cc 2024 AR 08/13 appeal of oak drive skateboard ramp — Vista City Council, August 13, 2024

O F .Vh
1 � M
UA4r£D IANV ARyry
Department: Community Develo
® CITY COUNCIL
❑ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
❑ SUCCESSOR AGENCY
❑ BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT
❑ JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY
Item No: PH1
Prepared by: Michael Ressler, City Planner Meeting Date: August 13, 2024 Joe Vacca, Community Development Director
Approved by: John Conley, City Manager Agenda Location: Public Hearing SUBJECT: APPEAL OF P23-0216, 1264 OAK DRIVE SKATEBOARD RAMP RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open, conduct, and close a public hearing to receive testimony regarding an appeal of Planning Case No. P23-0216, the 1264 Oak Drive Skateboard Ramp project.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2024- , denying the appeal and approving a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00).

OR
Adopt Resolution No. 2024- , approving the appeal and denying a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00).

CORRELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS: Routine operational item not directly corresponding to a specific City Council goal.

PRIOR ACTION: On February 14, 2023, introduced and adopted City Council Ordinance 2023-4, amending chapters 18.08, 18.10, 18.28, and 18.72 of the Vista Development Code related to skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones and nonconforming accessory structures, and adopted City Council Resolution No. 2023-12, adopting City Council Policy 300-16, Skateboard Ramps in Single -Family Residential Zones (Vote: 5-0).

PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On June 4, 2024, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-13, approving a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00).

With the following modification to Planning Division Condition No. 6:
• Use of any skateboard ramp subject to this Minor Use Permit shall not be permitted between the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 A.M. Use of the approved skateboard ramp shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Vista.
(Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Looney and Martin absent).

On January 17, 2023, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-02, recommending City Council approval of an ordinance amending chapters 18.08, 18.10, 18.28, and 18.72 of the Vista Development ACTION: Opened, conducted, and closed a public hearing. Adopted Resolution No. 2024-139, denying the appeal and approving a Minor Use Permit with revised conditions. Vote: 5-0 L-
Clerk/Se6retary

MEETING DATE: August 13, 2024
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF P23-0216, 1264 OAK DRIVE SKATEBOARD RAMP Code related to skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones and nonconforming accessory structures (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Hastings and Savage absent).

PAGE 2
On October 18, 2022, directed staff to prepare an ordinance that includes the following items as part of proposed code amendment for regulating skateboard ramps:
• Discretionary permit via Minor Use Permit for skateboard ramps • Limit the height to 6 feet without a Minor Use Permit • If greater than 6 feet (maximum of 13 feet), Minor Use Permit (MUP) applies • As part of the MUP, what is it going to look like and how the ramp will be • maintained
• Soundproofing required
• Insurance requirements
• Limit events and size of event re. number of people attending • Parking requirements
• Lighting stipulations
• Limit hours of operation
• Setbacks based on height of the ramps
• Portable restrooms regulations on location/quantity for events • Amortization period of 3 years or less
• Provide landscape screening
(Vote: 7-0).

The Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes from June 4, 2024, are included as Exhibit 3. An appeal of the Planning Commission's June 4, 2024, decision regarding the project was filed by Mayor John Franklin on June 12, 2024. The appeal letter is included as Exhibit 4.

STATEMENT ON THE SUBJECT: The proposed project consists of a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp the exceeds six feet in height at the existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive. The submitted site plan indicates the existing ramp is approximately 2,000 square feet in size and located at the rear of the subject property. The site plan indicates the skateboard ramp currently maintains minimum setbacks of five feet from the south side property line, 17 feet from the west side property line, and 30 feet from the north property line. However, during a site visit, staff confirmed the skateboard ramp is located directly on the southern property line. The applicant is proposing to move the ramp directly north to accommodate the Code required 10-foot side yard setback from the southern boundary. The general height of the ramp ranges from 14 feet to 18 feet. The existing ramp is constructed of wood and surfaced with a "Skatelite" material, which is utilized for its smooth texture and minimal noise generating qualities.

According to the submitted project description, the skateboard ramp is used during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no ramp activity occurs on Sundays and holidays. Typical skateboard sessions include one to seven people depending on the time and day of the week.

Planning Review. The City's Development Code requires consideration of a Minor Use Permit in order to allow skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height in the R-1 (Residential) zone, subject to City Council Policy 300-16, Skateboard Ramps in Single -Family Residential Zones. The intent of the Minor Use Permit 08/13/2024 PH 1 2 of 183

MEETING DATE: August 13, 2024
PAGE 3
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF P23-0216, 1264 OAK DRIVE SKATEBOARD RAMP process is to minimize potential impacts generated by a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height.

Specific design features and operational restrictions have been included in the project or required as Conditions of Approval to minimize potential impacts. These design features and operational restrictions include substantial screening along the southern, northern, and western property boundary to provide an appropriate buffer between the subject ramp and the adjacent residential uses. The ramp construction is limited to wood or composite materials. Special events associated with the skateboard ramp are not allowed unless approved by the Planning Commission. Additionally, the hours of operation for the skateboard ramp are limited. These design features, in association with operational restrictions within the attached Conditions of Approval, are intended to ensure compatibility between the subject skateboard ramp and the adjacent surrounding land uses.

Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16. On February 14, 2023, City Council adopted City Council Ordinance 2023-4 and City Council Policy 300-16 related to residential skateboard ramps. The ordinance amends chapters 18.08, 18.10, 18.28, and 18.72 of the Vista Development Code, which allows skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) approved by the Planning Commission within the E-1 (Estate Residential), A-1 (Agricultural), and R-1 (Residence) single-family residential zones, and to establish regulations for nonconforming recreational accessory structures. City Council Policy No. 300-16 addresses applicability and establishes requirements for discretionary review. The criteria to be addressed in the planning review of eligible skateboard ramps include the following:
• Landscaping / screening of structure,
• Soundproofing, materials,
• Special events,
• Parking,
• Hours of operation,
• Lighting, and
• Setbacks.

Additionally, City Council Policy No. 300-16 establishes specifications for skateboard ramps requiring discretionary review and establish criteria under which such structures would be reviewed by the Planning Division for a Minor Use Permit. The intent of this policy is to protect surrounding properties from potentially adverse impacts consistent with General Plan Goal LUCI-3 in the Land Use and Community Identity Element. The subject skateboard ramp, as conditioned, is in compliance with all specifications identified in this policy. Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16 compliance documentation can be found in the June 4, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report included as Exhibit 3.

Environmental. This project is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15301 — Existing Facilities. Section 15301 applies to projects involving minor alteration of an existing public or private structure. The proposed project involves minor modifications to an existing ancillary skateboard ramp, that involves negligible or no expansion of use, and none of the exceptions to the exemption, as described in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, apply. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental document.

Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on June 4, 2024, and approved the Minor Use Permit. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes are included as Exhibit 3. An appeal of the Planning Commission's June 4, 2024, decision regarding the project was filed by Mayor John Franklin on June 12, 2024. (Exhibit 4)
City Council Review. Because the Planning Commission approved the MUP and the Mayor appealed that decision, this is a de novo hearing (new public hearing) before the City Council. The City Council has full discretion to consider the proposed project. Therefore, based on substantial evidence, the City Council would need to make the following findings to grant an MUP or negate a finding to deny the MUP:
08/13/2024 PH 1 3 of 183

MEETING DATE: August 13, 2024
PAGE 4
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF P23-0216, 1264 OAK DRIVE SKATEBOARD RAMP

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;

2. The proposed use, in the manner to be conducted, is permitted in the applicable zone and will conform to applicable federal, state, and local laws or regulations;

4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with the existing and planned land uses in the vicinity; and

5. The proposed use, and its operation, will not be unduly detrimental to: (i) the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, (ii) property or improvements in the vicinity, or (iii) the fiscal or economic interests of the City of Vista.

FISCAL IMPACT: There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the approval of the skateboard ramp.

EXHIBITS:

1. City Council Resolution No. 2024- denying the appeal and approving a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00).

A. Conditions of Approval
B. Project Plans (reduced)

2. City Council Resolution No. 2024- approving the appeal and denying a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00).

3. Planning Commission Staff Report and June 4, 2024 Minutes

4. Mayor Appeal Letter

5. City Council Policy No. 300-16

6. Written Correspondence

7. Project Location Map

8. Full Scale Project Plans (limited distribution)
08/13/2024 PH 1 4 of 183

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA,

CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING A MINOR USE PERMIT

FOR A SKATEBOARD RAMP EXCEEDING SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1264 OAK DRIVE (APN 173-183-45-00) APPLICANT: Evandro Menezes
PLANNING CASE: P23-0216
The City Council of the City of Vista does resolve as follows:

1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and declares the following:

A. The applicant, Evandro Menezes, has submitted an application for a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00).

B. The property for which the approval is requested is more specifically described as follows:

A .42-acre parcel of land addressed as 1264 Oak Drive, and also identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 173-183-45-00.

C. Pursuant to Chapter 18.04 of the Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Minor Use Permit on June 4, 2024.

D. At said hearing, Staff Reports both written and oral were received in evidence and all persons desiring to speak on the proposed Minor Use Permit were heard. At the conclusion of said hearing, after consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-13 approving a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive.

E. The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental document pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, because the project consists of minor modifications to an existing skate ramp structure that involves negligible or no expansion of use, and none of the exceptions to the exemption, as described in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, apply.

F. On June 12, 2024, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval was filed.

G. The City Council held a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Minor Use Permit on August 13, 2024.

2. Action.

A. The above recitations are true and correct.

B. The City Council makes the following findings with regard to the Minor Use Permit request based on the evidence presented at the hearing and as follows:

P23-0216 res EXHIBIT 1
08/13/2024 PH 1 5 of 183

RESOLUTION 2024-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 2

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan for the following reason:
a. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Medium Low Density Residential (MLD), which allows for medium -low density, single family residential development. The subject property is developed with an existing 1,520 square foot single family home and associated site improvements. The proposed skateboard ramp is an accessory structure to the existing single-family residence and is allowed by the issuance of a Minor Use Permit. Since the subject site maintains a single-family home, the existing land use and ancillary uses are consistent with the General Plan and the MILD land use designation.

There are no specific plans applicable to the project site. No specific plan applies to the project site.
b. Land Use and Community Identity (LUCI) Goal No. 3 is to preserve and protect existing residential neighborhoods from actions, activities, or land uses that may have an adverse impact upon the enjoyment of the residential living environment. The proposed skateboard ramp setbacks, orientation, construction materials, perimeter landscaping, and hours of operation, as conditioned, have been designed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding single-family neighborhood, consistent with LUCI Goal No. 3.

2. The proposed use, in the manner to be conducted, is permitted in the applicable zone and will conform to applicable federal, state, and local laws or regulations for the following reasons:
a. The General Plan land use designation for the property is Medium Low Density Residential (MILD), and the zoning is R-1 (Residential). The Residential zone allows for single family residences with ancillary uses including a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height upon approval of a Minor Use Permit. b. The proposed skateboard ramp, as conditioned, complies with all design criteria and use restrictions identified within the Vista City Council Policy No. 300 16 including setbacks, screening, materials, parking, hours of operation, and other restrictions.

The skateboard ramp setbacks, orientation, and construction materials, as conditioned, have been designed to reduce and deflect noise away from adjacent neighbors. In addition, the property owner will utilize the ramp during hours of operation consistent with the City Council Policy No. 300-16.

3. The site for the proposed use has a size that is sufficient to reasonably accommodate the planned activities and will be served by existing infrastructure and utilities sufficient to serve the neighborhood, inclusive of the proposed use, or has been conditioned to install such infrastructure and utilities, for the following reasons:
a. All necessary services are available to the site.
b. The property has an existing one-story single-family home with suitable area for the proposed skateboard ramp and associated improvements.

C. The overall site is approximately .42 acres in size and can accommodate necessary facilities to support the proposed use. All necessary infrastructure and utilities are available in the area to serve the proposed use.

P23-0298 res
08/13/2024 PH 1 6 of 183

RESOLUTION 2024-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 3

4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with the existing and planned land uses in the vicinity for the following reasons:

The skateboard ramp, as conditioned, has been designed to integrate with existing on -site improvements and residential development within the near vicinity by incorporating landscaping, screening, separation, and other design features. Also, the proposed property owner will comply with hours of operation and operation restrictions identified within the Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16 and included in the conditions of approval of Exhibit A.

5. The proposed use, at its location, will provide the neighborhood and/or city with a service or facility that will contribute to its general welfare:

The proposed skateboard ramp would provide the property owner with an alternative source of physical recreation opportunity not currently provided in existing public recreation facilities within the city.

6. The proposed use, and its operation, will not be unduly detrimental to: (i) the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; (ii) property or improvements in the vicinity; or (iii) the fiscal or economic interests of the City of Vista for the following reasons:

The proposed skateboard ramp, as conditioned, would not create a nuisance to surrounding properties because it was designed to operate within the parameters of the site improvements in compliance with Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16. The skateboard ramp is constructed with a smooth surface material with minimal noise generating qualities. In addition, the skateboard ramp's orientation, setbacks, perimeter fencing, and perimeter landscaping provide a substantial buffer between the ramp and surrounding residential properties. Further, detailed Conditions of Approval as described in Exhibit A are included to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential land uses.

C. All requirements of CEQA have been met.

D. In view of the necessary findings heretofore made, and considering the applicable law, the City Council denies the appeal and approves the Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00) as set forth in Exhibit "B", subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution.

E. Failure to abide by and faithfully comply with any and all conditions of approval included in Exhibit "A" shall constitute grounds for revocation of the approvals by the Planning Commission.

F. The applicant must execute a written acceptance of these Conditions of Approval no later than thirty (30) days after the permit is approved or the permit shall become null and void.
[Continued next page]
P23-0298 res
08/13/2024 PH 1 7 of 183

RESOLUTION 2024-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 4

3. Adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the Chartered City of Vista held on the 13t" day of August, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Walter Chung, City Attorney
By:

Exhibits:

A. Conditions of Approval
B. Project Plans

APPROVED
Walter C. Chung
20240729144444

JOHN FRANKLIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

KATHY VALDEZ, CITY CLERK
By:

P23-0298 res
08/13/2024 PH1 8 of 183

EXHIBIT "A"

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
P23-0216
SKATEBOARD RAMP — EVANDRO MENEZES
A. SCOPE OF PERMIT
A Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive, subject to these Conditions of Approval.

B. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Where not otherwise specified, this project shall be subject to the regulations of the City of Vista Municipal Code and Development Code, as well as other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

C. EXPIRATION OF MINOR USE PERMIT

1. This Minor Use Permit shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on the first anniversary of the date of adoption of this Resolution unless all improvements associated with the project are implemented and confirmed by City staff.

D. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

1. Should significant violations of conditions be reported to the City, the City may take action pursuant to Section 18.74.280 of the Development Code.

E. PLANNING INFORMATION AND CONDITIONS
The approved skateboard ramp shall be a maximum of 2,000 square feet with a maximum height of 18 feet. The site shall conform to Exhibit "B" as modified herein. Any increase in ramp area and height would require modification of this Minor Use Permit.

2. The existing skateboard ramp shall be modified to maintain a minimum 10-foot setback from the southern property line pursuant to sheet 3 in Exhibit "B" within 30 days of this approval. In the event the skateboard ramp does not maintain the required setback within 30 days of this approval, the City will initiate an abatement process pursuant to Section

18.72.110 in the Vista Development Code.

3. The approved ramp structure construction shall be limited to wood or composite materials; no metal decking materials are permitted.

4. Use of the skateboard ramp structure will not be permitted for special events held on the subject residential property unless on a case -by -case basis as approved by the Planning Commission.

5. Use of the skateboard ramp for any business or home occupation purposes is prohibited.

P23-0216 exa
08/13/2024 PH1 9 of 183

6. Use of any skateboard ramp subject to this Minor Use Permit shall not be permitted between the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 A.M. Use of the approved skateboard ramp shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Vista.

7. Any future lighting associated with the skateboard ramp structure shall be directed downward and shielded as necessary to avoid light spill onto any surrounding property. Maximum light levels on adjacent properties shall be no greater than one -quarter foot candle.

8. All plantings surrounding the skateboard ramp shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition to provide sufficient screening of the skateboard ramp from surrounding properties. All plants which fail to thrive because of disease, damage, accident or other cause shall be immediately replaced with a plant of the same species and size as originally approved. At the discretion of the City planner, replacement of any plant materials that have been improperly maintained shall be required at a size equal to the size of the plant had it been properly cared for.

9. Noise generated by the approved skateboard shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (VMC Chapter 8.32), including the applicable property line noise standards.

