-10 Attachment 5 Chapter 1.20 APPEALS PROCEDURE Sections: 120.010 Title. 120.020 Rightto appeal. 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. 120.040 Hearing Notice. 120.050 Hearing- Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final. 1.20.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the"Appeals Procedure"for the city. (Prior code§ 1400) 1.20.020 Right to appeal. A. Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise specifically set forth in this code, any person objecting to the approval, denial, suspension or revocationof a license, permit or entitlement of any nature, the determination or ismianGe of which is under any of the provisions of this code, or to any administrative decision made by any city official, if the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of such license, perm+t or entitlement or the determinationof such admirasLrative decision involves the exercise of adm3nistretiive discretion or personal judgMent exercised under any of the provisions of this code, may appeal in writing'to the council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of such' appeal, stating the specific grounds for the appeal. '13. No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision made by a city official under the provisions of this adapter unless such decision to appeal has been-first taken up wM ifte department head ooncerned, and where ah appeals board is empowered to consider interpretation and enforcement Guesfions, unless such decision to appeal has been considered by such appeals board. C. No right of appeal to the councli from any adnifiistranve dec:isicn made by a city oriicial under any of the provisions of this code shall exist ether; such decision is ministerial and thus does not involve the exercise of ad.^iinistrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under a! y of the provisions of this code, whether the administrative decision involves the approval, denial, suspen6an or revocation of a license, permit, entiwement or any outer administrative decision. (Ord. 1'04'4`§ i, 1.995:prior code§1401) 12G.M0 Time within ndiidi to file an appeal. 'The appellarit shall file a notice of appeal with the city desk-%ithln ten calendar days.after the-date upon which the ad ninistreuve de:�sion appealed from is mads. to the event the last day of the filing period fall` on a nonbusiness day,the appeal period shall be extended to include the next business day,and this r shall apply whenever an appeal procedure is specifically set forth elsewhere in this code. (Prior code � 1402) 1.20.040 Hearing -Notice. Upon receipt of-the firrang of the notice of appeal in its proper for,n, qtr fieri:shall pate the mailer or the council agenda. Except in cases of emergency, when the council may determine the mattes Immediately, or where-state law prescribes a different appeal process; the clerk shall set:the:matter foi hearing at the next reasonably available council meeting, but in no.event later than forty-five calandai days after the date of the fang of such notice of appal with the city de5ik. The city deck shall cause written notice of such hearing to be given to the applicant not less than five business days prior to suct hearing, unless suit notice is waived in writing by the applicant. (Ord. 1252 § 1, 1994: prior oDde`§ 1403) 120.050 He;a"s Appellant to Zvi cause-t eounciil's deteirriination firtai. At such hearing the appellant shalt show cause on the.grounds specified in the notice of appeal why tti; action appealed from should not be approved. The council may continue the hearing from time 10 file and its findings on the appeal shall be final and conclusive In the matter. (Prior code§ 1404) Page 3 of •�4 2-11 V:•. 1 t � ` 7r••.. •J—R ' :.� 111111 • :TSV �' I- •n-57 _— •:F-Y 'Icy / -J J( fi i...:. ..+e 'v l •'2 LM. .a r H'�.lug.y",�is,��F`y�`�,�♦ �.9,+CN to rCK{Hy...j. xY� #v t_• t ,Yj*��t '1 `!jl^'� I F ` � °-T :. rF9+Gs-.•e k �, h$�� s��..4t. h�yY:, d' 't',�l�.r t4: ' i' b rt� F { �. � � ±.. �w i. � 4 �,�r.`d r nac� x Y�. n � t• I r 11 �-...(,�:+"� 3-(s'�'� y�� x ��i?,�'+4.,`la. v\� b s,t" s '�` �� .� J� +- " i '•� 3 •--I 'J.x'—Y �G��t�Y�.!l.-3�'?-]`S'• ri i '> V' is t t :� ,j - o �� r .E s•. t't 1 r _ !•rn��.�..:.��",�=M1 ��T'�'Y{4� ssv�+� iiro I... �� _ 1 "r<rVf � ,� s. ,. a w._,, a. s 1 3' u�:f� v �a•.,r �b tl s 1..,- `F 1 jog L... _�....L.u•� •? �cr�:c: • 0 Attachment 5 L Issues (cont) South side of house faces freeway with w estimated 65-70 db(attachment 7) :aa ` ^ necessitating outdoor living areas to be on �' North and Westside of house. Noise level ydat oft on this side of house is much louder and _ discontinuous due to stop and start and acceleration onto freeway. Discussion of Staff Issues (cont.) Recommendation • House is built about 2 feet above grade so 1. Though property is zoned r-I properties that the 5'"receiver height"mentioned in on both the north and west are tall the staff report is actually at or slightly commercial buildings. Property has no above the existing 6' wall. back yard as do other properties in the neighborhood therefore there is no quiet outdoor space such as exists at other residences. Discussion (cont) • staffs alternative solution is to install soundproofing windows(staff was informed that this has already born done on most windows)and to install air conditioning so that windows need not be opened. With energy shortages.this is f certainly not a recommendation which"preserves the environment and promotes wise use of resources"(quoted from community development department mission statement)nor does is protect outdoor living areas. 2 2-13 1 Attachment 5 Discussion (cont.) Discussion • 3. Property is not on the list of contributing Fences are not"out of character"with the historic resources. neighborhood and fences higher than 6'do • 4. The city policy of not allowing`walled- in fact exist at several locations within a off residential enclaves"may be admirable few blocks of the property—one at 456 in quiet residential neighborhoods but Broad is just one block away. with two cannot be deemed as desirable on what is businesses across the street,what is the essentially a freeway onramp with "character of the neighborhood? businesses on two sides Discussion Reasons for approval: Staff did not explore the sources and sound Neighbors do not object and the majority signed levels rather utilizing the figure generated the petition acknowledging the seriousness of the by a computer model of freeway noise when sound problem and supporting the sound wall. noise from Broad and Lincoln is actually • No public purpose would be served by strict much greater and more disruptive due to compliance with the fence height regulations. acceleration of vehicles.It is this noise • The proposed fence height exception will not be which is the issue in this application. detrimental to the health,safety,or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. Thank you for your consideration! 3 2-14 Attachment 5, To: City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Regarding: Fence Height exception at 522 Broad We the following neighbors of Bob Rice (522 Broad) wish to inform the planning commission that we are in support of granting the fence height exception due to the following: 1. property is on a corner and completely bordered on 2 sides by Lincoln which is a main feeder street from the downtown and Cal Poly to the freeway and by Broad which is the freeway onramp. 2. property is across the street from two businesses with the accompanying noise of delivery vehicles, late night traffic,and brightly lit windows and signs. 3. property is attractively landscaped and maintained and the wall will have virtually no visual impact on the neighborhood. Sigpatureldate Name Address ArLacs�us ' 79 recd SJ— q) 77 ,troN�vc%c�tv�— 5`3 1 Srevad ` 7�to5 L� S 2-15 �) Attachment 6- DRAFT __.._. SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 22, 2002 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on Wednesday, May 22, 2002, in the Council Chamber of city Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper, Michael Boswell, James Caruso, Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh. Absent: Commissioner Jim Aiken. Staff: Planning Technician Tyler Corey, Associate Planner Glen Matteson, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTEANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. BLIC HEARINGS:. 1. 