SU0009195 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 C.2. The Reason Why Finding 4 is Wrong: The reason why Finding 4 is wrong is because issuance of the permit will In fact be "injurious to the property or improvements of adjacent properties." In fact, it has alrea been "injurious to the property or improvements of adjacent properties." Facts not included in staff report to Commission: The property most immediately adjacent to the proposed project property is the Romano and Judy Isola property. The Isolas' five-acre parcel, formerly part of the Winery property (then — twenty acres and divided out), is surrounded on two sides by public roads and on the other two sides by the Winery property. The Isolas live in a modest,single-story house. The bulk of the already-built St. Jorge Winery infrastructure is crowded very close to the Winery's property line, in a location immediately adjacent to the Isolas' home. The close proximity of the buildings now illegally in place and proposed for Board legitimization has not been shown by staff to either the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. The finding's logic: The logic that mere adherence to a requirement that"the noise ordinance requirements of 65 dB at the property line and have no more than 150 attendees at each marketing event"will in fact preclude impacts from being significantly detrimental to the adjacent Isola property is without any basis in fact. The staff argument is based purely on meeting a standard in the County Code, whose arbitrary application does not fit the facts of this situation. Argument: The Isolas' home is situated 115 feet from where the Vierra propose to play amplified music outdoors for up to 150 people up to 24 times a year (plus four more for"Special Events"). The noise impacts from the proposed uses can not be mitigated to a level which is not significantly detrimental to the adjacent Isola property. As such, this same activity proposed in an area not zoned AG-40,but just as close to a neighbor's home, would not be allowed due to those impacts. The existence of a noise ordinance based on property line measurements has no bearing on the reality of how sound carries beyond the property line to neighbors' homes. It is not the ordinance's existence that matters to people in their lives, it is how the sound behaves after it has crossed the property line. Here, the noise has already been"injurious to the property or improvements of adjacent properties." And if the project is approved, it will continue to be injurious.