F. INDEMNIFICATION

1. By accepting the permit or approval, applicant agrees to accept responsibility for defending against any third -party challenge to the grant of this permit or approval. Except as otherwise provided by state or federal law, the applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from any costs, claims, penalties, fines, judgments, or liabilities arising from the approval, including without limitation, any award or attorney's fees that might result from the third -party challenge. Upon the occurrence of a challenge, or prior to a challenge, the City may require the applicant to execute an indemnity agreement and provide such security as the City may reasonably require.

2. For this purposes of this indemnity, the term "City" shall include the City of Vista, its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives. For purposes of this section, the term "challenge" means any legal or administrative action to dispute, contest, attack, set aside, limit, or modify the approval, project conditions, or any act upon which the approval is based, including any action alleging a failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or other laws.

3. For this permit or approval to become effective, the applicant must, within P23-0216 exa
08/13/2024 PH 1 10 of 183

thirty (30) days of the grant of the permit or approval, execute a form accepting the permit or approval with all conditions. Upon executing the form, the applicant may not challenge the imposition of any condition, except as otherwise provided by law.

P23-0216 exa
08/13/2024 PH 1 11 of 183

CASE #:P23-0216
"� Jpa f f°f r mo pg 173=10
w tors O� sw0 O. sw0 sm 9➢[a! cs9 xr° AP,09 LM KNOLL M SbT 2 ®F 2 .....Aid ..................... a .....
� .s ra �s.dsiY'iaui ... ,a¢n a' smf°aei •a /sn aaz� ` <PCB80C8 • � a x® ® g aosna N am.b iaaoa inaio ms. �'d a91 m ap I 100° Q9 e -1 y� �w�eM a v a ao pl�J
L00 S 3 8 s $ % a m ��
TM o. ® a•� �.» � � $ � P . 3 m�+�° n sai°�y-.oa Oa®a9®aOlt ,ro0 '. � ��®�.yp ` �® g.4 Y psr�9%�; � PR➢19�8 69 � so'as � A � � l9-J�U IIL—J PAR c °�.� aaaF; ®AR 9 � • ®LM OLo New ter
aG� r� a PAR a

0.25�. �.¢s y W dk rb ��, ,, "!rss;;r„s,,,,,;,,, s e•a as PAR ®
& O
d♦ as b N e n 's;i,',',,rr }iJ}iJ;ri''i yr
a ,a9 9 '6g ,�µa'r a �� o \•a .p O.SO mC
PAR ® 9 `�aym dqbi's�„%;�':s;Y:.f. I
��N �.,':,. � $ 982E CC
q®P� ® db✓�aya /09� 9 �/ u b t�n�6 $P 'bk� ,9 9940 cc
Ia PArs A V 90
�'' - ® Iaa b,a.aa 2 I® $ ®PAR A PAR ® �7 9a 99&6
ay 9 B40BS 9O 9�50
w< b�'ra �°' �+ ® �. �$ •6 QOC d mNP 'Aar,, ao BO6a9 9O 9�39 �r usv na 17 d° romra-a smra+•w ,r9;9 0.90n
® 0.09� �® 6" PIW 11281 a 41 @4 mo- 9B 1007
e 71 PAR o a as asa A ®e® M0 e e ®sue
„aso rori° aro � Isere m S$ A'�5g .cep ab
a cameo roN°�'a '� PARR Ira se serse•N -
�� t Ott �4q1 (9 -$
t Yq PAD c N m `� PdIW ®
®
'.�0 burr " c��,�.4 S ®I sm.•�a•.�w°.- ~4�� a'� `�:°? o°' w, PAR c yd��,`"` I� �• ° /
®rai��0 g Atom $ m a� 8�-e ' a 0.61AL aq d+ i •g SHT. 0 ¢¢ 0.9ag•S yn
® � $ d d .oerxap -m �� '�� aas*ea•m•m 2a $ $ 9� '�® rn/ �L' ,� a ma �ro amre P a� y 9
® m °v
L.$ m s�,mae
� .dt .-0 is romm�•m-m a• a i P sea o
® yap ��`� w � 8� to ° � .: •mom d"@ � i �
SEC 17—T11S—R3W — POR SWQ
SEC 16—TllS—R3W — POR SEQ
LS 371, ROS 3169,3170,3200,3201,3279,17923
wE rf
BOOK 973 PACE 9d BHT 2 of 2 18 SHT 0

VICINITY MAP
Project:

Special Use Permit Application for Evandro Menezes Residential Skateboard Ramp
LEGEND:

SUBJECT PROPERTY DETAIL -
NOTES:

APPLICANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
(SHOWN IN HATCHED SECTION):

MAILING ADDRESS1
1264 ❑AK ➢R
VISTA, CA 92084
PARCEL # (APN)l 173-183-45-00
LEGAL DESCRIPTIDN: SEC 17-11-3W-SW y DF-PDR SW a DF-
Menezes
Residence
08/13/2024 PH1 12 of 183

Existing Ramp
40' wide x 50" long
Dimensions of raml
are aoorox.)
Ism
on

EXISTING PROPERTY DETAIL

DIMENSIONED ABOUT PROPERTY

LINES AS CURRENTLY BUILT

SUBJECT PROPERTY DETAIL MAP
Existing House and
Garage
Existing Privacy Fence

EXISTING PROPERTY DETAIL CONDITIONS
Proj ect:

Special Use Permit Application for Evandro Menezes Residential C1ratiAhnsrd Rmmn
CASE #: P23-0216
LEGEND:
-INDIVIDUAL PARKING SPACES
DIMENSIONED AT 10'-0" x 20'-0" EA. -
'
-SKATE RAMP DECKING AREAS
-SKATE RAMP RIDING SURFACE
Existing Driveway

PARKING SPACE SIZE
C� TYP. @ ALL
NOTES:

APPLICANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
MAILING ADDRESS:
1264 OAK DR.

VISTA, CA 920e4
PARCEL N (APNI: 113-183-45-11
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC 1]-]t-3W-SW j OF-POR SW }
OF,
PARKING SPACES:
➢RIVEWAY HOLDS SIX (6) FULL SIZE PARKING SPACES
DIMENSIONED AT 10'-0' x 20-0- EA. (TWO (2) EA. BEHIND
PRIVACY FENCE AS SHOWN. FOUR (4) A➢➢ITIONAL PARKING
SPACES OUTSIDE OF PRIVACY FENCE. OFF-STREET
PARKING ADDS TWO (2) A➢➢IT IONAL SPACES WITHOUT
BLOCKING PROPERTY DRIVEWAY. A TOTAL OF 8 PARKING

SPACES ARE THERFORE AVAILABLE AT SUBJECT PROPERTY
V M
M M
Menezes
Residence
08/13/2024 PH 1 13 of 183

10'-0' SETBACK

CORNER OF RAMP TU

SIDE PROPERTY LINE
SEIB
RAM
25-0- BACK F DECK TO,
_�TY LINE
O�
Existing Ramp
40' wide x 50" long
Dimensions of raml
are approx.)
Ima:I�.yarsTyH
MMWMA
Existing Property Detail

DIMENSIONED ABOUT PROPERTY LINES AS RAMP

TO BE LOCATED FOR SETBACK COMPLIANCE

SUBJECT PROPERTY DETAIL MAP
Existing House and
Garage
Existing Privacy Fence
6'-0" HIGH
Existing Driveway

PROPOSED PROPERTY DETAIL CONDITIONS
Proj ect:

Special Use Permit Application for Evandro Menezes Residential Skateboard Ramp
CASE #: P23-0216
LEGEND:
-INDIVIDUAL PARKING SPACES
DIMENSIONED AT 10'-0" x 20'-0" EA. -
-SKATE RAMP DECKING AREAS
-SKATE RAMP RIDING SURFACE
-EXISTING MINI RAMP

PARKING SPACE SIZE
TYP. @ ALL
NOTES:

APPLICANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
MAILING ADDRESS:
1264 OAK DR.

VISTA, CA 920e4
PARCEL N (APNI: 113-183-45-00
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC 1]-]t-3W-SW j OF-POR SW }
OF,
PARKING SPACES:
➢RIVEWAY HOLDS SIX (6) FULL SIZE PARKING SPACES
DIMENSIONED AT 10'-0' x 20-0- EA. (TWO (2) EA. BEHIND
PRIVACY FENCE AS SHOWN. FOUR (4) A➢➢ITIONAL PARKING
SPACES OUTSIDE OF PRIVACY FENCE. OFF-STREET
PARKING ADDS TWO (2) A➢➢IT ZONAL SPACES WITHOUT
BLOCKING PROPERTY DRIVEWAY. A TOTAL OF 8 PARKING

SPACES ARE THERFORE AVAILABLE AT SUBJECT PROPERTY

DU DU N
Q co N
a a �
V M
M M
3 Menezes
Residence
08/13/2024 PH 1 14 of 183

4'-0' DECK
DEPTH

FOAM FILLED SOUND

DEADENING BACK OF DECK

RAILING WALL
14'-0' DISTANCE

FROM DECK TO

GROUND ,(APPRX)
6'-0`'HIGH

IVACY FENCE

EXISTING TREE AT TOP

OF RETAINING WALL
6'-0" HIGH PRIVACY FENCE

AT TOP OF RETAINING WALL

NEUTRAL TAN COLORED I I / II,I /
HEN OLIC RIDING SURFACE 12' 4

I I I I I I C OVERALL HEIGHT FLAT BOTTOMTO DE
SETBACK \ I PAINTED PLYWOOD \ 2TIER RETAINING WALL
AS REQUIRED v SI DE TEMPLATES AT NORTHWEST SIDE OF RAMP

RAMP SIDES AND BACK TO BE

ENCLOSED WITH PLYWOOD

RAMP CONSTRUCTION DETAIL

PROPOSED STRUCTURAL, LANDSCAPE AND

PLACEMENT DETAILS
Project:

Special Use Permit Application for Evandro Menezes Residential Skateboard Ramp
LEGEND:
-PRIVACY FENCE AT PROPERTY

PERIMETER
-RETAINING WALL
-HILLSIDE/EARTH

NOTES -

APPLICANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
MAILING ADDRESS:
1264 OAK DR.

VISTA, CA 92084
PARCEL # (ARM): 173-183-45-00
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC 17-11-3W.SW )q ❑FAPOR SW )q ❑FIR PARKING SPACES:

DRIVEWAY HOLDS SIX (6) FULL SIZE PARKING SPACES
DIMENSIONED AT 10'-0" x 20-0' EA. (TWO (2) EA. BEHIND
PRIVACY FENCE AS SHOWN. FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL PARKING
SPACES OUTSIDE [IF PRIVACY FENCE ❑FF-STREET PARKING
ADDS TWO (2) ADDITIONAL SPACES WITHOUT BLOCKING
PROPERTY DRIVEWAY A TOTAL OF 8 PARKING SPACES ARE

THEREFORE AVAILABLE AT SUBJECT PROPERTY
CASE
#:

P23-0216
IN

ROLL -IN AT EITHER SIDE OF RAMP
4'-0" x 18'-0" APPRX. FROM

DECK TO GROUND LEVEL
8'-0' DECKDEPTH
tl
G-0" HIGH PRIVACY FENCE AT PROPERTY

FOAMFILLEDSOUND

D ADENING BACK OF DECK

LINE AT TOP OF HILL BEHIND VEGETATION
\
i RAILING WALL
18'-0" DISTANCE

FROM DECK TO
GROUND (APPRX.)
2 RUL.L-IN

TREE LINED HILL (SHOWN REPRESENTATIVE ONLY)

AT NORTH SIDE OF RAMP, BETWEEN RAMP AND

PROPERTY LINE (SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS)
TE IPxINDuc sxEETI HI RIDING SD 'FACE Ai DECK
I 6 FRAM ING 2scry`40

ING ATDE , / DECK IT RA
nio ,D 1.R1.C1 Al nnMP Faced
21 FS OF?'THICK PLYWOOD
S—HECTING AT RAMP FACE
DFDEGNSERIDEl INTERIDR AT RAMPSIo,E,PaI��o,
NS
\ 01 STRUfURAL FRAMING AND MATERIAL SECTION
Da
Menezes
Residence
08/13/2024 PH1 15 of 183

-A.
08/13/2024 PH1 16 of 183

08/13/2024 PH1 17 of 183

0 9

r - _
Vat -n• ,7,1`a-_ �"tid '- � -"i ".h.fe: :. n
, ' �.4r,,'. . �z:i *�'k „fit �I +' o'�K • 7 '� �,yry.; �,1 5 1 M

Vista, CA City Council Policy 300-16 "Skateboard Ramps in Single -Family Residential Zones" The following items address the individual review criteria as stated in the Vista City Council Policy 300-16 "Skateboard Ramps in Single -Family Residential Zones".

Applicants Property is located at 1264 Oak Dr. Vista, CA 92804. Subject property lies within an R-1 Zone and the existing ramp at subject property falls within applicability of the City Council Policy as detailed below. Items not currently in compliance include a detailed plan to bring the current structure into legal compliance.

Review Criteria are detailed as follows:
1) Landscape/Screening of Structure: The structure is currently screened from view of the surrounding properties by a fence that surrounds the applicant property's back yard, as well as trees planted partially along the rear and side property line. See attached pictures. The exterior of the ramp structure is currently painted in a neutral earth tone to help it to blend into the surroundings. Additional foliage to be installed as required to further assist on concealing the ramp from neighboring properties. 2) Soundproofing: The current structure contains soundproofing that includes the "closing in" of the exterior of the ramp decking and underside with plywood sheeting on one side of the ramp. Planned additional soundproofing measures include; a. Mitigating sound from the coping (metal pipe at top of ramp) by filling with expanding foam insulation.
b. Closing in the currently open side of the ramp
c. installing sound deadening, fire -retardant fabric or foam panels as needed at interior of ramp decking to further dampen sound.
d. Installing sound deadening, fire -retardant foam at railing walls at back of decks as needed to further dampen sound.
e. Completing a decibel level study of the property from different points relating to each neighboring property. Study is intended to be conducted during an active, average sized skate session to measure the decibel level impact on neighboring properties and to assess additional sound deadening measures that may be required.
3) Materials: The existing ramp is constructed of wood and composite materials. The construction style of the existing ramp is typical and accepted as industry standard for 08/13/2024 PH1 23 of 183

skateboard ramps. See attached "RAMP DETAIL" drawing for additional information regarding materials used in the ramp construction.
4) Special Events: Applicant will not hold any special events at the residence or property without prior approval from the city as well as properly informing and working with neighboring properties to mitigate concerns.
5) Parking: Applicant property driveway fits 8 cars comfortably. Applicant property driveway includes a gate in the middle of the driveway. 4 cars can be adequately parked behind the gate and 4 cars can be adequately parked outside of the gate. Additionally, street parking can safely and effectively support 3-4 additional cars parked in parallel.

The ramp is NOT used to operate a home -based business. 6) Hours of Operation: Applicant currently operates the use of the ramp according to the following weekly schedule:
- 11am start (earliest) - 7pm end (latest) Monday -Friday - 11am start (earliest) - 6pm end (latest) Saturday
- Ram is NOT used on Sundays or holidays
Use of ramp is intermittent and scattered throughout the day. During the hours of 11am-3pm there is very rarely more than one person using it at a time, and many days there is little to no use before 4pm. During the hours of 4-7pm there are rarely more than 5-7 people using it at a time, and often fewer than that (1-3 people). Afternoon sessions are generally limited to 4-5 days per week.
7) Lighting: Applicant property does NOT include lighting for the ramp. As such, the ramp is NOT used after dark. During non -daylight savings periods, use of the ramp ends at sunset or per the above listed hours of use. Whichever comes first. 8) Setbacks: The ramp currently meets the setbacks required for a primary residence within the applicable zone, with the except as noted on the back deck of the ramp along the side property line as detailed in the attached parcel drawing. If applicant is unable to obtain an otherwise conditioned exception to this setback by providing additional screening, soundproofing and other required measures through planning commission or city council approval, then applicant will bring the ramp into compliance by moving it as detailed in the attached parcel drawing. Current and proposed setbacks are detailed and dimensioned on the attached parcel drawing.
08/13/2024 PH1 24 of 183

04/10/2024
To whom it may concern;
The skateboard ramp located at the Evandro Menezes residence at 1264 Oak Dr. Vista, CA 92084 is adequately soundproofed as shown on plans submitted for a conditional use permit to the City of Vista, CA.

The individual items noted on the plans include sound deadening, foam filled coping, casing of the undersides of the ramp decks with plywood, and railing supports that include sound deadening insulation. These items and techniques for sound mitigation on skateboard ramps are considered industry standard.

As built, the ramp located at the Menezes residence includes the above listed standard sound mitigation items to minimize the noise impact on the surrounding neighbors. These items, coupled with the existing privacy fencing and the existing landscaping on the property provide for adequate sound mitigation for a skateboard ramp.

Please feel free to direct any other questions to us relating to this ramp.