1010 a Avenue. U, GP/R, LLA, and ER 145-01; Request to allow a hospital addition in zone, and height exception to allow a 35-foot high parking garage where a 25 foo h building is allowed; change the zoning and land use designations from - high-density residential) to O (office); adjust lot lines involving 6 lots to create ts; and environmental review; O zone; Sierra Vista Hospital, applicant. At the request of the applicant, this item was c ued to a date uncertain, without any discussion. 2. Margarita Area. GPA, R, and ER 44-02; Request to amend eneral Plan Land Use Element text to allow parks in the Margarita area before the cific plan is adopted; to rezone the proposed Damon-Garcia Sports Fields siteC/OS (Conservation/Open Space) to PF (Public Facilities), with the creek corrido to remain C/OS; and environmental review;City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. 2-16 Draft Planning Commissiinutes Attachment s May 22, 2002 Page 4 MISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Co r. moved that the recommend that the Cit Council approve the proposed-ne ativ claration the rezonin and the General Plan Amendment with the added findingas no . staff'. Seconded by Commr. Boswell. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Bos Peterson, Osborne, Caruso, and Loh. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commr. Aiken. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 6-0. 3. 522 Broad Street. FH 19-02, Appeal of the Zoning Hearing Officer's denial of a request for a 10-foot high masonry wall at the 6-foot setback along Broad and Lincoln where a 6-foot high fence was previously approved; and a request to allow a 6-foot high wall along Broad St. where a 5-foot high wall was previously approved; R-1 zone; Bob Rice, applicant. Planning Technician Tyler Corey presented the staff report recommending denial of the appeal and upholding the Director's action to deny the request, based on findings which he outlined. Commr. Boswell asked if this was a ramp that Caltrans has a long-term plan for closing. Deputy Director Whisenand replied that he didn't believe so. Commr. Cooper asked if the landscaping was also non-conforming regarding the 30- foot diagonal setback at the corner. Planner Corey explained it was cut on the corner and the fence was set back for sight visibility. If landscaping had become an issue because it has grown to maturity in this location, Public Works would need to make a sight line visibility safety determination as to whether the landscaping would need to be trimmed back. Bob Rice, applicant, presented a signed petition from his neighbors expressing their support of his proposed fence height exception. He presented pictures of the fence for the commissioners to review and explained that landscaping screens the existing 6-foot fence. He noted that this landscaping was required by the City for the original 6-foot fence and it was approved by the City. He gave a brief summary for each of the photographs that he presented to the Commission. Chairwoman Loh asked if the house is lower than the street. Mr. Rice explained that the house is not lower because it is on a raised foundation, but because some of the land is lower. He mentioned that he has no back yard, and his backyard is the side yard, which faces Lincoln Avenue, and is the noisiest part of the property. He had previously indicated to staff that he was willing to consider any 2-17 Draft Planning Commissio. Anutes Attachment G May 22, 2002 Page 5 - . . . .. .... . alternative, but staff came up with some alternatives, which he was not in agreement with. He stated that neighbors do no object to this wall, and the proposed fence height exception would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. Commr. Cooper noted that he owns property within a 300-foot radius, so he stepped down from this item. Commr. Peterson asked what material the fence be constructed with. Mr. Rice explained a masonry type wall, which is better for blocking sound. Commr. Peterson asked if he had received feedback from his noise consultant regarding building a fence that fits the City's height rules. He noted this could be a block wall that would provide a better noise lessoning affect. Mr. Rice explained the comment from his noise consultant was that anything would help, but he felt a 6-foot wall would not adequately control the sound problem; his recommendation was for an S or 10-foot wall. Chairwoman Loh asked if he would cut down the shrubs on Lincoln Avenue if he were to construct the fence. Mr. Rice replied no, and explained the landscaping would remain as is. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mel Leis, 540 Broad Street, commented that he is a neighborhood and agrees that there is noise coming from the liquor store at all hours, as well as screeching cars that drive up and down the street. He felt the applicant must be discomforted by all this noise. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Osborne asked staff about the location of the fence in relation to the topography from the street. Planner Corey explained that from Lincoln Avenue, the fence is approximately at ground level, and possibly a little below ground level from the street. Commr. Boswell felt the proposed solution of a 10-foot high masonry wall is not a good precedent for the City and noted the more sound walls they have, the more sound walls will be requested. He mentioned that the commercial use appears to be incompatible with the neighborhood. He commented that he would only want to deny the appeal if there were some assurance that they could work towards resolving this problem in some other way. 2-18 Draft Pianning Commissit- _.Ainutes Attachment 6 May 22, 2002 Page 6 — Deputy Director Whisenand responded that staff is not opposed to replacing the existing 6-foot wood fence with a block material since the current wood construction provides very little noise attenuation. He stated they could explore relocating the phone and working with the market to lesson some of the noise. Commr. Boswell asked if there is a time restriction for operation of businesses in the C- N zone. Deputy Director Whisenand replied no. He explained the Commission might want to look into this when they update the commercial zoning and consider re-designating some of the neighborhood commercial areas to community commercial. It was noted that if the Planning Commission denies this appeal, the applicant can appeal that decision to the City Council. Commr. Boswell questioned if the City Council denies the appeal, would there be an option in the future for the applicant to have his request reconsidered. Deputy Director Whisenand explained after one year it could be reconsidered. Chairwoman Loh asked how long ago the applicant purchased the house, how long has he occupied the house, and how does he define the noise level? Mr. Rice replied the house was purchased around 12-years ago as a rental, and he moved in 5-years ago. He explained the noise level has always been bad, but has become much worse lately. Commr. Caruso commented that noise is inevitable in the urban area. He asked if the exception is based on the fact they want to go taller than 6-feet.- Planner Corey explained they are not proposing to go above 6-feet on the property line and the setback is 6-feet from property line on Lincoln Avenue. He mentioned they have approval for a 6-foot fence, but the zoning ordinance would allow a 4-foot fence with a 6-foot setback in the R-1 zone. Commr. Caruso suggested exploring design solutions to something over 6-feet. Chairwoman Loh asked staff to recommend some possibilities that could be explored. Planner Corey explained what was submitted with the application was a general idea of what he was proposing, and noted he was unsure if the applicant had some other ideas or if they could come up with some other solutions to the design. He mentioned that staff still supports a 6-foot high masonry wall. Commr. Caruso questioned if there is an opportunity for screening this wall in that 6-foot setback. 2-19 Draft Planning COmmissiL._.dinutes �� Attachment 6 May 22, 2002 Page 7 Planner Corey explained the landscaping is very extensive in that area and is probably significantly screened at this time. Chairwoman Loh asked if staff would allow a 6-foot masonry wall at the 6-foot setback along Lincoln Avenue. Planner Corey replied yes. He explained that this is where the original approval was and what the recommendation for approval is. Mr. Rice commented that the 6-foot wall is going to be very costly and would have some impact, but would not lower the noise to an acceptable level. Chairwoman Loh asked if this is a compromise to lower it to 6-feet instead of 8-feet. Mr. Rice noted that 6-feet is already approved; he is asking to raise it to 8-feet. He felt the added 2-feet would not be visible because the landscaping is high enough to cover it. Vice-Chair Osborne mentioned there is no solution to the noise problem, but felt there are some things that could be done to lower the sound some. He expressed concern about setting a precedent and is reluctant to approve these kinds of precedents. He suggested leaving it as a 6-foot masonry fence. Commr. Peterson moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision to deny the exception based on the findings included in the Planning Commission Resolution and request that staff do their best to work with the neiighborhood commercial uses adjacent to this property to encourage relocation of the pay phone and potential limitation of delivery hours or any other avenue in-order to mitigate the noise that is being generated by the neighborhood commercial uses. Seconded by Commr.. Osborne. Commr. Peterson commented that the applicant's concerns are genuine and valid, but there are many other homes in the city with similar situations. He expressed he did not want to set a precedent of this nature. Chairwoman Loh noted the corner turning from Lincoln Avenue to Broad Street is very dangerous and the plant material is very high; this area needs to be improved to make sure the sight line for the people turning is adequate to see oncoming cars. Chairwoman Loh added an amendment to the motion to explore the plant material that is very high at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Broad Street. Commrs. Peterson and Osborne agreed to the amendment. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Osborne, Boswell, and Chairwoman Loh. NOES: Commr. Caruso. ABSTAIN: Commr. Cooper. ABSENT: Commr. Aiken. 2-20 Draft Planning Commissi.__,iAinutes Attachment 6 May 22,2002 Page 8 The motion carried 4-1. Deputy Director Whisenand mentioned that this decision could be appealed to the City Council. He explained that appeal forms are available in the City Clerk's office and the appeal must be filed within 10 days. 4. 15 New ort Street. FH 27-02; Appeal of the Zoning Hearing Officer's denial of a re st for a 6-foot high privacy fence where a 4-foot high fence is allowed; R-1 zone; ara Cathcart, applicant. Planning Tec ,clan Tyler Corey presented the staff report recommending denial of the appeal and uph ing the Director's action to deny the fence height exception, based on findings which he lined. Commr. Boswell asked aff for a clarification of finding 2. Planner Corey explained th site plan shows that the garage is currently set back 20- feet from the street yard. It a ears there is a significant amount of yard area where a fence could come off the ed of the garage and parallel the existing fence to accomplish the applicant's privac oncerns without an exception to the City's fence height requirement. Commr. Boswell asked if the fence were et back further, could it be taller. Planner Corey replied yes. He explaine in the R-1 zone, a 6-foot high fence is allowed. Lara Cathcart, applicant, commented that her to is actually 50 x 100 feet, and it is the 50-foot frontage that has the 20-foot setback. Sh explained the extra height provides piece of mind and security by shielding her window without blocking natural light. She noted it was by ignorance that she inadvertently vi ted the Zoning Regulations, but has applied for necessary permits. She mentioned ery neighbor that has a line of sight to her fence have sent letters of support aski that the 2-foot exception be granted for the privacy fence. Commr. Cooper asked if there is some private use gaine rom the backyard and is there an unusual necessity for having privacy in the front yard well. Ms. Cathcart replied yes. She explained her bathroom window, w 'ch is waist high, and her bedroom window both face the street. She noted that in the p t, she had been a victim of a stalker. Commr. Osborne asked how far from the 20-foot setback is to her house. Ms. Cathcart replied about the same distance as is to the fence. Commr. Osborne noted this was 15-feet and questioned why there wouldn't light from this 15-foot area. 2-21 _ attachment 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#3 . BY: Tyler Corey, Planning Technician (781-7169) DATE: May 22, 2002 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Development #Az(r FILE NUMBER: FH 19-02 PROJECT ADDRESS: 522 Broad Street SUBJECT: Appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a request for a 10-foot tall masonry sound wall where a 6-foot tall fence was previously approved in the Single Family Residential R-1 zone.. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and uphold the Director's action based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation The appellant has filed an application with the Community Development Department for an exception to the standard fence height requirements. The request is for a 10-foot tall masonry sound wall where a 6-foot tall fence was previously approved. The previous approval provided for a 6-foot setback on Lincoln and a 12-foot setback on Broad (Attachment 2). Based on research of City records, it was determined that the existing height of the wall and hedge along Broad Street are not in compliance with the. City's fence and hedge height standards, or with Condition #1 of Fence Height Exception A31-86. Condition #1 of the fence height exception states, "Applicant shall reduce height of wall and landscaping within ten feet of driveway to 30- inches to allow adequate sight distance for vehicles using the driveway." (See Fence Hcight Exception A31-86 included as Attachment 6). On April 5, 2002 the Community Development Director denied the request based on findings outlined in the attached decision letter (Attachment 3). On April 12, 2002, the applicant filed an appeal of the Director's decision (Attachment 4). Appeals of items that require Director approval are referred to the Planning Commission. Data Summary Address: 522 Broad Street Property Owner/Applicant: Robert Rice Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) General Plan: Low Density Residential Project action deadline: The Zoning Regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. 2-22 FH 19-02 (Rice) Attachment 7 522 Broad Street Page 2 Site Description The lot consists of approximately 9,020 square feet. The property is located on the southeast comer of Lincoln and Broad and is developed with a single-family residence. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature. The area to the north across Lincoln is zoned R-1 and developed with single-family residences except for the property located on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Broad, which is zoned C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) and is developed with a convenience market; the area to the south is zoned R-1 and is developed with single-family residences; the area to the west across Broad is zoned C/OS-5 (Conservation Open Space with a minimum parcel size of 5 acres) and R-1 and is predominantly developed with single family residences except for the property located on the southwest corner of Lincoln and Broad, which is zoned C-N and is developed with a salon; the area to the east is zoned R-1 and is developed with single-family residences. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). EVALUATION In approving a fence height exception, the Zoning Regulations state that the Community Development Director must find that no public purpose would be served by strict compliance with the standard fence height requirements. In general, fence height exceptions can be approved where there are no impacts to sight distance and safety, where the proposed fence has been determined to be architecturally compatible with the site and with development on adjacent properties, where the neighborhood has not raised significant issues regarding the fence, where the proposed fence is consistent with the General Plan and where the exception would not be considered a grant of special privilege. In this case, the Director could not make the finding that the sound wall was architecturally compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood, that the sound wall was consistent with the General Plan or that the exception would not be considered a grant of special privilege. Previously Granted Fence Height Exceptions On March 28, 1984, Fence Height Exception A30-84 was granted for a 6-foot tall fence with a 6- foot setback from property line on Lincoln and a 12-foot setback on Broad (Attachment 5). The public right-of-way along Lincoln is 10-feet with a 6-foot sidewalk, which sets the existing fence back 10-feet from back of sidewalk. The right-of-way width along Broad Street is 8-feet with a 6-foot sidewalk, which sets the fence back 14-feet from back of sidewalk. On April 11, 1986, Fence Height Exception A31-86 was approved for a 5-foot wall on property line for a portion Broad (Attachment 6). Currently, the hedge along this portion of Broad is approximately 10-feet high, which exceeds the City's fence and hedge height standards and does not comply with Condition #1 of this fence height exception approval. hi addition, the Public Works Department has determined that the hedge poses significant site distance impacts for vehicles entering and exiting the property. 