Thank you,
Dave Shyne
President, Ramparts Premium Skateparks
www.rollwithramparts.com
763-360-6693
i@rollwithramparts
08/13/2024 PH 1 25 of 183

City of Vista Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
April 9, 2024
RE: Skateboard Ramp MUP for 1264 Oak Dr.

Dear City of Vista Planning Commission,
I would like to provide some clarification on how we plan on expanding upon and improving the existing privacy screening and soundproofing of the ramp.

North property line:

We already have adequate screening and soundproofing on the north property line, including:
• tall reed screening that extends above the existing 6' wood property fence (this was added at the request of the neighbor on that side)
• wooden privacy walls on the ramp deck and long the stairwell that block the view from the ramp deck into the neighboring property
• several tall trees between the ramp and the neighboring property • multiple layers of protective wooden backwall (which boxes in the sound along the transition)
We plan on replacing the existing reed screening in the coming weeks with new material for aesthetic purposes.

West property line:

On the west side, we have added:
• reed privacy screening along the existing chain link fence • sand -colored shade sails that sit just above the fence line (the shades are temporarily removed during high winds)
We replace the reed screening as needed as part of routine maintenance and upkeep. 1 08/13/2024 PH 1 26 of 183

South property line:

Existing on the south side:
• a wooden railing along the top skateboard deck with sand -colored shade sails that block the view of the neighboring property from the deck • an existing wood 6' fence along the property line
We do have plans to expand both the screening and sound proofing on this side. Our plans for enhancements include:
• add a layer of 3/a" plywood to box in the back transition, which will greatly minimize the sound on that side
• add reed screening along the fence line as needed for aesthetic purposes (with neighbor approval)
• add reed screening to the existing staircase to provide more privacy for the neighboring property
• discuss with the neighbors of the property on the south side about adding vines or other foliage along the fence line to help provide further sound barrier and for aesthetics
We remain open to suggestions from the city and our neighbors on how we can continue to improve privacy screening, aesthetics and to minimize the sound.

Kind Regards,
Courtney Menezes
Property Owner at 1264 Oak Drive
K
08/13/2024 PH 1 27 of 183

EXHIBIT "A"

C. EXPIRATION OF MINOR USE PERMIT

D. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

1. Should significant violations of conditions be reported to the City, the City may take action pursuant to Section 18.74.280 of the Development Code.

18.72.110 in the Vista Development Code.

3. The approved ramp structure construction shall be limited to wood or composite materials; no metal decking materials are permitted.

4. Use of the skateboard ramp structure will not be permitted for special events held on the subject residential property unless on a case -by -case basis as approved by the Planning Commission.

5. Use of the skateboard ramp for any business or home occupation purposes is prohibited.

P23-0216 exa
08/13/2024 PH1 28 of 183

9. Noise generated by the approved skateboard shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (VMC Chapter 8.32), including the applicable property line noise standards.

F. INDEMNIFICATION

3. For this permit or approval to become effective, the applicant must, within P23-0216 exa
08/13/2024 PH 1 29 of 183

P23-0216 exa
08/13/2024 PH 1 30 of 183

CASE #:P23-0216
"� Jpa f f°f r mo pg 173=10
w tors O� Sw0 O. Sw0 sm 9➢[a! c>s xr° AP,09 LM KNOLL M SbT 2 ®F 2 .....Aid ..................... a .....
� .s ra yts.dsirk'•iaus'... ,a¢n a' smf°aei •a /sn aaz� ` <PCB80C8 • � a x® ® g aosna N am.b iaaoa inaio ms. �'d a91 m ap I�p 100° Q9 e -1 PAR A v a ao pl�J
LOO S 3 %8 s a m ��
TM o. ® a•� �.» � �
pyr�39�; � PR➢19�8 69 � so'as � A � � l�-J�U IIL—J
PAR a.� °�,�aaaF; �PAR9 �• ®LMOLONew ter
aG� r� a g PAR h� .O% 3s a i,',^,,',,'' ,,pep

0.25�. �.¢s Y "y W dk r� "!rss;;r„s,,,,,;,,, s e•a as
PAR ® s, r{{{rr"i`r's'"%;st��' Ea cfl ss 5g
� � � - tea' � � t t � ss%%'i' sa xs am 8sim
d♦ as b N e n 's0;i,',�rr }iJ1iJ;ri'i yr
O.SO Pei
w PAR ® 9 `�aym dqb �,,,,;;%':s;Y:.f. I
��N �.,.:,. � $ 982E CC
c 0I BAR 90
A z its mil/ b 0.90� }�
Iq®P� ® db✓�aya /09� 9 �� , t�n�6 9p 4m ,9 9940 cc
a PArs A V �'' - ® Iaa b,a.aa 2 I® $ ®6'QR A BAR ® �7 9a 99&6 ay 9 B40BS 9O 9�50
w< � b�'ra �°' �+ ® �. �$ •6 � Q� d mNP 'Aar,, ao BO6a9 9O 9�39 �r usv na 17 d° romra-a smra+•w ,r9;9 0.90n ',�. q®p d0Y �T as � 09aan 99 vim^ ® 0.09� �® �+" PPA 91281 a 41 @4 mo- 9B 1007
e 71 PAR o a as asa A ®e® M0 e e ®sue
„aso rori° aro � Isere m S$ A'�5g .cep ab
a cameo wmi•a"'a PARR Ira se serse•N -
�� t Ott �4q1 41 ® -$
'.�0 burr " ��.� ®I sm.•�a•.�w°.- ~4�� a'� `�:°? o°' w, PAR
s�•��.a °� ®rc s%SH
.a0 g Atom $ m a� 8�-e g a 0.01 AS aq d+ i •g T. 0

0.9ag•S yn
® � $ � d .oerxap -m �� '�� aas*ea•m•m 2a $ $ 9� '�® rn/ �L' ,� a ma �ro amre P a� y 9
@ a car � wm�
sorsa ao .m x m �� 0.7a� 2 L.$ m s�,mae
�t .-0 is aam•m-m d, 8 P 9E.4 B
® yap ��`� w � 8� to ° � .: •mom d"@ � i �
t a t p8q�
SEC 17—T11S—R3W — POR SWQ
SEC 16—T11S—R3W — POR SEQ
LS 371, ROS 3169,3170,3200,3201,3279,17923
q A e R S 448
BOOK 973 PACE 9d BHT 2 of 2 WSHT 0

VICINITY MAP
Project:

Special Use Permit Application for Evandro Menezes Residential Skateboard Ramp
LEGEND:

SUBJECT PROPERTY DETAIL -
NOTES:

APPLICANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
(SHOWN IN HATCHED SECTION):

MAILING ADDRESS1
1264 ❑AK ➢R
VISTA, CA 92084
PARCEL # (APN)i 173-183-45-00
LEGAL DESCRIPTIDN: SEC 17-11-3W-SW y DF-PDR SW a DF-
Menezes
Residence

Existing Ramp
40, wide x 50" long
Dimensions of raml
are aoorox.)
Ism
on

EXISTING PROPERTY DETAIL

DIMENSIONED ABOUT PROPERTY

LINES AS CURRENTLY BUILT
Existing House and
Garage
Existing Privacy Fence

SUBJECT PROPERTY DETAIL MAP -

EXISTING PROPERTY DETAIL CONDITIONS
Proj ect:

Special Use Permit Application for Evandro Menezes Residential CASE #: P23-0216
LEGEND:
-INDIVIDUAL PARKING SPACES
DIMENSIONED AT 10'-0" x 20'-0" EA. -
'
-SKATE RAMP DECKING AREAS
-SKATE RAMP RIDING SURFACE
Existing Driveway

PARKING SPACE SIZE
C� TYP. @ ALL
NOTES:

APPLICANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
MAILING ADDRESS:
1264 OAK DR.

VISTA, CA 920e4
PARCEL N (APNI: 113-183-45-00
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC 1]-]t-3W-SW j OF-POR SW }
OF,
PARKING SPACES:
➢RIVEWAY HOLDS SIX (6) FULL SIZE PARKING SPACES
➢..ENSIONED AT 10'-0' x 20-0- EA. (TWO (2) EA. BEHIND
PRIVACY FENCE AS SHOWN. FOUR (4) A➢➢ITIONAL PARKING
SPACES OUTSIDE OF PRIVACY FENCE. OFF-STREET
PARKING ADDS TWO (2) A➢➢IT IONAL SPACES WITHOUT
BLOCKING PROPERTY DRIVEWAY. A TOTAL OF 8 PARKING

SPACES ARE THERFORE AVAILABLE AT SUBJECT PROPERTY
Residence

10'-0' SETBACK

CORNER OF RAMP TU

SIDE PROPERTY LINE
SEIB
RAM
25-0- BACK F DECK TO,
_�TY LINE
O�
Existing Ramp
40' wide x 50" long
Dimensions of raml
are approx.)
rcnauE.�arsTe
MMWMA
Existing Property Detail

DIMENSIONED ABOUT PROPERTY LINES AS RAMP

TO BE LOCATED FOR SETBACK COMPLIANCE

SUBJECT PROPERTY DETAIL MAP
Existing House and
Garage
Existing Privacy Fence
6'-0" HIGH
Existing Driveway

PROPOSED PROPERTY DETAIL CONDITIONS
Proj ect:

PARKING SPACE SIZE
TYP. @ ALL
NOTES:

APPLICANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
MAILING ADDRESS:
1264 OAK DR.

SPACES ARE THERFORE AVAILABLE AT SUBJECT PROPERTY

DU DU N
Q co N
a a �
3:

Menezes
Residence

4'-0' DECK
DEPTH

FOAM FILLED SOUND

DEADENING BACK OF DECK

RAILING WALL
14'-0' DISTANCE

FROM DECK TO

GROUND ,(APPRX)
6'-0`'HIGH

IVACY FENCE

EXISTING TREE AT TOP

OF RETAINING WALL
6'-0" HIGH PRIVACY FENCE

AT TOP OF RETAINING WALL

NEUTRAL TAN COLORED I I / II,I /
HEN OLIC RIDING SURFACE 12' 4

I I I I I I C OVERALL HEIGHT FLAT BOTTOMTO DE
SETBACK \ I PAINTED PLYWOOD \ 2TIER RETAINING WALL
AS REQUIRED v SI DE TEMPLATES AT NORTHWEST SIDE OF RAMP

RAMP SIDES AND BACK TO BE

ENCLOSED WITH PLYWOOD

RAMP CONSTRUCTION DETAIL

PROPOSED STRUCTURAL, LANDSCAPE AND

PLACEMENT DETAILS
Project:

Special Use Permit Application for Evandro Menezes Residential Skateboard Ramp
LEGEND:
-PRIVACY FENCE AT PROPERTY

PERIMETER
-RETAINING WALL
-HILLSIDE/EARTH

NOTES -

APPLICANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
MAILING ADDRESS:
1264 OAK DR.

VISTA, CA 92084
PARCEL # (ARM): 173-183-45-00
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC 17-11-3W.SW )q ❑FAPOR SW )q ❑FIR PARKING SPACES:

THEREFORE AVAILABLE AT SUBJECT PROPERTY
CASE
#:

P23-0216
IN

ROLL -IN AT EITHER SIDE OF RAMP
4'-0" x 18'-0" APPRX. FROM

DECK TO GROUND LEVEL
8'-0' DECKDEPTH
tl
G-0" HIGH PRIVACY FENCE AT PROPERTY

FOAMFILLEDSOUND

D ADENING BACK OF DECK

LINE AT TOP OF HILL BEHIND VEGETATION
\
i RAILING WALL
18'-0" DISTANCE

FROM DECK TO
GROUND (APPRX.)
2 RUL.L-IN

TREE LINED HILL (SHOWN REPRESENTATIVE ONLY)

AT NORTH SIDE OF RAMP, BETWEEN RAMP AND

PROPERTY LINE (SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS)
RE IPxINDuc sxEETI HI RIDING SD 'FACE Ai DECK
I 6 FRAM ING 2scry`40
DE D
� / C. AT RAM
ING ATP /wool

ECN IT RA
nio ,D 1.R1.C1 Al nnMP Faced
21 FS OF?'THICK PLYWOOD
S—HECTING AT RAMP FACE
DFDEGN�ERIDEl INTERIDR AT RAMPSIo,E,PaI��o,
NS
\ 01 STRUfURAL FRAMING AND MATERIAL SECTION
Da
Menezes
Residence

M
00 T-
4-
10 Y " J
�,- CY)
00 0

08/13/2024 PH1 36 of 183

0 9

r - _
Vat -n• ,7,1`a-_ �"tid '- � -"i ".h.fe: :. n
, ' �.4r,,'. . �z:i *�'k „fit �I +' o'�K • 7 '� �,yry.; �,1 5 1 M

Please feel free to direct any other questions to us relating to this ramp.

Thank you,
Dave Shyne
President, Ramparts Premium Skateparks
www.rollwithramparts.com
763-360-6693
i@rollwithramparts
08/13/2024 PH 1 44 of 183

City of Vista Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
April 9, 2024
RE: Skateboard Ramp MUP for 1264 Oak Dr.

Dear City of Vista Planning Commission,
I would like to provide some clarification on how we plan on expanding upon and improving the existing privacy screening and soundproofing of the ramp.

North property line:

West property line:

South property line:

Kind Regards,
Courtney Menezes
Property Owner at 1264 Oak Drive
K
08/13/2024 PH 1 46 of 183

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPEAL AND DENYING A MINOR USE PERMIT

1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and declares the following:

B. The property for which the approval is requested is more specifically described as follows:

A .42-acre parcel of land addressed as 1264 Oak Drive, and also identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 173-183-45-00.

C. On June 4, 2024, pursuant to Chapter 18.04 of the Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Minor Use Permit.

F. On June 12, 2024, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval was filed.

G. On August 13, 3024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Minor Use Permit.

H. At the public hearing, staff reports both written and oral were received in evidence, and all persons desiring to speak on the project were heard. At the conclusion of said hearing, and after consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council make certain findings and reached a decision on the project as hereinafter set forth.

2. Action.

P23-0216 res denial EXHIBIT 2
08/13/2024 PH1 47 of 183

RESOLUTION 2024-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 2
A. The above recitations are true and correct.

B. The City Council does not make all the necessary findings with regard to the request for a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive, as follows:

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, for the following reasons:
a. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Medium Low Density Residential (MLD), which allows for medium -low density, single family residential development. The subject property is developed with an existing 1,520 square foot single family home and associated site improvements. The proposed skateboard ramp is an accessory structure to the existing single-family residence and is allowed by the issuance of a Minor Use Permit. Since the subject site maintains a single-family home, the existing land use and ancillary uses are consistent with the General Plan and the MLD land use designation.

2. The proposed use, in the manner to be conducted, is permitted in the applicable zone and will conform to applicable federal, state, and local laws or regulations for the following reasons:
a. The General Plan land use designation for the property is Medium Low Density Residential (MLD), and the zoning is R-1 (Residential). The Residential zone allows for single family residences with ancillary uses including a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height upon approval of a Minor Use Permit. b. The proposed skateboard ramp, as conditioned, complies with all design criteria and use restrictions identified within the Vista City Council Policy No. 300- 16 including setbacks, screening, materials, parking, hours of operation, and other restrictions.

3. The finding that the site for the proposed use has a size that is sufficient to reasonably accommodate the planned activities and will be served by existing infrastructure and utilities sufficient to serve the neighborhood, inclusive of the proposed use, or has been conditioned to install such infrastructure and utilities, [can or cannot] be made for the following reasons:

P23-0216 res denial
08/13/2024 PH 1 48 of 183

RESOLUTION 2024-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 3

4. The finding that the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with the existing and planned land uses in the vicinity, [can or cannot] be made for the following reasons:

5. The finding that the proposed use, at its location, will provide the neighborhood and/or city with a service or facility that will contribute to its general welfare, [can or cannot] be made for the following reasons:

6. The finding that the proposed use, and its operation, will not be unduly detrimental to: (i) the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; (ii) property or improvements in the vicinity; or (iii) the fiscal or economic interests of the City of Vista, [can or cannot] be made for the following reasons:

C. In view of the above findings heretofore made, and considering the applicable law, the City Council hereby approves the appeal and denies the Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00).

3. Adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the Chartered City of Vista held on the 13th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Walter Chung, City Attorney
Exhibits:

A. Project Plans

APPROVED
Walter C. Chung
20240729144636

JOHN FRANKLIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

KATHY VALDEZ, CITY CLERK
P23-0216 res denial
08/13/2024 PH 1 49 of 183

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT

PUBLIC HEARING
June 4, 2024
P23-0216
REQUEST: Request for a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00)
APPLICANT: Evandro Menezes
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2024- , granting a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN
173-183-45-00)
LOCATION: The project site is located on the west side of Oak Drive, south of Foothill Drive, in the northern portion of the City (APN 173-183-45-00) (see Exhibit 2)
LAND AREA: .42 acres
KEY ISSUES: Does the proposed project comply with applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan?
Does the proposed project comply with City Council Policy No. 300-16 including, but not limited to, setbacks, soundproofing, materials, parking, landscaping, and operation restrictions?
Can the findings be made to grant a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence? I. HISTORY
On February 14, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2023-04, amending chapters 18.08, 18.10, 18.28, and 18.72 of the Vista Development Code related to skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones and nonconforming accessory structures. In addition, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-12, adopting City Council Policy No. 300-16, Skateboard Ramps in Single Family Residential Zones. The Code amendments allow skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) approved by the Planning Commission within the E-1 (Estate Residentiali, A-1 (Agricultural), and R-1 (Residence) single-family residential zones, and to establish regulations for nonconforming recreational accessory structures. City Council Policy No. 300-16 addresses applicability and establishes requirements for discretionary review. The criteria to be addressed in the planning review of eligible skateboard ramps includes the following: landscaping P23-0216 5R
EXHIBIT 3
08/13/2024 PH 1 50 of 183

1 screening of structure; soundproofing; materials; special events; parking; hours of operation; lighting; and setbacks.

In 2013, the project applicant, Evandro Menezes, constructed a skateboard ramp in the rear yard of his property located 1254 Oak Drive. In the eleven -year lifespan of the skateboard ramp, City staff has received eight Code Enforcement complaints related to the skateboard ramp. As a result of the recently adopted skateboard ramp ordinance and associated City Council Policy, the applicant has submitted a Minor Use Permit application for a skateboard ramp that exceeds six feet in height at the existing single-family residence.

II. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Site Description
The subject site is irregular in shape and encompasses an area of approximately .42 acres. The subject site is located on the west side of flak Drive, south of Foothill Drive. The property is developed with an approximately 1,500 square foot single-family home and associated site improvements. Adjacent land uses include single-family residences to the north, south, east, and west.

B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp the exceeds six feet in height at the existing single-family residence located at 1204 Oak Drive. The submitted site plan indicates the existing ramp is approximately 2,000 square feet in size and located at the rear of the subject property. The site plan indicates the skateboard ramp currently maintains minimum setbacks of five feet from the south side property line, 17 feet from the west side property line, and 30 feet from the north property line.

However, during a site visit, Staff confirmed the skateboard ramp is located directly on the southern property line. The applicant is proposing to move the ramp directly north to accommodate the Code required 10-foot side yard setback from the southern boundary. The general height of the ramp ranges from 14 feet to 18 feet. The existing ramp is constructed of wood and surfaced with a "5katelite" material, which is utilized for its smooth texture and minimal noise generating qualities.

The subject property currently maintains a six -foot -tall perimeter fence along the north, south, and west property lines. In addition to the perimeter fencing, the property owner has also utilized existing landscape material and other screening devices to screen the skateboard ramp structure from the neighboring residences. Along the northern boundary, the property owner has installed reed screens, privacy walls on the ramp deck, and trees for screening and soundproofing purposes. The west property line includes reed privacy screens and shade sails above the fence line. And along the southern boundary, the ramp maintains a wooden railing with shade sails.

The property owner has indicated that additional plywood, reed screening, and landscaping will be added to the southern side of the ramp.

According to the submitted project description, the skateboard ramp is used P23-0216 5R 2
08/13/2024 PH 1 51 of 183

during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday, 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no ramp activity occurs on Sundays and holidays. Typical skateboard sessions include one to seven people depending on the time and day of the week.

A. Zoning/Existing Land Use
Subject property: R-1 (Single Family Residential) / single family residence Surrounding properties:

North: R-1 (Single Family Residential) / single family residence East: R-1 (Single Family Residential) / single family
residences
South: R-1 (Single Family Residential) / single family
residences
West: R-1 (Single Family Residential) / single family
residences
D. General Plan Land Use Designation
Subject property: MLD — Medium Low Density Residential
Surrounding property:

North:

MLD —
Medium Low Density Residential
East:

MLD —
Medium Low Density Residential
South:

MLD —
Medium Low Density Residential
West:

MLD —
Medium Low Density Residential
E. Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15301 — Existing Facilities. Section 15301 applies to projects involving minor alteration of an existing private structure. The proposed project involves an ancillary skateboard ramp, the project will not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, all necessary public services and facilities are available to the site, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental document_
III. ANALYSIS
A. Minor Use Permit
The City's Development Code requires consideration of a Minor Use Permit in order to allow skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height subject to City Council Policy 300-16 in the R-1 (Residential) zone. The intent of the Minor Use Permit process is to minimize potential impacts generated by a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height. Specific design features and operational restrictions have been included in the project or required as Conditions of Approval to minimize potential impacts. These design features and operational restrictions include substantial screening along the southern, northern, and western property boundary to provide an appropriate buffer P23-0216 5R
08/13/2024 PH 1 52 of 183

between the subject skateboard and the adjacent residential uses; ramp construction limited to wood or composite materials, no special events associated with the skateboard ramp unless approved by the Planning Commission, and limited hours of operation for the skateboard ramp. These design features, in association with operation restrictions within the attached Conditions of Approval, will ensure compatibility between the subject skateboard ramp and the adjacent surrounding land uses.

B. Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16
The City of Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16 establishes specifications for skateboard ramps requiring discretionary review and establish criteria under which such structures would be reviewed by the Planning Division for a Minor Use Permit. The intent of this policy is to protect surrounding properties from potentially adverse impacts consistent with General Plan Goal LUCI-3 in the Land Use and Community Identity Element. The subject skateboard ramp's compliance with these specifications are as follows:

Landscaping l Screening of structure: Any skateboard ramp structure subject to this policy shall be sufficiently screened from view from surrounding properties with landscaping, screening material or other acceptable means to protect the privacy of surrounding properties.

The subject property maintains perimeter fencing, landscaping, and other screening materials to visual screen the structure from adjacent residential properties. Existing perimeter landscaping includes mature trees along the northern and western boundaries. In addition to landscaping, the subject property also maintains 6-foot-high perimeter fencing, shade sails, and reed screens.

Soundproofing: Soundproofing, such as in the form of decking materials andlor materials placed under the ramp structure, shall be provided to the extent practicable to minimize noise from use of the structure.

According to Ramparts Premium Skateparks, a ramp building expert, the skateboard ramp construction was designed to reduce potential noise generated by skateboard activities. The ramp construction includes sound deadening, foam filled coping, encasing of the undersides of the ramp decks with plywood, and railing supports that include sound deadening insulation.

These items and techniques for sound mitigation on skateboard ramps are considered industry standard.

Materials: Wood or composite materials shall be used in the construction of the decking on the ramp structure, no metal decking materials are permitted.

Wood and composite materials were used in the construction of the decking on the subject ramp structure; no metal decking materials were incorporated into the ramp construction.

Special events: Use of the skateboard ramp structure will not be permitted P23-0216 5R q
08/13/2024 PH 1 53 of 183

for special events held on the subject residential property. However, special events can be approved by the Planning Commission on a case -by -case basis.

According to the property owner, no special events are scheduled for the structure.

Parking: Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for any guests of the property using the skateboard ramp. The skateboard ramps may not be used for any business or home occupation purpose.

The subject site currently maintains one driveway to accommodate approximately eight vehicles. In addition, the skateboard ramp will not be used for any business or home occupation purpose.

Hours of operation: Use of any skateboard ramp subject to this policy shall not be permitted between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., or as otherwise conditioned by the Planning Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, in a noticed public hearing.

Within the project description, the property owner has indicated that skateboard activities associated with the skateboard ramp are limited to the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday, 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no ramp activity occurs on Sundays and holidays.

Lighting Lighting provided for any skateboard ramp subject to this policy shall be directed downward and shielded as necessary to avoid light spill onto any surrounding property. Maximum light levels on adjacent properties shall be no greater than one -quarter foot candle.

According to the property owner, the skateboard ramp is not equipped with lighting and the property owner does not intend on installing lighting for the ramp in the future.

Setbacks: Any skateboard ramp subject to this policy shall meet the setbacks required for a primary residence within the applicable zone, or as otherwise conditioned by the Planning Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, in a noticed public hearing.

In the R-1 Zone, a primary residence shall have a side and rear yard not less than ten feet in depth. The skateboard ramp currently maintains no setback from the south side property line, 17 feet from the west side property line, and 30 feet from the north property line. The applicant is proposing to move the ramp directly north to accommodate the Code required 10-foot side yard setback from the southern boundary.

C. Public Policy Consideration:

1. General Plan Conformance: The General Plan designation for the project site is Medium Low Density Residential (MILD). This land use P23-0216 5R
08/13/2024 PH 1 54 of 183

designation allows for single family residences and accessory structure including garages, patio covers, and skateboard ramps; therefore, the proposed skateboard is consistent with the General Plan.

2. Zoning Conformance: The R-1 (Residential) zone allows for single- family homes with large skateboard ramps upon granting of a Minor Use Permit. Therefore, if the Planning Commission approves the applicant's request for a Minor Use Permit, the proposed skateboard ramp would be consistent with the land uses permitted in the R-1 zone. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings for a Minor Use Permit, as included in Exhibit 1.

IV. REQUIRED FINDINGS:

The draft findings for approval of the Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence are included in Exhibit 1.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends granting the Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six fleet in height at an existing single-family residence because the project, as conditioned, meets the minimum requirements of City of Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16.

Respectfully submitted,
J&I 11_�L
Michael Ressler
City Planner
EXHIBITS.

1. Resolution 2024- , granting a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Dale Drive (APN 173-183-45-00), with Exhibits A and B
A. Conditions of Approval
B. Project Plans
2- Project Location Map

3. Correspondence

4. Large scale plans — limited distribution
P23-0216 SR
08/13/2024 PH 1 55 of 183

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ❑F THE CHARTERED

CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A MINOR USE PERMIT FOR A

SKATEBOARD RAMP EXCEEDING SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1264 OAK DRIVE (APN 173- 183-45.00)
APPLICANT: Evandro Menezes
PLANNING CASE NO. P23-0216
The Planning Commission of the City of Vista does resolve as follows:

1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and declares the following:

A_ The applicant, Evandro Menezes, has submitted an application for a Minor Use Permit for a skateboa,d ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00); B. On June 4, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing ❑n the request to grant the Minor Use Permit on a property generally described as follows:

A .42-2cre parcel of land addressed as 1264 Oak Drive, and also identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 173-183-45-00;
C. Following the decision of the Planning Commission, the Minor Use Permit, including the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit "A", may be appealed to the City Council by June 14, 2024. All appeals shall consist of a letter setting forth the reason for the appeal along with the appeal fee of $665.21 pursuant to Development Code Section 18.04.150;
D. If no appeal is filed, the decision of the Planning Commission shall become final on June 15, 2024;
E. The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental document pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because the project consists of modifications to an existing structure meeting the conditions described in this section; and
F. At the public hearing staff reports both written and oral were received in EXHIBIT 1
08/13/2024 PH 1 56 of 183

evidence, and all persons desiring to speak on the project were heard. At the conclusion of said hearing, after consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission made certain findings and reached a decision on the project as hereinafter set forth.

2. Action.

A. The above recitations are true and correct.

B. The Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the request for a Minor Use Permit for the skateboard ramp structure:

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan for the following reason:

The Genera Plan land use designation for the project site is Medium Low Density Residential (MLD), which allows for medium -low density, single family residential development. The subject property is developed with an existing 1,520 square foot single family home and associated site improvements. The proposed skateboard ramp is an accessory structure to the existing single-family residence and is allowed by the issuance of a Minor Use Permit. Since the subject site maintains a single-family home, the existing land use and ancillary uses are consistent with the General Plan and the MLD land use designation. There are no specific plans applicable to the project site.

2. The proposed use, in the manner to be conducted, is permitted in the applicable zone and will conform to applicable federal, state, and local laws or regulations for the following reason:
ij The General Plan land use designation for the property is Medium Low Density Residential (MLD), and the zoning is R-1 (Residential). The Residential zone allows for single family residences with ancillary uses including a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height upon approval of a Minor Use Permit. ii) The proposed skateboard ramp, as conditioned, complies with all design criteria and use restrictions identified within the Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16 including setbacks, screening, materials, parking, hours of operation, and other restrictions.

The skateboard ramp setbacks, o,ientation, and construction materials, as conditioned, have been designed to reduce and deflect noise away from adjacent neighbors. In addition, the property owner will utilize the ramp during hours of operation consistent with the City Council Policy No. 300-16.

i) All necessary services are available to the site.
ii) The property has an existing one-story single-family home with suitable area for the proposed skateboard ramp and associated improvements. iii) The overall site is approximately .42 acres in size and can accommodate necessary facilities to support the proposed use. All necessary infrastructure and utilities are available in the area to serve the proposed use.

4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with the existing and planned land uses in the vicinity for the following reasons:

Also, the proposed property owner will comply with hours of operation and operation restrictions identified within the Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16 and included in the conditions of approval of Exhibit A.

5. The proposed use, and its operation, will not be unduly detrimental to: (i) the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; (ii) property or improvements in the vicinity; or (iii) the fiscal or economic interests of the City of Vista for the following reasons:

The proposed skateboard ramp, as conditioned, would not create a nuisance to surrounding prope-ties because it was designed to operate within the parameters of the site improvements in compliance with Vista City Council Policy No. 300-16. The skateboard ramp is constructed with a smooth surface material with minimal noise generating qualities. In addition, the skateboard ramp's orientation, setbacks, perimeter fencing, and perimeter landscaping provide a substantial buffer between the ramp and surrounding residential properties. Further, detailed Conditions of Approval as described in Exhibit A are included to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential land uses.

C. In view of the necessary findings heretofore made, and considering the applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to grant a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 6, subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A to this Resolution.

D. Failure to abide by and faithfully comply with any and all conditions of approval included in Exhibit A shall constitute grounds for revocation of the approvals by the Planning Commission.

E. The applicant must execute a written acceptance of these Conditions of Approval no later than thirty (30) days after the permit is approved or the permit shall become null and void.
08/13/2024 PH 1 58 of 183

3. Adoption. PASSED AND APPROVED at a regular meeting held on the 41h day of June, 2024, by the Vista Planning Commission by the following vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: CCMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: CCMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Walter Chung, City Attorney
Exhibits:

A. Conditions of Approval
B. Project Plans

CHARLES GRIMM, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:

Secretary
08/13/2024 PH 1 59 of 183

EXHIBIT "A"

C. EXPIRATION OF MINOR USE PERMIT

D. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

1. Should significant violations of conditions be reported to the City, the City may take action pursuant to Section 18.T4.280 of the Development Code.

E. PLANNING INFORMATION AND CONDITIONS

1. The approved skateboard ramp shall be a maximum of 2,000 square feet with a maximum height of 18 feet. The site shall conform to Exhibit "B" as modified herein. Any increase in ramp area and height would require modification of this Minor Use Permit.

18.72.110 in the Vista Development Code.

3. The approved ramp structure construction shall be limited to wood or composite materials; no metal decking materials are permitted.

4. Use of the skateboard ramp structure will not be permitted for special events held on the subject residential property unless on a case -by -case basis as approved by the Planning Commission.

EXHIBIT A
08/13/2024 PH 1 60 of 183

5. Use of the skateboard ramp for any business or home occupation purposes is prohibited.

6. Use of any skateboard ramp subject to this Minor Use Permit shall not be permitted between the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 A.M.

9. Noise generated by the approved skateboard shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (VMC Chapter 8.32), including the applicable property line noise standards.

F. INDEMNIFICATION

2. For this purposes cf this indemnity, the term "City" shall include the City of Vista, its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives. For purposes of this section, the term "challenge" means any legal or administrative action to dispute, contest, attack, set aside, limit, or modify the approval, project conditions, or any act upon which the approval is based, including any action alleging a failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or other laws.