2-23 i FH 19-02 (Rice) Attachment 7 522 Broad Street Page 3 Appeal File The following is a brief discussion of the appellant's reasons for the appeal and staff's response on those issues. 1) The appellant believes that the noise, traffic problems and proximity of businesses to his property constitutes a special situation that is not faced by other houses in the neighborhood. Response: The appellant lives in a R-1 neighborhood and is bordered by single-family residences on virtually all sides (refer to discussion on Site Description). Therefore, his "special situation" is shared by numerous homes on Lincoln and Broad where no other residences have 10-foot sound walls or any other approved fence height exception over 6- feet in height. 2) The appellant states that he would work with the City to solve the problem and asked for other alternative workable solutions to a 10-foot sound wall. He further states that he would accept an 8-foot wall. Response: Staff has consulted with various City departments on alternative solutions to the proposed 10-foot sound wall, as indicated by finding #5 of the decision letter. Also, see response 5. 3) The appellant believes that the structure on the subject property should not be listed as a Contributing Historic Resource because the house is screened by mature landscaping and was extensively remodeled in the 1970's. Response: After further research it has been determined that the structure is not on the City's official Contributing Historic Resource list. The structure does appear to be well maintained and contains architectural features that are consistent with the Neoclassic Bungalow style and has been recommended for Contributing status by the Historic Resource Survey H report completed in 1992. Some of the existing landscaping on Broad Street exceeds the City's Fence and Hedge height standards and Condition #1 of Fence Height Exception A31-86. A code enforcement case has been opened for the property and violations will need to be corrected, thus, exposing more of the existing structure to public view. General Plan Policy 6.6.2, of the Land Use Element states, "The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained." The Director determined that a 10-foot sound wall at the site would not be consistent with the above stated policy because the outward street appearance of the subject building would be completely blocked from public view. 2-24 FH 19-02 (Rice) 522 Broad Street � Attachment 7 Page 4 4) The appellant states that his property is currently walled-off by landscape plantings that were required as a condition of a previous fence height exception. Response: There was an approved landscaping plan for the property that was required as part of Fence Height Exception A30-84 (Attachment 5). The condition for landscaping was not established to allow the appellant to exceed the City's hedge height standards, it was established to provide a visual transition between the public right-of-way and the fence and provide for adequate screening of the fence. General Plan Policy 1.27.4, of the Housing Element states, "The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent formation of functioning neighborhoods." The Director determined that the proposed 10-foot sound wall was not consistent with the above stated policy because the walling-off of this residential property would inhibit its ability to cohesively function with the surrounding neighborhood. 5) The appellant does not believe that replacement of existing windows for sound attenuation and replacement of the wood fencing with a 6-foot sound wall would solve the noise problem at the site. Response: General Plan Policy 8.4, of the Noise Element states, "Noise mitigation walls (sound walls) may be used only when it is shown that preferred approaches are not effective or that it is not practical to use the preferred approaches consistent with other design criteria based on the General.Plan." Traffic noise on this section of Broad Street is subject to noise exposure of 65dBA at build-out (Attachment 7). The Noise Element standard for residential uses is 60dBA for exterior noise levels and 45dBA for interior noise levels. If exterior noise levels are 60dBA or less, interior noise levels are considered to be in compliance with the 45dBA standard because standard construction will reduce interior noise levels by 15db. When exterior noise levels are greater than 60dBA, alternative construction techniques can be employed to achieve greater than 15db sound level reduction. The following noise mitigation measures could be implemented to achieve Noise Level Reduction (NLR) values of 20dBA without the use of a sound wall: 1. Provide air conditioning or mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. 2. Mount windows and sliding doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less). 3. Provide solid-core exterior doors, with perimeter weather-stripping and threshold seals. To reduce exterior noise levels by 5db from traffic sources, the construction of a barrier sufficient to interrupt the line-of-sight between the source and receiver could be used (Attachment 8). The City's Noise Guidebook states that a source height of 2-feet above 2-25 FH 19-02 (Rice) Attachment 7 522 Broad Street Page 5 the road crown should be used with a receiver height of 5 feet above the grade of the outdoor activity area to determine appropriate barrier height. Based on these figures, a 6- foot sound wall at the proposed location would have a line-of-site that exceeds what would be needed to reduce exterior noises by 5db. Thus, a 6-foot wall would reduce exterior noise levels for the subject site to 60db, meeting the City's standard for acceptable outdoor noise exposure levels for residences. 6) The appellant states that fences located at 456 and 112 Broad are taller than six feet in the surrounding neighborhood. Response: The fence located at 456 Broad was not considered as part of the surrounding neighborhood that was reviewed for compatibility because the fence is not located on either Lincoln or Broad, is not visible from subject site and no prior approvals were granted for fence height exceptions at this address. The wall located at 112 Broad was also not considered as part of the surrounding neighborhood that was reviewed for compatibility because the property is approximately 2,400 feet from the subject site and a Fence Height Exception was approved at this location for a 6-foot 3-inch wall (as measured from sidewalk level). Conclusion This is a code enforcement action and a notice of code violation has been issued for not complying with the City's fence and hedge height standards and Condition #1 of Fence Height Exception A31-86. While staff sympathizes with the appellant's situation, the proposed 10-foot sound wall is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, is inconsistent with the General Plan, would be considered a grant of special privilege and would cause significant sight distance impacts for vehicles entering and exiting the property. Other sound attenuation alternatives are available to the appellant that would not necessitate the need for a 10-foot sound wall or any other exception to the City's fence height standards. The Planning Commission needs to decide if the 10-foot sound wall is appropriate at the proposed location and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood or if other sound attenuation alternatives exist for the appellant. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Public Works Department notes that the wall and hedge along Broad Street pose significant sight distance impacts for vehicles entering and exiting the property. No other departments commented on the project. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Director's action, based on findings included in the attached Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 9). 2-26 FH 19-02 (Rice) 1 Attachment 7 522 Broad Street Page 6 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may uphold the appeal and approve the request for a 10-foot sound wall if it finds that the 10-foot sound wall is appropriate at the proposed location and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Deny the appeal but approve a fence height exception with a lesser height or greater setback. 3. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants/appellants. Attachments: 1. iiia 2. 009,M" 3. MW 4. Appeal Letter Dated April 12, 2002 5. Fence Height Exception A30-84 6. Fence Height Exception A31-86 7. Traffic Noise Exposure at Build-Out 8. Noise Barrier Cross-Section Example 9. 2-27 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APR 122V 522 Broad San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I I April 2002 City of San Luis Obispo Attachment 7 Planning Department Dear Sir/Madame, I would like to appeal the decision contained in the letter of April 5 from the deputy director of Community Development regarding my request for a fence height exception. I believe that my request deserves special consideration since my property sits across the street from 2 commercial properties (one of which is essentially a liquor store with the accompanying late night noise,neon lights in the window and bright parking lot lighting) and-is also located in the"acceleration zone" for vehicles getting on the freeway at the Broad Street onramp. This freeway access is heavily used both by cars and by delivery trucks bound for downtown and sometimes for the Albertson's and other stores in the Foothill shopping center. The heavily used outdoor living areas of the house consist of decks and porches which face both Broad Street and Lincoln St. Thus in addition to causing noise problems inside the house, the noise makes the use of these outdoor areas problematic. I would like to address the finding in the letter of April 5 as follows: 1. "grant of special privilege"—the noise and traffic problems and proximity of businesses to my property constitutes a special situation which is not faced by other houses in the neighborhood therefore no special privilege exists. 2. "The proposed 10 foot wall is greater than the 8-feet maximum allowed for fences"—I indicated to the planner involved,Tyler Corey,that I would work with the city to solve the problem and asked that he propose other workable solutions. I even suggested the possibility of an 8 foot fence. I would accept an 8 foot fence which would negate this objection. 3. "The fence would "block a contributing historical resource from a public right of way" This objection is not valid for two reasons: a. the house is not visible from any public right of way at the moment due to the dense landscaping surrounding the house b. the house is hardly historic since it has been extensively remodeled after flooding in the 70's, approximately 25% of the house was constructed within the last 5 years, and the detached garage which is visible from the street is of modern construction. 4. "The wall is not consistent with 1.27.4 because it created wall off residential properties" The property is currently walled off by hedges and plantings in excess of 10' 2-28 - Attachment 7 which surround the entire property. These plantings, incidentally, were required as a condition of receiving the fence height variance for the existing 6' fence. Additionally, open front yards may be desirable in quiet neighborhoods without through traffic but are not desirable for houses located on a freeway on/off ramp surrounded by commercial property. 5. "There are other options: (a). replacing existing windows, (b) replace existing fence with a 6' sound wall" a. windows in much of the house have already been replaced which helps as long as one desires to live in a hermetically sealed box. The reality is that windows need to be opened especially in summer. Replacing windows does nothing for the noise problem on patios and decks. This is a ludicrous suggestion for a residential property which can only be made by someone who has never lived with a noise problem. b. I brought in a sound consultant to help me to decide on the best course of action to resolve the problem(Dr. David Lord, Architecture Dept.,Cal Poly) his recommendation is for a sound wall and he indicated that because of-the severity of the problem, the height of the noise sources(trucks and high clearance vehicles), the fact that the house is on a raised foundation(2 feet above the surrounding grade on the back side of the house- which makes a 6 foot wall only a 4' wall relative to the height of the house and decks) and the fact that noise travels in a line-of-sight fashion, a 6 foot wall would be inadequate. I am not sure that an 8 foot wall is adequate either, however, I am willing to try it if it is permitted. 6. "The wall is architecturally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood as it is at least 4 feet higher than any fence in the surrounding neighborhood" This is not a factual statement as an 80" tall fence exists at 456 Broad. This fence is immediately adjacent to the sidewalk with no landscaping separating it from the street. A 90"tall wall exists at 112 Broad and is located about 4' from the sidewalk. The latter wall is attractive and causes no adverse effects to the neighborhood. There is an additional 6 foot high wooden fence immediately adjacent to the sidewalk within 2 Blocks which is poorly maintained and unattractive. Height should not be the sole determinant as to what is attractive and compatible with the neighborhood. The wall that I am proposing is a full 16' from the street with extensive landscaping which almost completely obscures the wall from the street. Most passers-by will observe absolutely no difference between the present situation and the situation after construction of the proposed wall. For these reasons, I request your reconsideration of the decision to deny my request. Sincerely yours, Ro rt P. Rice Jr. 2-29 t A'. 7.111 j. S Oil- Attachment 7 i Clay of san Us owpo C04AMUNDY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT•990 PALM STREET .Pal 011ica Ba.321•San Luis OE&DP.CA 904000721•6051541-1000 Harr 28, 1984 Handy Walorinta 522 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJBCT: .Use Permit:Apel: 30-84 522 Broad Street D_ar Mr. Walcr'inta: On Friday,.March 23; 1984,. I conducted a public hearing on your request for fence height exception to allow a 6-foot high fence where a 4=foot 8-inch high fence is allowed at the subject location. After reviewing the infornetion presented, I approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings .y 1. No public purpose would be served by strict compliance with the fenoe Might "i regulations. 2. The proposed fence Might exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. Condition- 1. The area between the fence and the rear of sidewalk shall be landscaped to the approval of Camnnity Developnent Department staff. Applicant shall sub- mit a landscaping plan for approval prior to installation. landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. " 2. Applicant shall medify existing fence detailing and paint cr stain fence to the satisfaction of the Community Devele(nent Departnrnt staff. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning C®ission within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person.aggrieved by the decision. If you have arty questions, please call Judy Laut xa: of the Cca�ty Develagmnt Departnent• . Sincerely, Ken Bruce Hearing Officer _. ., •F 1 Jill r , � Is¢ .: .wy Attachment 7; Administrative Near.. Minutes fipGi� ::'4 iMeeting of March 23, 1984 Page 4 4. Design and use of second dwelling unit shall be as shown in a plans dated March 23, 1984. ? 5. Applicant shall install address sign for second dwel unit to the approval - ;•s' of the Connnity Developrent Director. :i 6. Either priaery or secondary dwelling unit shall owner-occupied. Property owner shell allow the city, at any reasonable ime, to verify owner.accupanxy, 1 either by allowing an inspection of recon or by visual inspectionof the premises, provided that the inspection s 1 be preceded by notice to they residents of not less than one hour. 7, upon receipt of any reasonable, ten cmglaint from a citizen or city depart- ment, the Cozmnity Development irector shall schedule use permit.for.review at a public hearing.- Upon r ew, use permit conditions may be added, modified. or deleted to insure mei hood arnpatibility and compliance with city regu- ' lations. i 8. Use pezndt shall be, in ore year,following occupancy of the second dwelling snit:and t tree year intervals thereafter. It shall be the . . . .f responsibility.o thne property owner to initiate fire reviews end pay applicable . . fees. . . - 9. Failure t - ly,with the above condition shall be.grounds-for.use permit review revocation. Upon use permit revocation, the property weer shall, at his own expense, convert primary and secondary dt.elling units back to'a single dwelling unit. ; use.Permit Appi 3644. Request for fence height'exception to-allow a 6-foot high' fence where a4-foot high fex:e is allowed; 522 Broad Street; R-1 zone; Randy Walcrinta, applicant. _ Judy Lautner presented the staff report, zecamieidin9 doni.al.dte-to.SncarRistenry - - of the fence witki overall neighborhood appearance, and.becatme of potential impacts on intersect.' visibility. The public hearing was opened. . Nen Bry - noted that a letter had been-submitted frau Bill Shipsey, 795 Lincoln Avenue, supporting the request. Randy Walor.nta, applicant, noted that.he,had attempted to build the fence in cmrnlianoe with setback regulations, but had been mistaken reg&ding the property .line location. He indicated he had madeother inprovemehts to;khe site and - - building, and that he intended to landscape,the-ares-;betyeen,�the fence wd,back.of sidewalk. He stated that a fence which crnglied uwith.sethaek regulations'ovule]'not resolve privacy problems dune to prmimity to'the,public eidewilkand street. _ The public hearing was closed- - .. wen Bruce approved Use Permit A 30-84, based on the,following,findings-and subject to the following condition: - 'Li.e�..yw�.}ri ,.•,:: .iXy lr. JF,n' P .1,3.+i+:- L�•��s_i: sl;<3 ' f• Of :... Attachment 7 „t " Adutinistativc Hearin_ iin'ves !Meting of March 23, 1984 Page 5 ! Findings 1. No public purpose would he served by strict compliance with the fence height regulations. - z 2. The proposed fence height exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. Conditions 1. The area between the fence and the rear of sidewalk shall be landscaped to the approval of the Community Development Department.staff. Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for approval prior to installation. Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. 2. Applicant shall modify existing fence detailing and paint or stain fence to the satisfaction:of the Camunity Developont Department staff. Use Permit Appl."28-84. Request for temporary use permitallow sales of produce; 1631 Monterey Street; C-T-S zo ,. Fnsz, Fisher, and M'izz, .. - applicants. Judy Lautner.presented the staff report, recomie approval subject to six conditions which she outlined_ The publl.e:hearing was.opened. John Ensz, applicant, qur.9tioned possible p uses for obtaining approval on a �•', permanent basis. He stated his business"wo operate on a daily basis,but mostly .. on weekends. Hours would vary. The public hearing was closed. -i Fen Bruce approved terporary Use 't A 28-84, based on the following finding and subject to the following condi ons: I Findw 1. Temporary sales of prod on this lot would not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of living or working at the site or in the vicinity. - Conditions 1. Use permit is for sale of fresh produce only. No other sales shall be � ? allowed. 2. There shall be display, sales, or signs allowed in the public right-of-way:. " and no living ers or trailers to be used as Such. .. . 3. Maximum si area on-site for this use shall not exceed 32 square feet. 4. Site s be maintained in a neat and orderly mnnerr at all.tiles. , 1' -yc". . .. ... .... .. . . ...... .... .. ..... .N.:.. _ ._.: .Y.� t _• _, 1.a ,fig.. a �Y i Attachment 7 nt_ 1, A31-86 4 1. � Page 2 "dt � >,. I£ you have any questions, please call Greg Smith at 549-7174. �✓' . sincerely, � ^si�Y �•• L TCILS' SII�Hli ` �Jn t� Jai rry Hearing'officer - „ `3 ; s F 1 ¢0 C'l�f i m rj 4 i rid 'si-Fab 4 F. qT- � a y1A yi i ,j Ali t v ,+r�42`t�4�I• r � Attachment 7 j ;z 0' /M 70 /9/,.Z3 ao SE -- -- - - ---_ ., ,PE.o�va 2-34 _ - - :- -• ,-•--,rum; Attachment 7 : �5 GaAL � � 3 PK'�"x:11?' �:.I_.�I/• �. 1, _1• 75 LnAL ---- , i i 't 3'6E ULA ' ' .� f. � .HE'S_ �04L✓JO ��: p^ � 5 .RAPF}ICUL.>: 5 GAL 15 iRdwriELCw2Ei2N l / 1 �OMINOIpF�S_ I COAL 4-'O.G. GROUt�� EIJJ R� STO-FA . l%: Fir%f I IL: Ile 4-L. flab. — 3i--ck wee x_._.. ..... ...- .._-._ -, _.......... ... :... . ... � •....../:..:irf�u'c.....�:�:�<...!..,.•J'...s:!?fi....� .....G�,.4Y✓/sem'%�!A��,'�,+ a 9 Attachment 7 > �. 990 Palm Street/Post Of[Ica Box 8100•San Luis Obispo,CA 93409.8100 1 April 11, 1986 Laura Rice - .z s� r 522 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 _ • "tl' SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 31-86 ' 522 Broad Street Dear MS. Rice: alirq ,. " On Friday, April ll, 1986, I conducted a public hearing on your request Por fence'height,exception to allow a 5-foot high fence where q ` a3-foot high fence as allowed, at the subject location. ' , w I�E After reviewicig:the information presented, I approved your request, based or. the 'following findings and subject to the Following 4 conditions: Findings I 1. The proposed use will.not adversely affect the.health,.safety piid : 4elfare-of persons residing- or working'on thesite or inthe vicinity 'j 2. The use is:apprnpriate at the proposed,location and will be 4 - compatible .wita surrounding land use's. - ! 3. The proposed useconforms to the general plan.and meets zoning'- •� ,v, I ordinano© requir6kents. 4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review. ! Conditions 4 ' t 1. Applicant shall reduce height of wall and landscaping within ton { feet of driveway to 30 inches to allow adeguate sight flistanee �• I for vehiclesusingthe driveway. 2. Applicant shall verify that foundation of,existing retaining wall.. k.,L}i•,��'yy;'` is adequate to support the proposed'block wall, and obtain a j 1 building permit for its construction. Hy decision is final unless appealed to thePlanning Commission within ten days of the action. Ana cal ma b'e filed an erson yrr aggrieved by the decision. PP Y 1?Y YP ._ 1.;N4r5 Tp�t yN;��,t, ' . ... ",•��a J� I�s _a jF r; 4;ei � y ' Attachment 7 _ PLA ^' n Set/x,ck r I I I I o, i ado : IO CONCRCTE - :E7+57/HG DRIVE I > 7 9ET6pCK --tt PA I- i " _ r• 1•.5 i ... _T EQCE-oF.51D1:wM-1c• .. .; . h t. . NORTH...$koAa fi:_ _35.-WIDE �--- r a 3 �Ir'it. .gTP.�.oEed_ 5' sl.uznpatone__wa11 .._;.:. 1 PleASC no+e...it t 4C PAIL o-F 4e,pwposeiR cAxtll which. ru ns t v w`, parallel. o . :6voad- st. wnvld .:be built;_ wig an ex� �n� �w rx�' 4rfv . ,._ ncre:Te. - relAini nq wAll_ A1l_Qreas 6ClWeP7 TetKe Q-nd, sidewalk.are �,tly �obnZanAlavrc �i.Ce 1 52z groo�cl51-. _ ' C2r 5Ca�ed w--i'Fh -4rcrS 3-5 shrvb5� yovndovers,, flowers, ds tS c• ty.. M� ^ v yy �n3�5i F •�� .y A S h P': ..w.1�f' P � •tl :1::_ - -„` SSI. �xi�[C:..'� 1C •® • 1L#e ��\e"ar -s,�xi�"Ser° s s�•sr� t��;;. "�i�� 'y�� s�.� 7 •;�� -`�C.;'i 't r'4- � ya.�. y > 3y r a�� rw Fsrtsq -�x x vy�.5.r Y x .y .... �t+� sL o' l:t� - c 'c •f�t. a'°,2x,yd1 +. 4w �5ty�,�1 +r7 Sri•='�vi.�'r4��'a��i.71 t 9 'C� fPx ..S `N t l?C 'RC -.��'r'; .3 Yg'ti'rS`�-a zt\!Tv�`y �� '� ^�•a� �ci.:��' �j,'Y :.=` if^a.. iS.. r •� � tic: "0v��':F_.'_. '�•x"F'`S� •^3'Sf k�,F'„' An `--'tic_,aw,"� =�-e ti'` ••:°�' r "i �YY1. �t'Wi✓ ,�1 r Q+��°r.SSir F`1i� # w.V � G��t�. 1. Mf z,— �'�'°•si`�' � 3 h rc.-a zcx ?x. 3 i � "'` 4 - 'u�'fr -'z� :r r'��"'^`�- .� "��,•ax•— ��lq ^sir ';?lle cs � �8�?.. �• --� 1'P� es�a �t.�-xPa�•t Wit. _a v , �t Attachment 7 N 0 c c u O 3 � A =r l 1 s � � O CD n O P i P G P 2-3/ Attachment 8 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST AT 522 BROAD STREET,FH 19-02 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, on April 5, 2002, denied a request to allow a 10-foot tall sound wall in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Robert Rice, filed an appeal of the Director's action on April 12, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 22, 2002, denied an appeal of the Director's action to allow a 10-foot tall sound wall in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Robert Rice, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on May 30, 2002; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, July 2, 2002, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Planning Commission's action on Fence Height Exception FH 19-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Community Development Director and Planning Commission hearingsandactions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Fence Height Exception FH 19-02, the Community Development Director and Planning Commission decisions; staff recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. Approval of the proposed fence height exception at this location would constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning because similar exceptions have not been granted in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed 10-foot sound wall would be greater than 8-feet which is the maximum allowable height for walls and fences (SLOMC 17.16.050.B.1). 