3. For this permit or approval to become effective, the applicant must, within 08/13/2024 PH 1 61 of 183

EXHIBIT "B"
111IIY 11._. 1..111.11��.
�1f■ ,111111�1■111!sill
ijol
in]■988L 0.njo
T P7i 51[A7EP�
hfl7_555iC�211
7 n thramports.cori
F?❑JEC T: Era nrre wen.:•
VERi Rl
:
- R
R, A'UON$
40CA TKO N: Eve.wrc a
RpSidPn[Y
ICG� Oo. L•
.. _.

m
=um
m v�
cn m
b—Z
v'
C Z
Z W rn
rri
r
m
w
a _
j A
p G]
r �
r9�
ABm
�yc
y
y dZ
�4
�
r
v
z �6
m
C! �
7db th" a
P 1
�69
I of 183

S
Fz»
-a v_ x
QUAam
r-oz5
05 za
s
T
Dog
m �
m C
n m
0:�
vz
C m
z[n
a
nV)
m�
M
LEI
a _
j A
a
iTSgz
q
a
3d
4] y
y
x Y
0 E
60 mn
m
m
s
p
PR db th" P
7 EATE
4/16/24
:

P 1
4/E-VE4
iCLV-.
5 of
183

>
y
CrJ
�m
Z
[!7
`tl
r�
Q
[17
tiLalAT d bP m -0 ,
M� }'Z'
r=ioen�Sa T A yar ba
'lA=vinoaLl r nb° Y�
Amp❑K^� � x p.t x..
rarnv�ii�o� � n 'AAA A
amar�im�cN y z � N �
o v,
I
- wN
La VIV7
momr�
�m=n V.m ■
opx�cCn ..-
m�c�d°x a
�y�0'lyryV A
a
y��x2N w
G b
T
n;
�
a
Z =
m
v
a
x,a
31 oA¢
'mmm
dui
vxa
C
pv
3ER
L
pH Tm
0 2
C
�jA
r
Q n
2 A
A m
r=
m
�a
L 0
x�
��
pb
P
F
ki
$xm
og d
�
a
tScO
�a
99 ➢S90
�3
M,z
Im
mA

1. yea
■CDo
Az3
WT
x
�
e
�S
oax�
rLny
x
ay
o=
p n
p m
=z
N
v
7t71l/"�'V� �x r 'thM pnris.ca�
P�l

'For L
k

r
ilk
r�AMA '
S

08/13/2024 PH1 71 of 183

08/13/2024 PH1 72 of 183

Vista CA City Council Poli 300-16 "Skateboard Ramps -in Single -Family Residential Zones" The following items address the individual review criteria as stated in the Vista CityCounci! Policy 300-16 'Skateboard Romps in Single -Family Residential Zones'"_ Applicants Property is located at 1264 Oak Dr. Vista, CA 92804. Subject property lies within an R-1 Zone and the existing ramp at subject property falls within applicability of the City Cound I Policy as detailed below. Items not currently in compliance include a detailed plan to bring the current structure into legal compliance.

Review Criteria are detailed as follows:
1) Lands caye/Screenine of Structure: The structure is currently screened from view of the surrounding properties by a fence that surrounds the applicant property's back yard, as well as trees planted partially along the rear and side property line. See attached pictures. The exterior of the ramp structure is currently painted in a neutral earth tone to help it to blend into the surroundings. Additional foliage to be installed as required to further assist on concealing the ramp from neighboring properties. 2) Soundproofinz, The currert structure contains sound proofing that includes the "closing in" of the exterior of the ramp decking and underside with plywood sheeting on one side of the ramp. Planned additional soundproofing measures include; a. Mitigating sound from the coping (metal pipe at top of ramp) by filling with expanding foam insulation.
b. Closing in the currently open side of the ramp
c. installing sound deadening, fire -retardant fabric or foam panels as needed at interior of ramp decking to further dampen sound.
d. Installing sound deadening, fire -retardant foam at railing walls at back of decks as needed to further dampen sound.
e. Completing a decibel level study of the property from different points relating to each neighboring property. Study is intended to be conducted during an active, average sized skate session to measure the decibel level impact on neighboring properties and to assess additional sound deadening measures that may be required.
3) Materials: The existing ramp is constructed of wood and composite materials. The construction style of the existing ramp is typical and accepted as industry standard for 08/13/2024 PH1 74 of 183

skateboard ramps. See attached "RAMP DETAIL" drawing for additional information regarding materials used in the ramp construction.
4) Special Events: Applicant will not hold any special events at the residence or property without prior approval from the city as well as properly informing and working with neighboring properties to mitigate concerns_
5) Parking: Applicant property driveway fits 8 cars comfortably. Applicant property driveway includes agate in the middle of the driveway. 4 cars can be adequately parked behind the gate and 4 cars can be adequately parked outside of the gate. Additionally, street parking can safely and effectively support 3-4 additional cars parked in parallel.

S) Setbacks: The ramp currently meets the setbacks required for a primary residence within the applicable zone, with the except as noted on the back deck of the ramp along the side property line as detailed in the attached parcel drawing. If applicant is unable to obtain an otherwise conditioned exception to this setback by providing additional screening, soundproofing and other required measures through planning commission or city council approval, then applicant will bring the ramp into compliance by moving it as detailed in the attached parcel drawing. Current and proposed setbacks are detailed and dimensioned on the attached parcel drawing.
08/13/2024 PH1 75 of 183

04/10/2024
To whom it may concern;
The skateboard ramp located at the Evandro Menezes residence at 1264 oak ❑r. Vista, CA 92084 is adequately soundproofed as shown on plans submitted for a conditional use permit to the City of Vista, CA.

Please feel free to direct any other questions to us relating to this ramp.

Thank you,
Dave 5hyne
President, Ramparts Premium Skateparks
www.rollwithramparts.com
763-360-6693
WaLLwlthramparts
08/13/2024 PH 1 76 of 183

City of Vista Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
April9, 2024
RE: Skateboard Ramp MUP for 1264 Oak Dr.

Dear City of Vista Planning Commission,
I would like to provide some clarification on how we plan on expanding upon and improving the existing privacy screening and soundproofing of the ramp.

North property line:

We already have adequate screening and soundproofing on the north property line, including:
■ tall reed screening that extends above the existing 5' wood property fence (this was added at the request of the neighbor on that side)
* wooden privacy walls on the ramp deck and long the stairwell that block the view from the ramp deck into the neighboring property
• several tall trees between the ramp and the neighboring property * multiple Layers of protective wooden backwall (which boxes in the sound along the transition)
We plan on replacing the existing reed screening in the coming weeks with new material for aesthetic purposes.

West property line:

On the west side, we have added:
• reed privacy screening along the existing chain link fence # sand -colored shade sails that sit just abovethe fence line (the shades are temporarily removed during high winds)
We replace the reed screening as needed as part of routine maintenance and upkeep. 1 08/13/2024 PH 1 77 of 183

South property line:

Existing on the south side:
a wooden railing along the top skateboard deck with sand -colored shade sails that block the view of the neighboring property from the deck • an existing wood 6' fence along the property line
We do have plans to expand both the screening and sound proofing on this side. Our plans for enhancements include:
• add a layer of /a" plywood to box in the back transition, which will greatly minimize the sound on that side
• add reed screeningalong the fence line as needed for aesthetic purposes (with neighbor approval)
• add reed screeningtothe existing staircaseto provide more privacyfor the neighboring property
discuss with the neighbors of the property on the south side about adding vines or other foliage along the fence line to help provide further sound barrier and for aesthetics
We remain open to suggestions tram the city and our neighbors on how we can continue to improve privacy screening, aesthetics and to minimize the sound.

Kind Regards,
Courtney Menezes
Property Owner at 1264 Oak Drive
9 08/13/2024 PH 1 78 of 183

EXHIBIT 2: PROJECT LOCATION MAP

SKATEBOARD RAMP
EXHIBIT 2
08/13/2024 PH 1 79 of 183

From:

TO: Michael Ressler
Cc:

Subject: Backyard Ramp
Date; Sunday, April 14, 2024 1:03:15 PM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at biti25://Rka,rns/LcarnAbau[Scndcrldentitication ]
Michael,
My name is Tony Luna. I am a neighbor of Evandro Mcnezes, who has a skateboard ramp in his backyard. We share a property line, as 1 am at MQak Knoll Dr. I am right next door. 1 just wanted to say Evandro, and his family are good neighbors, and 1 don't mind the skateboarding on the ramp. He has always been respectful to mc, and considerate.

Thank you for your time,
Tony
FXHIRIT :3
08/13/2024 PH 1 80 of 183

From: Evandra menezes
To: Michael Ressler
Subject: Fwd: Our neighbors, the Menezes
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 7:17:37 AM
Hey Michael,
This is a letter from our neighbor Elizabeth from the sit back side of the ramp. ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: elizabeth shahbazi
Date: Apr 16, 2024 at 12:24 PM -0700
To: [email protected]
Subject: Our neighbors, the Menezes
Dear City of Vista,
We are writing this letter to share with you what exemplar neighbors the Menezes are. We live right next door to them. Our relations with them , Evandro, Courtney and their children, are extremely respectful and friendly. We share the common interests of raising heathy responsible children, gardening ,as well as community building here in beautiful Vista.

My husband and I are home all day long. The activity on the skate ramp has been minimal and remains so and is not disruptive in any sense of the word. We love our neighborhood and feel blessed to have the Menezes as our neighbors!
Sincerely,
Elizabeth and Sam Shahbazi
MOak Drive
Vista CA 92084
08/13/2024 PH1 81 of 183

From:

Mark Beckelman ]r
To:

Michael Ressler
Subject:

Letter in Support of Evandro
Date:

Monday, April 15, 2024 &19:11 AM
You don't often get email from
Michael,
Learn w v this is important
I live at =Oak Dr. Across the street from Evandro. I support Evandro's efforts to teach kids to skate. Vista has a history with big ramps with in the skating community and Evandro is keeping that alive.

Thank you.

Mark H. Beckelman Jr. USMC (retired)
08/13/2024 PH 1 82 of 183

From:

Patsy Chow
To:

Patsy Chow
Cc:

Esmeralda Romero; Michael Ressler
Subject:

FW: Neighbor Complaint information
Date:

Friday, May 31, 2024 7:50:38 PM
Attachments:
skate lesson
payment 6.1.22.PNG
skate lesson
payment 5.6.22.PNG
skate lesson
payment 3.18.22.PNG
skate lesson
Dayment 4.12.22.PNG
skate lesson
payment 3.3.22.PNG
skate lesson
payment 6.16.22.ipeo
skate lesson
Daymnet 6.3.22.PNG
skate Darkino
oak drive 2.HEIC.IPEG
skate parkino
oak drive IMOV
skate Darkino
oak drive 1.11EIC
imaaeoOl.riw
Importance:

High
Good evening Commissioners, please see below emails and all attachments concerning PH item 1. Skate ramp— Evandro M. Please reviewthis information and all attachments prior to the meeting on 614124, see email request below.

Thank you,
Patsy Chow
8 From: Tony Hutchinson
Patsy Chow
Community Development Department
Assistant Director
Direct: (760) 643-5390
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
www.cilyofvista.com
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 12:54 PM
To: Patsy Chow [email protected]; Joseph Vacca [email protected]; Michael Ressler

Cc: John Franklin External
Subject: Fwd: Neighbor Complaint information
Some people who received this message don't often get email fiom Learn 3yhy this is uvportaut
Hi Ms. Chow,
I have been referred to you to share previous evidence and information as it pertains to the upcoming Planning Commission Public Hearing regarding Evandro Menezes MUP application for his backyard skate ramp on June 4.
08/13/2024 PH 1 83 of 183

Just in case the planning commissioners have not had an opportunity to research all of this information, I wanted to share it with you so that they have it for review prior to the June 4 meeting.

Please share all of the emails and attachments in this forwarded email with the Planning Commissioners before their June 4th meeting.

Please reply me or call me if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Tony Hutchinson
Vista, CA 92084
Forwarded message --
From: Tony Hutchinson >
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 12:21 PM
Subject: Neighbor Complaint information
To: ,
Hi Derek,
I wanted to share some information with you regarding my open complaint on my neighbor at 1264 Oak Drive.

I've attached images and videos from various dates to give you some insight into the daily offensive noises I have dealt with over the last year.

I could record images and videos like these from each day of the week (except Sundays - guess he's religious?) from the past year if I wanted to, but that would clog up your email.

The point is that his skateboarding activity next door is preventing me and my wife from enjoyment of life in our own home and property on a daily basis.

I've had several conversations with him asking him to curtail either the amount of skateboarding guests he invites over and/or the times of day of skateboarding. He pacifies me each time for about a week, then goes back to his pre-existing excessive skateboarding activities. I have text message exchanges to support the verbal face-to-face gentlemen's agreement I thought we had.
08/13/2024 PH 1 84 of 183

I've attached images and videos of parking and noise decibel readings when he is having guests and customers over to skate in his backyard skate park. I don't know if you have viewed or inspected his backyard, but he has multiple skate ramps and stadium seating like a commercial public skate park.

I have also attached screenshots of Venmo transactions paid for skate lessons from his customers. I have not seen any Home Occupancy Permits on public records for this business at his address. The level of noise (50 dBA+) and the length of time (6-10 hours/day x 6 days/week) of the sound of skateboarding has dramatically increased since he started running this backyard business, and violates the county noise ordinance 9962 section 36.404.

Please replyto confirm receipt of this email.

Thank you for your time addressing th is matter.

Tony Hutchinson
08/13/2024 PH 1 85 of 183

10018 a 5G =
Payment
E1 Ellee Igoe paid Euandro
Menezes
Jun 1, 2022 at 11:24 AM (!j) Public
Lesson 6/1 $75 +veggie
box
U Be the first person to like this.
9 Write a comment Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 86 of 183

Payment
Chad Martin paid Evandro
Menezes
Jun 16, 2622 at 3:56 PM (& Public
Skate
Evandro Menezes
08/13/2024 PH1 87 of 183

5:00
101
Payment
Richmond Baer paid Evandro
Menezes
May 6, 2022 at 2:07 PM Q public
Calvin lesson
Evandro Menezes
Write a coma jug
Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 88 of 183

19018$ .1 5G �
Payment
Teff Fairfield paid Evandre
Menezes
Jun 3, 2922 at 2:99 PM Q Public
6/3/22 2hr session
Be the first person to like this.

Write a coma jUi
Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 89 of 183

4:4a •
Payment
RH ROBERT HYLDAHL paid
Evandro Menezes
Mar 18, 2022 at 1:13 PM (!� Public
Skate lesson!
Evandro Menezes
9 Write a comment
Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 90 of 183

�r
'"
�,

6:3 2 .1 ^ ■
Payment
Teff Fairfield paid Evandro
1 Menezes
Apr 12, 2022 at 3:22 PM & Public
4/12 session
Evandro Menezes
9 Write a comment
Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 92 of 183

4:42
Payment
Lady Meek paid Ewandro
Menezes
Mar 3, 2022 at 3:38 PM (& Public
Skate!
Evandro Menezes
Write a coma jUi
Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 93 of 183

-�P .� � •!� �: R �' -'_� �� Vl t• emu.
0_
at, —4,
.t• ' Y'� rr'' � k'��S � ti. •3?:, y..ta. '..�-�:`�•".•3.�'yif.�Ti-::ti-�•.:.'.ti1..•i i'�„_ V��: �: -. `s.� -.� . ��'."F isX'ir: �.2 �44 -/:'• ;•..: '.�`Ci .fps �.'.�ty..� _ �L-� _�..�-;•^. �..- �. -�,1 �.. '.'si _ at�nS 'r'xi e. r., T�• iti:: �`•,•r'L'.K..

From:

Tony Hutchinson
To:

Patsy Chow; Joseph Vacca; Michael Ressler
Cc:

John Franklin External; Joe Green external
Subject:

Please add to packet for Planning Commission meeting for June 4 Date:

Monday, June 3, 2024 9:23:18 AM
Attachments:

Encinitas Boys and Girls Club.ipa
skate ramp view from my backyard 1280 Oak Dr.im
stadium seatino for skate ramp 1264 Oak Dram
view from 1248 Oak Dr. 1.HEIC
view from 1248 flak Dr. 2arm
view from my backyard cabana 128(l Oak Dr.ipa
Hi Ms. Chow,
Please add this to the packet for the planning comJnission ineeti ig for June 4, 2024.

Thank you.

Tony Hutchinson
A. view of big ramp and spectators at 1264 Oak ❑r.jpa
A view of both skate ramps at 1264 Oak Dr.Wg
A view of Reed Fencina sound barrier of skate ram
from my backyard 1280 Oak Dr.jpa
A view of skate ramp from my backyard 1280 Oak
Drina
A view of skate ramp from my backyard 1280 Oak
Dr 2.ir)a
,8• view of stadium sestina from tor) of large skate
ramp 1264 Oak Dr.j
08/13/2024 PH 1 95 of 183

Q. ove Hca a e my.
9:15 7
� �� 1, ;s �r►''� a� lera.
f `
x- : �� + � •mow
i
.15
Bays irls I6
t
t .-of rsar e ul to
EncinIxa'S%'
Recent ly ��ewed,�.
•i
11 ch.h c
Kice AJ ,
oa kCr�
:�:

IIddle-cho�l easT 0."te
-- -�

riff I - ----
A ,am,

08/13/2024 PH1 98 of 183

A
r.
9, �4,05
N A
,

1.4 40

From: John COO
To: Patsy Chow; Michael Ressler; Joseph Vacca
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission meeting
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 4:54:39 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Cyrus Masroori
Date: June 2, 2024 at 2:20:52 PM PDT
To: John Conley
Subject: Planning Commission meeting
Dear Mr. Conley,
I won't be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday June 4th.

I wonder if you could please let the Planning Commissioners know about my concern about the Minor Use Permit for 1264 Oak Drive. While my residence is distanced from this location and as such I am not subject to noise the skating there creates, I am concerned about visitors to this location parking their cars on parts of Oak Drive that clearly should be designated as no parking zones. As I am sure you and the Commissioners are aware, Oak Drive is a narrow street with some sharp turns and as such the issue of parking in this street requires consideration. I would like to thank you for kindly for sharing this concern with the Commissioners, and wish you a great week ahead.

Sincerely,
Cyrus Masroori
Sent from my iPhone
08/13/2024 PH1 102 of 183

From:

Patsy Chow
To:

Patsy Chow
Cc:

Esmeralda Romero; Michael Ressler
Subject:

PHI Planning Commission 6/4
Date:

Friday, May 31, 2024 8:02:54 PM
Attachments:
image001Jpg
SD County Noise Ordinance.odF
image001.png
Good evening again Commissioners, second email, see below and attachment, please review related to PH item — Skate ramp — Evandro M. on 6/4.

Thankyou
Patsy Chow
8•
From: Tony Hutchinson
Patsy Chow
Community Development Department
Assistant Director
Direct: (760) 643-5390
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
www.cityofvista.com
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 2:19 PM
To: Patsy Chow ; Joseph Vacca ; Michael Ressler

Cc: John Franklin External [email protected]>; Jae Green external

Subject: Fwd: Congrats
Some people who received thus message don't often get email from Learn uhy this is important
Hi Ms. Chow,
Please add this to the packet for the planning commission meeting for June 4, 2024.

Thankyou.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Conley EjconleyC7ci.vista.ca.us3
Date: Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: Congrats
To: Tony Hutchinson
Hi Tony,
The City adopted the County Noise ordinance by reference. It is attached here. 08/13/2024 PH 1 103 of 183

The City's Municipal Code (Chapter 8.32 muni code 8.32 noise control - Laserfiche WebLink (cityofvista.com)) addresses the noise levels based on Vista's zoning, so the combination of the two ordinances effectively address noise violations in Vista.

The County Ordinance (and our Muni Code) provide the enforcement authority to the Sheriff's Dept, so City Code Enforcement has no ability to enforce... they can only provide the info to the Sheriff's Dept for enforcement.

I have discussed and confirmed this with our City Attorney as well.

Hopefullythis answers your question, but please feel free to ask if you need any more information.

If you or the Sheriff's Dept is looking for any additional information related to noise enforcement, please let me know and I can discuss it with the Sheriff's Captain next time we meet.

Thanks,
A
John Conley
City Manager
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Dr
Vista, CA 92084
Direct: 750.643.5201
icon Ie cltyofVlsta.com
Website I Twitter I Faceboot I Instaaram
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 9:51 AM
To. John Conley
Subject: Re: Congrats
Good morning John,
I have been discussing the topic of noise issues with Lieutenant Peters of the sheriff's department.

She asked me if i have talked to anyone from the city about their ability to enforce noise violations using a municipal code per the dB noise levels. She seems to be referring to noise leveltests or existing city code.

Since Oak Dr. is city jurisdiction, would city code enforcement be responsible for responding to dB/noise issues from my location vs. county? Also, does the city have a noise ordinance that would be enforced vs. the county noise ordinance (9962)?
Thank you far your time.

No rush on replying.
08/13/2024 PH 1 104 of 183

Have a great Thursday.

From Lieutenant Peters -
Reference the noise issues and your citation of the county code. Have you talked to anyone from the city about their ability to enforce any noise violations using a municipal code per the dB noise levels (I would think they have the proper training J tools to measure these type of issues)? Since you live within city boundaries and not county boundaries, I do not believe county code enforcement will respond to dB issues. However, I will still make a phone call to county code enforcement to see if this is true.

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 5:36 PM Jahn Conley wrote:

Thank you Tony! I appreciate you taking the time to send me a message, very coot.

Hope to see you soon.

Take care,
John
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 8, 2023, at 3:30 PM, Tony Hutchinson wrote:
• Hi John,
• Congratulations on becoming the new city manager!
• You are a class act and well deserving of being promoted. • I look forward to visiting with you in the near future. • God bless brother.
> Tony Hutchinson
08/13/2024 PH 1 105 of 183

ORDINANCE NO. 9962 (N.S.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, DIVISION 6, CHAPTER 4

OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES

RELATING TO NOISE CONTROL AND ABATEMENT
The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego ordains as follows:

Section 1. Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4 of the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances is amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 4. NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
SEC. 36.401. PURPOSE.

Disturbing, excessive or offensive noise interferes with a person's right to enjoy life and property and is detrimental to the public health and safety. Every person is entitled to an environment free of annoying and harmful noise. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate noise in the unincorporated area of the County to promote the public health, comfort and convenience of the County's inhabitants and its visitors.

SEC. 36.402. DEFINITIONS.

The following definitions shall apply to this chapter:
(a) "Ambient noise level" means the composite of existing noise from all sources at a given location and time. Ambient noise is sometimes referred to as background noise. (b) "Average sound level" means the level in decibels of the mean -square A -weighted sound pressure during a stated time period, with reference to the square of the standard reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals. The "average sound level" is equivalent to the industry standard LEQ.
(c) "A -weighted sound level" means the sound level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A -weighted network. The A -weighted network is the network for measuring sound that most closely resembles what the human ear hears.

Sound measured using the A -weighted network is designated dBA. (d) "Construction equipment" means tools, machinery or equipment including "special construction equipment" defined in the Vehicle Code, used in a construction operation on any construction site.
08/13/2024 PH1 106 of 183

(e) "Container" means any receptacle, regardless of contents, manufactured from wood, metal, plastic, paper or any other material including but not limited to any barrel, basket, box, crate, tub, bottle, can or refuse container. (f) "Decibel" means a unit for measuring the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals.
(g) "Disturbing, excessive or offensive noise" means any sound or noise that:
(1) Endangers the health or safety of any person.
(2) Causes discomfort or annoyance to a person of normal sensitivity. (h) "Emergency work" means work: (1) necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, (2) required to protect a person or property from injury or damage or (3) by a public or private utility to restore utility service. (i) "Impulsive noise" means a single noise event or a series of single noise events, which causes a high peak noise level of short duration (one second or less), measured at a specific location. Examples include, but are not limited to, a gun shot, an explosion or a noise generated by construction equipment.
0) "Maximum sound level" means the highest sound level reached when measuring noise with a sound level meter using the A -weighted network and slow time weighting.

The "maximum sound level" is equivalent to the industry standard known as LMAx- (k) "Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code and includes a mini -bike and a go-cart.
(1) "Noise control officer" means the County Director of the Department of Planning and Land Use or a person appointed or retained by the Director to perform this function. (m) "Occupied property" means property on which there is a building for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued.
(n) "Off --road recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle that is being operated other than on a public or private roadway, whether or not the vehicle was designed or intended for off -road use and may include but is not limited to a motorcycle, go-cart, camper, dune buggy, ATV, racecar, automobile, SUV, pick-up truck or truck. A piece of farm equipment or a motor vehicle being used for an agricultural, military, fire, emergency or law enforcement use or by a public or private utility for work on utilities is not an "off - road recreational vehicle."
2 08/13/2024 PH 1 107 of 183

(o) "Plainly audible" means any sound that can be detected by a person using his or her unaided hearing faculties. As an example, if the sound source under investigation is a portable or personal vehicular sound amplification or reproduction device, the detection of the rhythmic base component of music is sufficient to verify plainly audible sound.

The noise control officer need not determine the title, specific words or the artist performing the music.
(p) "Powered model vehicle" means a model airplane, model boat or model vehicle of any type or size not designed for carrying persons or property and which may be propelled other than by manpower or wind power.
(q) "Sound amplifying equipment" means any machine or device used to amplify music, the human voice or any sound and does not include a standard automobile radio when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which it is installed. (r) "Sound level" means the weighted sound pressure level obtained using a sound level meter and frequency weighting network as provided in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters. As used in this chapter, "sound level" means the same as "noise level."
(s) "Sound level meter" means an instrument for the measurement of sound levels, which meets or exceeds the requirements pertinent for a type 1 or type 2 meter in the ANSI specifications for sound level meters, ANSI 51.4-1983 or its latest revision. (t) "Sound truck" means a "vehicle," as that term is defined in the Vehicle Code that has or uses sound amplifying equipment.

SEC. 36.403. SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT.
(a) A sound level measurement made pursuant to this chapter shall be measured with a sound level meter using A -weighting and a "slow" response time, as these terms are used in ANSI 51.1-1994 or its latest revision.
(b) Each measurement shall be conducted at the boundary line of the property on which the noise source is located or any place on the affected property, but no closer than five feet from the noise source.
(c) The sound level meter shall be calibrated and adjusted by means of an acoustical calibrator of the coupler -type to assure meter accuracy within the tolerances in the ANSI specifications for sound level meters, ANSI S 1.4-1983 or its latest revision. The sound level meter shall be used as provided in the manufacturer's instructions. 3 08/13/2024 PH 1 108 of 183

SEC. 36.404. GENERAL SOUND LEVEL LIMITS.
(a) Except as provided in section 36.409 of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any noise, which exceeds the one -hour average sound level limits in Table 36.404, when the one -hour average sound level is measured at the property line of the property on which the noise is produced or at any location on a property that is receiving the noise.

TABLE 36.404
SOUND LEVEL LIMITS IN DECIBELS (dBA)
ZONE
TIME

ONE -HOUR AVERAGE

SOUND LEVEL LIMITS
(dBA)
(1) RS, RD, RR, RMH, A70, A72, S80, S81,
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 150
S87, S90, S92 and RV and RU with a density
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
45 of less than 1 1 dwelling units per acre.
(2) RRO, RC, RM, S86, V5 and RV and RU
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
55 with a density of 11 or more dwelling units
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
50 per acre.
(3) S94, V4 and all commercial zones.
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
60 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
55 (4) V 1, V2
7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
60 V 1, V2
7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
55 V 1
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
55 V2

1.0 p.m. to 7 a.m.
50 V3
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
70 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
65 (5) M501J M52 and M54
Anytime
70 (6) S82, M56 and M58.

Anytime
75 (7) S88 (see subsection (c) below)
(b) Where a noise study has been conducted and the noise mitigation measures recommended by that study have been made conditions of approval of a Major Use Permit, which authorizes the noise -generating use or activity and the decision making body approving the Major Use Permit determined that those mitigation measures reduce potential noise impacts to a level below significance, implementation and compliance with those noise mitigation measures shall constitute compliance with subsection (a) above.
4 08/13/2024 PH1 109 of 183

(c) S88 zones are Specific Planning Areas which allow different uses. The sound level limits in Table 36.404 above that apply in an S88 zone depend on the use being made of the property. The limits in Table 36.404, subsection (1) apply to property with a residential, agricultural or civic use. The limits in subsection (3) apply to property with a commercial use. The limits in subsection (5) apply to property with an industrial use that would only be allowed in an M50, M52 or M54 zone. The limits in subsection (6) apply to all property with an extractive use or a use that would only be allowed in an M56 or M58 zone.
(d) If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit in Table 36.404, the allowable one -hour average sound level shall be the one -hour average ambient noise level, plus three decibels. The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation source is not operating.
(e) The sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two zones is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two zones. The one -hour average sound level limit applicable to extractive industries, however, including but not limited to borrow pits and mines, shall be 75 decibels at the property line regardless of the zone in which the extractive industry is located.
(f) A fixed -location public utility distribution or transmission facility located on or adjacent to a property line shall be subject to the sound level limits of this section measured at or beyond six feet from the boundary of the easement upon which the facility is located.

SEC. 36.405. REPAIRING, REBUILDING OR TESTING MOTOR VEHICLES.

It shall be unlawful for any person to repair, rebuild or test any motor vehicle in such a manner as to cause a disturbing, excessive or offensive noise as defined in section 36.402 of this chapter.

SEC. 36.406. POWERED MODEL VEHICLES.

It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a powered model vehicle between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. A powered model vehicle operated in a County park shall meet the daytime sound level standards for an RS zone measured at a point 100 feet from the park property line or 100 feet from where the model vehicle is being operated, whichever is less.

SEC. 36.407. REFUSE VEHICLES & PARKING LOT SWEEPERS.

No person shall operate or allow to be operated, a refuse compacting, processing, or collection vehicle or a parking lot sweeper between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., in or within 100 feet of a residential zone.
08/13/2024 PH1 110 of 183

SEC. 36.408. HOURS OF OPERATION OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.

Except for emergency work, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, construction equipment:
(a) Between7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
(b) On a Sunday or a holiday. For purposes of this section, a holiday means January 1 st, the last Monday in May, July 4th, the first Monday in September, December 25th and any day appointed by the President as a special national holiday or the Governor of the State as a special State holiday. A person may, however, operate construction equipment on a Sunday or holiday between the hours of 10 a.m, and 5 p.m. at the person's residence or for the purpose of constructing a residence for himself or herself, provided that the operation of construction equipment is not carried out for financial consideration or other consideration of any kind and does not violate the limitations in sections 36.409 and

36.410.

SEC. 36.409. SOUND LEVEL LIMITATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.

Except for emergency work, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate construction equipment or cause construction equipment to be operated, that exceeds an average sound level of 75 decibels for an eight -hour period, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is being received.

SEC. 36.410. SOUND LEVEL LIMITATIONS ON IMPULSIVE NOISE.

In addition to the general limitations on sound levels in section 36.404 and the limitations on construction equipment in section 36.409, the following additional sound level limitations shall apply:
(a) Except for emergency work or work on a public road project, no person shall produce or cause to be produced an impulsive noise that exceeds the maximum sound level shown in Table 36.410A, when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is received, for 25 percent of the minutes in the measurement period, as described in subsection (c) below. The maximum sound level depends on the use being made of the occupied property. The uses in Table 36.410A are as described in the County Zoning Ordinance. 6 08/13/2024 PH1 111 of 183

TABLE 35.410A.

MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL (IMPULSIVE) MEASURED
AT OCCUPIED PROPERTY IN DECIBELS (dBA)

OCCUPIED PROPERTY USE
DECIBELS (dBA)
Residential, village zoning or civic use
82 Agricultural, commercial or industrial use
85 (b) Except for emergency work, no person working on a public road project shall produce or cause to be produced an impulsive noise that exceeds the maximum sound level shown in Table 36.41013, when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is received, for 25 percent of the minutes in the measurement period, as described in subsection (c) below. The maximum sound level depends on the use being made of the occupied property. The uses in Table 36.41013 are as described in the County Zoning Ordinance.

TABLE 36.410B.

MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL (IMPULSIVE) MEASURED AT OCCUPIED
PROPERTY IN DECIBELS (dBA) FOR PUBLIC ROAD PROJECTS

OCCUPIED PROPERTY USE
dB(A)
Residential, village zoning or civic use
85 Agricultural, commercial or industrial use
90 (c) The minimum measurement period for any measurements conducted under this section shall be one hour. During the measurement period a measurement shall be conducted every minute from a fixed location on an occupied property. The measurements shall measure the maximum sound level during each minute of the measurement period. If the sound level caused by construction equipment or the producer of the impulsive noise, exceeds the maximum sound level for any portion of any minute it will deemed that the maximum sound level was exceeded during that minute.

SEC. 36.411. CONTAINERS AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL.

It shall be unlawful for any person to handle, transport, or cause to be handled or transported in any public place, any container or any construction material in such a way 08/13/2024 PH1 112 of 183

as to create a disturbing, excessive or offensive noise as defined in section 36.402 of this chapter.

SEC. 36.412. SIGNAL DEVICE FOR FOOD TRUCKS.

No person shall operate or cause to have operated or used any sound signal device other than sound -amplification equipment attached to a motor vehicle wagon or manually propelled cart from which food or any other items are sold which emits a sound signal more frequently than once every ten minutes in any one street block and with a duration of more than ten seconds for any single emission. The sound level of this sound signal shall not exceed 90 decibels at 50 feet from the point of the noise source.

SEC. 36.413. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter it shall be unlawful for a person to create, maintain or cause to be maintained any sound within the interior of a multiple family dwelling unit which causes the noises level to exceed the limits set forth below in another dwelling unit:

TABLE 36.413

ALLOWABLE INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL
Type of Land
l]e
Hours
Allowable
Interior Noise
Level dBA
No Time
1 min in 1 hour
5 min in 1 hour
iylultifamiIv
110 pin- 7 aiil
I > 45
40 35
Residential
17 am- 10 111
I? 55
1 50
35 ( > greater than)
( less than or equal to)
SEC. 36.414. GENERAL NOISE PROHIBITIONS.