3. The proposed sound wall is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.6.2 because the outward street appearance of the subject building would be completely blocked from public view. 2-40 Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2002 Series) Page 2 4. The proposed sound wall is not consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy 1.27.4 because the walling-off of this residential property would inhibit its ability to cohesively function with the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The proposed sound wall is not consistent with General Plan Noise Element Policy 8.4 because preferred approaches for noise mitigation could be used to reduce the noise at the subject property to an acceptable level established by the General Plan. 6. The proposed 10-foot sound wall is architecturally incompatible with development on the site and surrounding neighborhood because it is at least 4-feet taller than any other approved fence in the neighborhood. 7. The proposed masonry sound wall would pose significant site distance impacts for vehicles entering and exiting the property. SECTION 2.Action. The appeal is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 2nd day of July, 2002 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen 2-41 ' 1 Attachment 9 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 522 BROAD STREET,FH 19-02 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, on April 5, 2002, denied a request to allow a 10-foot tall sound wall in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Robert Rice, filed an appeal of the Director's action on April 12, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 22, 2002, denied an appeal of the Director's action to allow a 10-foot tall sound in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Robert Rice, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on May 30, 2002; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, July 2, 2002, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Planning Commission's action on Fence Height Exception FH 19-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Community Development Director and Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Fence Height Exception FH 19-02, the Community Development Director and Planning Commission decisions, staff recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. No public purpose is served by strict compliance with the City's fence height standards because the 10-foot sound wall is necessary to reduce sound attenuation to an acceptable level at the subject site established by the General Plan. 2. As conditioned, the proposed 10-foot tall sound wall is architecturally compatible with the development on the site and surrounding neighborhood. 3. The proposed wall will have a 10-foot setback on Lincoln and a 12-foot setback on Broad as measured from the back edge of the sidewalk. Mature landscaping established in this 2-42 Attachment 9 Resolution No. (2002 Series) Page 2 area will provide an adequate visual transition between the street and the proposed wall. SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is upheld, and the fence height exception approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Wall design and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The existing landscaping between the proposed wall and sidewalk shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition throughout the life of the wall. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 2nd day of July, 2002 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Lorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen 2-43 ived RECEIVED E . MAY 2 9 2011a of - �... san lues oBlspo Seo CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Lif.ra C-0 4A CGC'L SL0 CA 93Y65— Name Mailing Address and Trp Code ed S- �s'y9-o iC?�t 8as sgy Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 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: (Name of Offi , Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: cH c e— ( CrAaMA4C e)� 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: r on 5-.2`J��T 7(ia Member's Name aro Department) (Date) 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 ,SECTION 4:'APPE�LANT'SESPDNSIBIG 'S'; .. . ::r•. •T#ie,3arr: wa Obis tic:tf'vaTu�s c1 " tfoii In ..:. po`Crt Gp t>c nt ar T lC.CAI"govei�tirrie encourages ail;forma�.df Cki6n.:thgoi ivJbfit' °ti 'O�tay iul l tlke'm f,fn afifomia does.not diargs:a;fee;far filfng :arapeat:'I doweverx{ilacEiig ori: ppcal;tiefore tfie.City Couric�l requires consigerable work and cost;.lricludfrig agerldsc report preparation and:pU6lic notiflcat,on: . Therefore, your.right to.exercise.an,;nppeal:comes` with c:ortaln.rQspgnsibilitieS. if yqu;t1(e'an appeal, please uiidarstand:th t`lt must be Ileard.withlit 45;t*from filing:this form You y�iilf.be . notified in uvntirig'.of the�siiact ctgte�.�ioui'appeal will.;b. :'sciiedutsd to be'heand.:bewe the Council, You or your representative v+nlI-be emected to:'-aattend the public hearing, and prepared.tc;make�your: ser;".,, festimOrty;h0imiWd=.tsi,1q::,mlriutes: A cvr inuarice.maty!? ,gtented ndsr.cartafn`a0d;anusual'clrcumstances; ff you.feel you heed to request.a;coiiff nce;,you;.r60%submityour;i'equesf.in'•wnting:to'the City Clerk. Please be .advised that Ef:your.request fog continuanoe is-.rece-lV68 after the•appeal Is noticed to the public;the Council may.not.be able to:grant the requsstfor.continuance. .Submitfing s mque'st.far.continuance does not guarantee that it-avill be granted;that action is st the discretion,of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or sen"d a.representative to appear on.my behalf when acid appeal la�heduled fora publichearing befdrr the City Council. yam agkz: S- -D (Signature of Appellant) (Date) This Item Is hereby calendared for July 2 , 2002 C. City Attorney City AdminlMMIve Officer Deparbrient Head City Clerk(origin Ron Whisenan Tyler Corey Page 2 of 3 10/01 ZO'd L996-4bS(SOS)veo4jeo Biel Wb`OO:OL ZOOZ '6Z (eW '/epseupaM Members of the City Council: I am appealing the Planning Commission's denial under section 2D of ordinance 17.16.050. This allows exceptions to the fence height ordinance if "no public purpose" is served by strict adherence to the standard. Why else would this section exist if not to permit this privilege to be granted when, as in this case, both common sense and compassion are called for? If allowed to remain the fence achieves all these goals: 1. The fence provides privacy and peace of mind by shielding my bedroom and bathroom from street view. As mentioned, I am particularly sensitive to this issue as I have been the victim of a stalker for six of the past seven years, one form of his harassment being keeping me under surveillance. 2. The fence screens less attractive/in progress landscaping. Although I enjoy gardening, I work extensive hours and time does not permit rapid progress on landscaping projects. 3. The fence allows me to landscape and maintain a manageably sized public view area. Again, I work in the medical field, Dialysis and Transplant, and have only a small amount of time to pursue my love of gardening. I would prefer to concentrate my efforts on this area so any lack of time will not affect the attractiveness of my neighborhood. In the event the City Council does not feel it can support my request for a variance allowing a six-foot fence*where a four-foot fence would otherwise be allowed, I wish to propose a compromise. I request that I be allowed to remove the upper lattice portion of my fence and retain the solid under portion. This would be a four-foot, six-inch fence where a four-foot fence would otherwise be allowed. This is only six inches above what is ordinarily allowed, is an alteration I can make without damaging or unduly defacing my fence and will still achieve goals 2 & 3. An artist's conception of this change is attached. If the larger variance cannot be granted, I respectfully request that this lesser one be permitted. Regardless of the decision, I thank the Council for its time and consideration of my appeal. I also wish to thank Mr. Tyler Corey of the Planning Department, who has provided me with invaluable assistance by guiding me through this appeal process. Sincerely, O44441�u Cathcart Note:all measurements of height in the requests submitted are based on Mr. Tyler Corey's interpretation of all required and appropriate dimensions I submitted, including height from grade. He advised me as to what was considered the fence height for Planning Commission purposes. CD (9p&° o p �.. r LCS it Y040 IN ►� 4�moj a C9� Ou 'c•,ti,�'"a > _ .moo o„ ES - �/ � t,4 Sj n1 2 "� - -- _Zs I .10 41y Richard Schmidt r V 5444247 M6/28/2 04:18 PM D3/3 MEETING AGENDA RICHARD SCHMIDT DATE 7a Z ITEM #_____, 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu .lune 28, 2002 RECEIVED. VIA FAX Agenda Item 2, July 2 Meeting 'UN 2 8 2i0G SLO CITY CLERK To the City Council: I wish to provide moral support for Robert Rice's efforts to shield h.is property from traffic noise. If ever a property deserved special consideration for such protection, it is his at its noisy corner location where it is subjected to noise from two sides. No other single-family property in the vicinity shares this extreme exposure, My own perspective is the city has been remiss in allowing and even promoting the intrusion of detrimental traffic in its older neighborhoods, violating its General Plan policies and promises to the populace, speed limit ordinances and truck route ordinances in the process. My view is either needs to live up to its obligation to protect us from traffic or else it needs to let residents protect themselves. Mr. Rice's proposal is an effort at self-protection - and at very great monetary cost, for masonry walls aren't cheap. Our own wall has not "solved° the noise problem of living on Broad Street, but it has certainly given us back our front yard, which is now a soothing place to be rather than a nerve-jangling place to avoid. The result is we now can enjoy gardening, and that, in turn produces the visual and sensual joy that results from having a pretty entry to our home. I hope this testimony is helpful in assessing Mr. Rice's problem and the need for his proposed solution. --it seems the real issue with Mr. Rice's proposal shouldn't be that it is a wall, but how the wall is desi n2d. Staff, rather than harass him, should figure out how to work with him to produce a design that will be a fitting precedent and a high standard for others to follow. (I like the quaint old Ken Bruce approvals among your attachments in which staff doesn't attempt to think of every issue in advance, but says the design "shall be to the approval of the community development director," thereby making the approval process an on-going one of give and take in which issues can be dealt with as they arise.) Beyond such generalities, I have some specifics to comment on 72-AbA0 �� CDD DIR a FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF PW DIR Schmidt, Page 1 IG ❑ POLICE CHF D Q REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIP j,W1 NDE 0 HR DIR Richard Schmidt V 544-4247 1&612812 04:17 PM p213 • Walled gardens are an age-old architectural tradition that is fully in keeping with the sort of place in which we live. If the wall is imaginative and pleasing to look at from the outside, why should the city get so worked up over it? • My opinion is similar to Mr. Rice's -- a 6400t wall would be ineffective. Especially when a lot of the noise comes from huge highway trucks with their elevated exhaust systems. The taller the wall, the more effective it will be. I have no idea, however, what the optimal height would be. - Staff cites Housing Element 1.27.4 ("The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent formation of functioning neighborhoods.") as indicating Mr. Rice's proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan. As one of the authors of this provision, let me state staff is distorting its meaning and intent. The intent was to bar walled subdivisions which function unto themselves, but don't connect to or work with other subdivisions. The intent of this policy is NOT to bar walls around individual noise-plagued front yards. In fact, Janet Kourakis, who was the prime mover for this policy, also argued that the city needed to draw up policy for helping residents on already-developed traffic-impacted streets do things to mitigate traffic impacts to their premises. The two issues are entirely different. • The noises sis by staff on Page 4 of Attachment 7 is fantasy based on technocratic theory rather than factual observation. The statement that at buildout Broad-Lincoln will be subject to noise exposure of 65 dBA is nonsensical. I have measured traffic noise in front of my own house at more than 90 dBA (!!) due to trucks and construction equipment which regularly (and illegally) traverse Broad Street. (In lay terms, 90 dBA is two and a half times as loud as 65 dBA, or approximately the intensity of a locomotive at 100 feet..) Normal auto traffic on Broad Street exceeds 65 dBA at all hours of the day and night. The continuing discussion on Page 4 of noose shows staff understands this subject poorly, apparently dealing with textbook theory rather than reality. The discussion of optimal barrier heights is off base. It describes dealing with normal tire noise and normal (quiet) automobile exhaust noise, not with the noisy high-elevation exhaust of highway trucks, the rumble of chunky tires, and the accelerations characteristic at this location. (Perhaps the Noise Element analysis is deficient in this regard because it didn't consider the presence of highway trucks in a neighborhood!) Blocking higher level -- or louder --noise requires a higher barrier. Further, staff analysis totally neglects the impact of the hard sound-reflective vertical walls across the street from Mr. Rice's house. There's no reasonable way vegetation can mitigate for the reflective intensity of the 2-story hair salon building directly at back of sidewalk across Broad. • Subjecting Mr. Rice to "enforcement action" for excessively tall vegetation seems Schmidt, Page 2 Richard Schmidt 45444247 M6/28/2 04:16 PM p1/3 bizarre, arbitrary and capricious. I've always thought his vegetation quite an asset to the neighborhood. Further, he is hardly alone in having tall vegetation along Broad Street; for example, on the 2 blocks closest to my property, there are 40 lots, and 23 of them are in non-compliance with height "regulations." Why? This is how residents attempt to shield themselves from a blighted traffic way the city has allowed to develop in front of their homes in defiance of the city's own regulations: to wit, the neighborhood protection provisions of the General Plan, explicit numerical maximums for traffic volume in the General Plan, speed limits, and truck route enforcement. I'd urge the Council to tell staff to back off this "enforcement." It's hypocritical of the city to "enforce" against self- defense necessitated by the city's failure to obey and enforce its ownolp icies. • The real problem here is the existence of the neighborhood freeway ramps. Why has the Council itself not gone to CalTrans -- or to Jack O'Connell, who has good relations with CalTrans-- to get plans laid to close the freeway ramps; like those on Broad, that dump highway traffic into neighborhoods and instead concentrate freeway on-off facilities on arterials? Broad is only a little more than one block from the Highway 1 on- ramp. It's not needed. It's dangerous. It creates a neighborhood health and safety menace. It should be closed. The city knows all this, yet does nothing. Closing these ramps is the long-term solution to so much of what ails this neighborhood. • Why do we continue to live with the fiction that the retail operation at Broad-Lincoln is some sort of nice new urbanist neighborhood market? It is not. It is a liquor store wide draw, ane ahborhood nuisance, an attractant for heavy diesel truck traffic in the neighborhood, an excuse for heavy trucks to continue their illegal use of Broad Chorro and Lincoln. Why not abate it and return the site to much-needed residential use? Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Schmidt, Page 3