In addition to the general limitations on sound levels in section 36.404, the following additional prohibitions shall apply:
(a) It shall be unlawful for a person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued a disturbing, excessive or offensive noise.
(b) The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of this section has been committed include, but are not limited to, the following:
08/13/2024 PH1 113 of 183

(1) The level of noise.
(2) Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual. (3) Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural (4) The ambient noise level.
(5) The proximity of the noise to a place where someone sleeps. (6) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates and where it is received.
(7) The time of day the noise occurs.
(8) The duration of the noise.
(9) Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant. (1 d) Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. (c) The following acts, among others, are declared to be disturbing, excessive and offensive noises that violate this chapter and are unlawful:
(1) Unnecessarily using or operating or allowing another person to use or operate a vehicle horn, signaling device or other similar device, other than as regulated by the Vehicle Code.
(2) Using, operating, playing or allowing another person to use operate or play, a radio, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other device for the production or reproduction of sound:
(A) That disturbs the peace, quiet and comfort of persons of normal sensitivity residing in the area.
(B) That exceeds the levels in section 36.404 when measured at a distance of twenty-five feet from a device operating in a public right-of-way. (C) That exceeds the levels in section 36.404 when measured at a distance of twenty-five feet from a device for the production or reproduction of sound operated in a County park unless a permit has been obtained from the County Parks and Recreation Department specifying the time, location and other conditions under which amplified 9 08/13/2024 PH1 114 of 183

sound may be allowed within a County park. A person using, operating or playing a device for the production or reproduction of sound in a County park, however shall not exceed a level of 90 decibels when measured fifty feet from the source or exceed the levels in section 36.404 when measured at the park boundary. Subsection 36.414 (c)(2)(C) shall be enforced by the Parks and Recreation Department. (3) It shall be a prima facie violation of section 36.414(c)(2)(A) if a device for the production or reproduction of sound that is being operated, used or played is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet or more from the building, structure or vehicle in which it is located.
(4) Playing, using, operating or allowing to be played, used or operated any sound production or reproduction device or machine including but not limited to radio receiving sets, phonographs, musical instruments, loudspeakers and sound amplifiers, for commercial or business advertising purposes in, on, over or across any street, alley, sidewalk, park or public property in a manner as to violate the provisions of this ordinance is prohibited. This subsection shall not apply to sound amplifying equipment mounted on a sound truck where the operator complies with the following requirements:
(A) The only sound emitted is music or human speech and the music or speech emitted is not obscene, lewd, profane or slanderous.
(B) The sound truck is only operated between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. or after 9:00 p.m. during public events and affairs of general public interest. (C) The sound amplifying equipment is not being operated unless the sound truck is traveling at a speed of at least 10 miles per hour, except when the truck is stopped or impeded by traffic. If the sound truck is stopped by traffic the sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated for longer than one minute at each stop. (D) Sound is not emitted within 100 yards of a hospital, school, church or courthouse.
(E) The volume of sound does not exceed a sound level of 65 decibels (on the "A" scale) at a distance of 50 feet from the sound amplifying equipment as measured by a sound level meter.
(F) No sound amplifying equipment is operated unless the axis of the center of the sound reproducing equipment is parallel to the direction of travel of the sound truck.

Any sound reproducing equipment, however, may be placed upon the sound truck as to not vary more than 150 either side of the axis of the center of the direction of travel. 08/13/2024 PH1 115 of 183

(G) No sound truck with its amplifying device in operation shall be driven on the same street past the same point more than twice in one hour. (5) Causing or allowing unreasonably loud or disturbing verbal noise that is offensive or annoying to a person of normal sensitivity. (6) Owning, possessing or harboring an animal which by any frequent or long continued noise causes annoyance or discomfort to a person of normal sensitivity in the vicinity. The written affirmation by two persons having separate residences that an animal has caused frequent or long continued noise, that has caused them annoyance or discomfort shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. This subsection does not apply to animal noise emanating from a legally operated animal hospital, humane society, County Department of Animal Services facility, farm or other agricultural facility where keeping animals is allowed. (7) Operating or causing to be operated or used any steam whistle attached to a stationary boiler, except to give notice of the time to start or stop work or as a signal of imminent danger.
(8) Using or allowing the use of a motor vehicle to knowingly produce a noise that causes annoyance or discomfort to a person of normal sensitivity in the vicinity of the noise by backfiring the engine, screeching the tires, operating without a muffler, altering the muffler or any other action that causes a disturbing, excessive or offensive noise.

SEC. 36.415. BURGLAR ALARMS.
(a) No person shall install or operate a burglar alarm in a residence or any other building that is not equipped with a functioning automatic cutoff device that terminates any noise emanating from the alarm within 15 minutes from the time the alarm is activated.
(b) No motor vehicle owner shall install or have in his or her possession a motor vehicle that is not equipped with a functioning automatic cutoff device that terminates any noise emanating from the alarm within 15 minutes from the time the alarm is activated.
(c) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, a law enforcement officer may deactivate a building or motor vehicle alarm after the alarm is activated. 08/13/2024 PH1 116 of 183

SEC. 36.416. NOISE FROM OFF -ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

In addition to the general limitations on sound levels in section 36.404, no person shall operate or allow the operation of an off -road recreational vehicle on private property that produces a noise when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is received, that at any time exceeds the following maximum sound levels: 82 decibels between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., 77 decibels between the hours of 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and 55 decibels between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

SEC. 36.417. EXEMPTIONS.
(a) This chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Emergency work, as defined in this chapter, provided that (A) the person performing the work notifies noise control officer in advance, or as soon as practicable after the emergency and (B) any vehicle, device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with the emergency work is designed, modified or equipped to reduce noise produced to the lowest possible level consistent with effective operation of the vehicle, device, apparatus or equipment.
(2) Noise reasonably related to authorized school: (A) bands, (B) athletic activities and (C) entertainments events.
(3) Sporting, entertainment and public events which are conducted pursuant to a license or permit issued by the County, within the scope of the license or permit. This section is not intended to excuse the act of an individual not participating in the event who violates this chapter.
(4) The operation of an emergency generator after a power failure, by an employee or agent of a law enforcement agency, fire department, hospital or other medical or surgical facility that is providing emergency medical services. (5) The reasonable testing of an emergency generator by any person provided that the testing is conducted between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. (6) Any activity preempted by State or federal law.
(b) Section 36.404 shall not apply to:
(1) Noise associated with routine property maintenance used either in part or in whole for residential purposes, provided activity takes place between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. on any day except Sunday or between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Sunday. 12 08/13/2024 PH 1 117 of 183

(2) Equipment associated with agricultural operations, provided that each piece of equipment and machinery powered by an internal-combustion engine is equipped with an appropriate muffler and air intake silencer in good working order and one of the following applies:
(A) Operations do not take place between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. of the following day.
(S) The operations and equipment are utilized for the preparation, planting, harvesting, protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions. (C) The operations and equipment are used for agricultural pest control in accordance with regulations and procedures administered by the County Department of Agriculture.

SEC. 36.418. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT.

The Sheriff shall have primary responsibility for enforcing sections 36.405, 36.407,

36.411, 36.412, 36.413, 36.414 and 36.415. When this chapter requires measurements to enforce these sections, the noise control officer shall assist the Sheriff. The noise control officer shall have primary responsibility for enforcing all other sections of this chapter.

Pursuant to Penal Code section 836.5, a person authorized to enforce this chapter may arrest a person without a warrant if he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed a misdemeanor in his or her presence that violates this chapter.

SEC. 36.419. ADDITIONAL REMEDIES.

The noise control officer may order a person to cease violating any section of this chapter that the noise control officer enforces. The noise control officer may, in addition to using any remedy provided in section 11.121 of this code, summarily abate a public nuisance caused by any act that violates this chapter if the noise control officer determines their is an immediate threat to the health or safety of any person.

SEC. 36.420. FALSE STATEMENT.

No person shall knowingly provide false information, either orally or in writing, to the noise control officer related to any matter within the noise control officer's jurisdiction. 13 08/13/2024 PH 1 118 of 183

SEC. 36.421. REPRODUCTION OR ALTERATION OF DOCUMENTS.

No person shall reproduce or alter any document issued by the noise control officer or required by this chapter, for the purpose of evading, attempting to evade or violating any requirement of this chapter.

SEC. 36.422. DISPLAY OF PERMIT, VARIANCE OR OTHER DOCUMENT.

Any permit, variance or other document that authorizes any activity regulated by this chapter shall be displayed or maintained on the property or at the location where the activity is occurring.

SEC. 36.423. VARIANCES.
(a) A person who proposes to perform non -emergency work on a public right-of-way, public utility facility, public transportation facility or some other project for the benefit of the general public, who is unable to conform to the requirements of this chapter may apply to the County for a variance authorizing the person to temporarily deviate from the requirements of this chapter.
(b) The noise control officer shall only grant a variance if the officer makes findings that the applicant's proposed activity cannot feasibly be done in a manner that would comply with this chapter and the applicant has no other reasonable alternative available. (c) When evaluating a request for a variance the noise control officer shall determine the impact any noise that does not comply with the limits of this chapter will have on each property likely to be affected by the noise. The evaluation shall include the uses on each property on which the non -complying noise will be received, what activities will be impacted on the property and the duration of each impact. The evaluation shall also include the value to the community of the work being done by the applicant, the cost to the community if the applicant is unable to perform the work, the cost to the applicant for mitigating the non -complying noise and any cost to the occupant of the impacted property during the time the period of the impacted property will be subject to the non- complying noise.
(d) If the noise control officer grants a variance under this section the variance may impose time limitations on the non -complying activity and may include mitigation measures that the applicant is required to adopt.

SEC. 36.424. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE.

An applicant for a variance shall file an application with the noise control officer on a form provided by the officer. The application shall not be deemed complete until the 14 08/13/2024 PH1 119 of 183

applicant provides all information required by the application and any supplemental information requested by the noise control officer.

SEC. 36.425. REQUEST FOR DUPLICATE VARIANCE CERTIFICATE.

A person who loses the certificate issued by the noise control officer that grants a variance shall request a duplicate certificate from the noise control officer within 10 days after the certificate is destroyed, lost or defaced.

SEC. 36.426. ACTION ON APPLICATION.
(a) The noise control officer shall review an application for a variance to determine if the applicant has provided all information necessary to render a decision on the application. If the application is not complete, the noise control officer shall notify the applicant within 15 days from the date the application was submitted what additional information the applicant needs to provide to make the application complete. If the applicant does not provide the additional information within 15 days of the notice the noise control officer shall deny the application. Within 30 days after receiving a completed application the noise control officer shall deny, approve or grant conditional approval of the request for a variance and notify the applicant in writing of the action taken.
(b) If the noise control officer denies the request for a variance the notice of denial shall state the reasons for the denial. If the noise control officer conditionally approves the variance request the notice of conditional approval shall clearly state the conditions and the reasons for the conditional approval.
(c) An applicant may deem a variance denied if the application has not been acted on within 30 days after the application was submitted or within 15 days after providing additional information requested by the noise control officer, whichever is later.

SEC. 36.427. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS.

If a person granted a variance fails to comply with a condition of the variance or this chapter the noise control officer may suspend the variance until the person complies or may revoke the variance.

SEC. 36.428. APPEALS.

A person may appeal a decision of the noise control officer by filing a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Clerk) and paying the appeal fee for the appeal of an administrative decision, as provided in section 362 of the County Administrative Code, within 15 days after the noise control officer:
15 08/13/2024 PH 1 120 of 183

(a) Serves a notice of denial or conditional approval of a variance or the date a variance request is deemed denied.
(b) Serves a notice of suspension or revocation of a variance.

SEC. 36.429. CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF APPEAL.

A notice of appeal to review a denial or conditional approval of a variance shall include a copy of the variance application, a copy of the notice of denial or conditional approval and the reasons for the appeal. A notice of appeal of a suspension or revocation of a variance shall include a copy of the variance, a copy of the noise control officer's notice of suspension or revocation and the reasons for the appeal. The appellant shall not be allowed to raise any grounds for appeal not contained in the notice of appeal.

SEC. 36.430. DISMISSAL OF APPEAL.

The appellant may dismiss an appeal at any time before the appeal hearing by filing a written notice of dismissal with the Clerk with a copy to the noise control officer.

SEC. 36.431. HEARING OFFICER.

All appeals filed under this chapter shall be heard by a County hearing officer appointed pursuant to sections 650 et seq. of the County Administrative Code. The Clerk shall assign the matter to a hearing officer on a rotating basis from the list of appointed hearing officers.

SEC. 36.432. SCHEDULING HEARINGS.

The Clerk shall schedule a hearing within 20 days after receipt of the notice of appeal and serve the notice of hearing on the appellant and the noise control officer. The notice shall provide the date, time and location of the hearing.

SEC. 36.433. HEARING PROCEDURES.

An appeal hearing authorized by this chapter shall be conducted as follows:
(a) Every witness before testifying shall take an oath or make an affirmation. (b) The noise control officer shall present evidence that explains why the variance was denied, approved conditionally, suspended or revoked. 16 08/13/2024 PH1 121 of 183

(c) The appellant shall present evidence that supports his/her contention that the noise control officer's determination denying, conditionally approving, suspending or revoking the variance was erroneous.
(d) Each party shall have the right to: call and examine witnesses, introduce exhibits, cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues, impeach any witness regardless of which party first called the witness to testify and to rebut the evidence against the party. The noise control officer may call and examine the appellant or any employee or agent of the appellant as a witness during the noise control officer's case in chief or during the rebuttal case. The hearing officer may examine the appellant or any of the appellant's employees or agents as if under cross-examination. (e) Strict rules of evidence shall not apply. Evidence that might otherwise be excluded under the Evidence Code may be admissible if the hearing officer determines that it is relevant and of the kind that reasonably prudent persons rely on in making decisions. All rules of privilege recognized by the Evidence Code, however, shall apply to the hearing. The hearing officer shall exclude irrelevant and cumulative evidence. (f) The hearing shall be conducted in English. If the appellant or any of appellant's witnesses require an interpreter the appellant is responsible to provide a State certified interpreter at appellant's expense.

SEC. 36.434. CONTINUANCES.

The hearing officer may grant a continuance requested by either party for good cause.

SEC. 36.435. DECISION.

The hearing officer shall issue a written decision with five days after the hearing is concluded and file it with the Clerk. The decision shall affirm, modify or overrule the noise control officer's decision that was appealed. The decision shall state the reasons for the hearing officer's decision. The Clerk shall serve a copy of the decision on the appellant and provide a copy to the noise control officer. The decision shall be effective after it has been served by the Clerk.

Section 2: Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fifteen days after the date of adoption of this ordinance, a summary shall be published once with the name of those members voting for and against the same in the newspaper of general circulation published in the County of San Diego. 17 08/13/2024 PH1 122 of 183

From: Michael Ressler
To: Kallison Leahv
Subject: FW: Please add to packet for Planning Commission meeting For June 4 Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 7:45:03 AM
Attachments: Encinitas YMCA.pna
1264 oak or skate ramp noise June 1 2024.MDV
image001.ana
Kallison,
Can you please include this email and attachments as an "Add to Packet" for Public Hearing Item 1 (1264 Oak Drive Skateboard Ramp) for tonight's Planning Commission Meeting.

Thank you again for all your help.

Michael Ressler
City Planner
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
Phone: 760.643.5382
Fax: 760.639.6101
mressler(@ cityofvista.cem

CITY OF VISTA
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 4:56 PM
To: Patsy Chow ; Joseph Vacca ; Michael Ressler
m ress l e r @ ci.vi sta .ca. use
Cc: John Franklin External ; Joe Green external

Subject: Please add to packet for Planning Commission meeting for June 4 Hi Ms. Chow,
Please add this email and attachments to the packet for the planning commission meeting for June 4.

Thank you.

Tony Hutchinson
08/13/2024 PH 1 123 of 183

" mmri W
Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA C X
fl
■l
Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA
Oceanside
& Encinitas 3.9 rr it r: X (97)
Fitness center • c4
Overview Reviews About
Texas
s 0 �q. O-M 0
Orange Directions Save Nearby Send to Share
County
phone
200 Saxony Rd, Encinitas, CA 92024
ZZ
Restaurants W
e Spa 5 '' A ',Siivetado E�icinitas�'
i�
., .Ma aye a cke w. spr
• - , 9 Seacre t o e
�mi�Y�MC �r K
■■ G L �.
aces v cage
a Co 'unities
r eacreSt Wa
Y. ' N{a� gano Cir ;~
i
K s e �e i�eue �•
'e'�Selfe� +
a
+I. ' 0
"Jerse Mike's Su's�
08/13/2024
PH 1 124 of 183

From: C B e >
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 12:14 PM
To: Patsy Chow
Subject: Oak Dr Ramp
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello Patsy,
Thank you for consideration of adding this emailto the Planning commission report. Apologies forthe delay. I did not have your email correct within the city department.

To the city of Vista and Planning Commission
After reading through the staff recommendations on the ramp located on Oak Drive and the Planning Dept. staff report that was recently published, I asked that you consider additional information before approval of that permit on the ramp.
08/13/2024 PH 1 125 of 183

Also after reading all the documents in a Freedom of Information Act regarding the ramp and all said documents pertaining to that ramp I would like to make you aware of some of those findings if I may. Please understand this record is not complete.

The ramp was brought over from the Boys & Girls Club when it was assembled in the backyard on Oak drive.

The ramp since has had additional enlargements, electrical additions, and an additional ramp that was added that stands at the 6-ft height. The lot size and the space and location to other neighbors is not conducive to maintaining property rights of peace and tranquility and non-interference for surrounding neighbors. Because of this, our property values will be affected whenever these properties are sold.

Please understand that we d❑ not seek to stop kids from skating and luckily on Oak Drive there are two ramps and one one that perfectly fits for children's skating.

After looking at the ramp drawing, by a Skating Company that sells the flooring and parts to ramps, I should let you know it was not done to scale. That "hill" showing landscaping was created by moving tons of dirt without permit and does not show the natural level of the land prior to this excavation. This is well documented online with videos and photos of the excavation for the stadium seating that is on both sides of the ramp that can hold well over a hundred people. Also calling a chain link fence a security fence is not appropriate. The fencing and noise abatement issues that the staff report considers is something that I think should be reevaluated to what actually is currently there.

If you're unaware, the history of this ramp has created problems within the community for some homeowners.

In fact, in the past the city has told the ramp's owner not to hold any more large events (206+) and that was ignored. And if you would like me to provide the sheriffs incident number report I can do that. Unfortunately, when an event occurs on the weekend and a violation of permit or code happens I'm sure you know there is little that a sheriffs department can do and unfortunately this is what we run up against. I know of at least four calls to law enforcement during the occurrence of just one event. Additionally, several times the cities guidance was ignored. In my case on the private drive people parked on my property multiple times and when I approached the ramp owner I cannot repeat fully what they said to me but I was told to deal with it or put cones up.

Also, I'd like to comment that I do not believe this meets the criteria it should under Vista's General Plan. Also, the number of differences between the ramp on Highland and the ramp on oak are also significant. He has a very large lot with extensive buffers both visually and sound and has a very limited plan of a few hours every couple days that he may be impacting neighbors as opposed to, but looks to be close to 40 hours a week that the Oak ramp will be permitted to operate. I understand the time between the last meeting is great so please understand that there was, and will continue to be a business operating on the Oak Drive ramp. I will address those tonight at the planning commission meeting.

I respectfully ask that you are made aware of the entire history of this ramp and the complaints by multiple neighbors who live directly in a high impact area and the history with those neighbors. I do understand that a neighbor, that has moved in after this process, may have a different view. also ask that you consider the many years of history dealing with the ramp, its owners and its attendees. The city did intervene and the city's guidance was ignored. I do believe as property owners the city should allow us to use our property in a manner consistent with all other R1's owned properties within the city of Vista.

Also of note, In the report it states the ramp has had eight code violations compared to the ramp on Highland which has had ZERO. Not noted in the report are the additional emails, meetings in person and phone calls that I believe should be part of this report also.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Connie Brown
08/13/2024 PH 1 126 of 183

This photo was taken in 2014. My living area of the house is at theta rend of the house that is closest to the ramp In this photo. This is the original size ❑f the ramp which now has had additions to the impact on property and land but those around it.
08/13/2024 PH 1 127 of 183

9:45 C) 8 uE
12 : 3 5 fat i X m"m
Z_
1286 oak Knoll Dr
* •� 9 59%
0 OI 0 33%
r-7 VA;,
low-
X L•: Search ® Copy text Listen
---2 ,rear LW « ti,ur -ww,
, I I
Share Edit Lens Delete

COMMISSIONERS
Chair Charles Grimm, Vice Chair Don Looney,
Lisa De Jesus, Beth Hastings, Clay McCarthy, John
Savage, Bill Martin

MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING
June 4, 2024
The June 4, 2024, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Grimm at 6:01 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner ("Cmnr.") Savage led the Piedge of Allegiance COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Chair Charles Grimm, Cmnrs. Lisa De Jesus, Beth Hastings, Clay McCarthy, John Savage, Student Cmnr. Julia Takan❑
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

Vice Chair Don Looney, Cmnr. Bill Martin, Student Cmnr. Daphney Ortega STAFF PRESENT:

Assistant Director of Community Development Patsy Chow
City Planner Michael Ressler
Associate Planner Raffr Mangassarian
Assistant City Attorney Amanda Guy
Senior Office Specialist John Torres
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Cmnr. De Jesus Moved to approve the minutes of May 7, 2024. Seconded by Cmnr.

Hastings.

MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED: 4-1
AGENDA ,CHANGES:

None.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
■ None.
08/13/2024 200 Civic Center Drive Vista, CA SPH 1 7118•726-1340 eitPfvista.anrn 129 of 183

Planning Commission - Minutes
June 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

PUBLIC MEETING ITEMS:

PH 1. P23-0216 — Skateboard Ramp — Evandro Menezes
The project applicant, Evandro Menezes, is requesting approval of a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single-family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00). The project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15301 — Existing Facilities.

RECOMMENDATION:
?. Adopt Resolution 2024- , granting a Minor Use Permit for a skateboard ramp exceeding six feet in height at an existing single- family residence located at 1264 Oak Drive (APN 173-183-45-00) City Planner Michael Ressler provided the staff presentation.

Planning Commission questions:
■ None.

Chair Grimm opened the public hearing.

SPEAKERS:
• Evandro Menezes (Applicant)
• Courtney Menezes (In Favor)
• Alicia Hutchinson (In Opposition)
• Tony Hutchinson (In Opposition)
• Torn Payne (In Opposition)
• Summer Shahbazi (In Favor)
• Beth Forbes (In Opposition)
• Elizabeth Shahbazi (In Favor)
• Greg Witt (In Favor)
• Thomas Augusto (In Favor)
• Joseph Schumacher (in Favor)
• Tony Luna (In Favor)
• Connie Brown (In Opposition)
Chair Grimm closed the public hearing.

Planning Commission discussion:
• Venmo Payments are not being accepted for skating lessons. o The screenshots provided as evidence were from 2022.
■ The applicant's business and business license are not associated with the skateboard ramp.
• There are no plans to add lighting to the ramp.
08/13/2024 PH 1 130 of 183

Planning Commission - Minutes
June 4, 2024

Page 3 of 7 ends

• Through the months of November and
days totaling an average of 11 days a
people used the ramp.

February the ramp was used far about 40
north. During this period an average of 2.8
There is no documentation of the applicant speaking to City staff prior to constructing the ramp, possibly because they spoke to staff at the front counter or over the phone.
c Before the policy was adopted, the City was considering large skateboard ramps as play structures. Therefore, following a different review process. ■ There are no noise Violations on 'file.
• Noise ordinances are enforced by the Sheriff's ❑epartment_ ■ The ramp is required to maintain the same setbacks as the primary residence on the property. That would be a 10 ft side yard setback and a 10 ft rear yard setback minimum.

The ramp currently sits on the property line (south side). • If the applicant does not comply with the conditions the Planning Commission could revoke the permit.

CMNR. ❑E JESUS MOTIONS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR.

SAVAGE.

ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2024-13, GRANTING A MINOR USE PERMIT FOR A

SKATEBOARD RAMP EXCEEDING SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1264 OAK DRIVE (APN 173-183- 45-00)
With the following added condition: Use of the approved skateboard ram shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Vista.

MOTION CARRIED, Vote 5-0
PH 2. P23-0217 — Broadleaf Tree Wireless Telecommunications Facility - MD7 for AT&T Wireless
A request for a Special Use Permit to construct and operate a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of twelve (12) antennas and associated equipment mounted on a new 40-foot-tall freestanding wireless tower disguised as a broadleaf tree located adjacent to the City of Vista Fire Station #2 located at 1050 Valley Drive. This project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because a Class 3 exemption consists of construction and location ❑f limited numbers of new, small facilities, or structures that would result in an insignificant expansion of the existing use. 08/13/2024 PH 1 131 of 183

Pianning Commission - Minutes
June 4, 2024

Page 4 of 7 ends

RECOMMENDATION:

9. Adopt Resolution 2024- , granting a Special Use Permit to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of twelve (12) antennas and associated equipment mounted on a new 40-foot-tall freestanding wireless tower disguised as a broadleaf tree located at 1050 Valley Drive Associate Planner RafFi Mangassarian provided the staff presentation.

Planning Commission questions,
• None.

Chair Grimm opened the public hearing.

SPEAKERS:
• None.

Chair Grimm closed the public hearing.

Planning Commission discussion:
• None.

CMNR. SAVAGE MOTIONED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR.

HASTI NGS.

ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-14, GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO

CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWELVE (12) ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT MOUNTED ON A NEW 40-FOOT-TALL FREESTANDING
WIRELESS TOWER DISGUISED AS A BROADLEAF TREE LOCATED AT 1050

VALLEY DRIVE
MOTION CARRIED: Vote 5-0
PH 3_ P23-0399 — Tangent Inc, for Verizon — Joshua Ire s A request for a Special Use Permit for the removal and replacement of a previously approved stealth telecommunications facility to construct and operate a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of twelve (12) antennas and associated equipment mounted on a new 40-foot-tall freestanding wireless tower disguised as a pine tree located at 33C Mar Vista Drive. This project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because a Class 3 exemption consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities, or structures that would result in an insignificant expansion of the existing use_
08/13/2024 PH 1 132 of 183

Planning Commission - Minutes
June 4, 2024

Page 5 ends

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024- , granting a Special Use Permit for the removal and replacement of previously approved stealth wireless telecommunications facility to construct and operate a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of twelve (12) antennas and associated equipment mounted on a new 40-foot-tall freestanding wireless tower disguised as a pine tree, located at 33G Mar Vista Drive
Associate Planner Raft Mangassarian provided the staff presentation.

Planning Commission questions:
• None.

Chair Grimm opened the public hearing.

SPEAKERS:
• None.

Chair Grimm closed the public hearing.

Planning Commission discussion;
• If the SRO motel was occupied would the tenants have been notified that this was coming before the Planning Commission?
o If the property was occupied the tenants would have been notified. * The tower would retain similar characteristics/capacity of existing antenna. o Staff Advised that the cellular operator could change capacity based on needs (5G, GPS, etc.).

The faux tree needs to be maintained, if Staff notices that they're falling apart or dilapidating or receive a complaint Code Enforcement will be sent out. If needed the Building Department can issue a notice of violation.

Added standard environment conditions that Staff read into the record.

CMNR. DE JESUS MOTIONED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR.

MCCARTHY.

ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-15, GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR

THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

STEALTH WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY TO CONSTRUCT

AND OPERATE A NEW WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
CONSISTING OF TWELVE (12) ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT MOUNTED ON A NEW 40-FOOT-TALL FREESTANDING WIRELESS TOWER DISGUISED AS A PINE TREE, LOCATED AT 330 MAR VISTA DRIVE 08/13/2024 PH 1 133 of 183

Planning Commission - Minutes
June 4, 2024

Page 6 of 7 ends

With the following added condition: If avoidance of construction activities durinq the avian breeding season (typically Februa 1 through August 31 is not feasible the Applicant and/or Owner shall hire a Qualified Biological Monitor with experience in conducting breedinq bird surveys to conduct a reconstruction bird survey beginning 30 days prior to initiation of an construction activities. The bird surveys small be conducted to detect the nests of protected native birds occurring in suitable nestinn habitat within 300 feet of the disturbance area and/or within 500 feet for raptors). if nesting activity is not detected construction may roceed.

If an active nest is located construction activities within 300 feet of the bird nest (or within 500 feet for raptor nests) or otherwise as determined by the Qualified Biological Monitor, must be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting Flagging, stakes, and/or construction fencing shall be used to demarcate the inside boundary of the buffer of 300 feet or 500 feet between the construction activities and the nest. All contractors working on -site shall be instructed by the Qualified Biologist on the sensitivity of the area.

The Qualified Bioiogical Monitor shall immediately notifv the City Planner if romect activities damage active avian nests. If the Qualified Biological Monitor determines that a narrower buffer between the project activities and observed active nests is warranted, helshe shall submit a written explanation to support this determination e.g., species -specific information; ambient conditions and birds' habituation to them• etc. to the City Planner, and upon request to the California Departmentof Fish and Wildlife. Based on the submitted: information, the City Planner, in consultation with the Qualified Biological Monitor, will determine whether to allow the narrower buffer.

MOTION CARRIED: Vote 5-0
ACTION ITEM:

Al. P24-0144 - Conformity finding with the City of Vista General Plan for the Fiscal Years FY 2024-25 and 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program CIP Bud et Making a finding of conformity with the City of Vista General Plan for the Fiscal Years (FY) 2024-25 and 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024- , making a finding of conformity with the City of Vista General Plan for the FYs 2024--25 and 2025-26 Capital improvement Program Budget
Assistant Director of Community Development Patsy Chow provided the staff presentation.
08/13/2024 PH1 134 of 183

Planning Commission - Minutes
June 4, 2024
Rage T of 7
Planning Commission questions:
+ None.

SPEAKERS:
i None.

Planning Commission discussion:
• None.

CMNR_ DE JESUS MOTIONED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, SECONDED BY CMNR. SAVAGE.

ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-16, MAKING A FINDING OF CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY OF VISTA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE FYS 2024-25 AND 2025-26

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET
MOTION CARRIED: Vote 5-0

REPORTSICOMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS
• Update on the Trader Joe's project.
o Trader Joe's submitted their plans for internal tenant improvements.

Planning has approved and awaiting review from other disciplines.

Update on the Kensho project.
o The applicant is looking to obtain the necessary financing for construction.

Staff has not received construction documents.
• Housing goal update
c Staff has been busy with plan checks, construction phasing for projects like Green Oak Road and Hannalei residential developments.
a Staff plans on maintaining an inventory of all the housing that's being built.

Assistant Director of Community Development Patsy Chow
• Next meeting will be held on June 18, 2024.
o 2 items are scheduled.

ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Grimm adjourned the meeting at 7.33 p.m.
08/13/2024 PH 1 135 of 183

John B. Franklin
........................................

Mayor
June 12, 2024
Joseph Vacca
Community Development Director
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
RE: Appeal of P23-0216, Skateboard Ramp — Evandro Menezes Dear Director Vacca,
I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission regarding Planning Case No. P23- 0216, a Minor Use Permit for a Skateboard Ramp at 1264 Oak Drive, because in my opinion:

1. The site for the proposed use does not have a size that is sufficient to reasonably accommodate the planned activities, and;

2. Existing infrastructure is insufficient to serve the needs of this use, and;

3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be incompatible with the existing and planned land uses in the vicinity, and;

4. The proposed use, at its location, will not provide the neighborhood and/ or city with a service or facility that will contribute to its general welfare, and;

5. The proposed use, and its operation, will be unduly detrimental to: general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity and property or improvements in the vicinity.

The City Council is the appropriate decision -making body to review this request.

Sincerely,
Mayor John Franklin
EXHIBIT 4
200 Civic Center Drive I Vista, CA 92084 1 760.639.6130 1 [email protected] 08/13/2024 PH 1 136 of 183

Vista City Council Policy
300-16 SKATEBOARD RAMPS IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONES

PURPOSE
To clarify the City's processes and procedures for the review and consideration of large skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones.

POLICY
Applicability. This policy shall apply to any skateboard ramps in the A-1, E-1 or R-1 zones that exceed six feet in height, as measured from the flat bottom of the ramp to the highest deck (excluding any safety railing or fencing). Such structures shall require a minor use permit subject to review by the Planning Commission, which would be appealable to the City Council in accordance with Development Code Chapter 18.04. Skateboard ramp structures subject to this policy will not be considered or permitted in any other residential zone.

Review Criteria. The following criteria shall be addressed in the review of any skateboard ramps subject to this policy, under the terms of the minor use permit:

1. Landscaping / Screening of structure — any skateboard ramp structure subject to this policy shall be sufficiently screened from view from surrounding properties with landscaping, screening material or other acceptable means to protect the privacy of surrounding properties.

2. Soundproofing —soundproofing, such as in the form of decking materials and/or materials placed under the ramp structure, shall be provided to the extent practicable to minimize noise from use of the structure.

3. Materials — Wood or composite materials shall be used in the construction of the decking on the ramp structure; no metal decking materials are permitted.

4. Special events — Use of the skateboard ramp structure will be not permitted for special events held on the subject residential property on a case -by -case basis as approved by the Planning Commission.

5. Parking — Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for any guests of the property using the skateboard ramp. The skateboard ramps may not be used for any business or home occupation purpose.

6. Hours of operation — Use of any skateboard ramp subject to this policy shall not be permitted between the hours of 7:OOPM to 10:OOAM, or as otherwise conditioned by the Planning Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, in a noticed public hearing.

7. Lighting — Lighting provided for any skateboard ramp subject to this policy shall be directed downward and shielded as necessary to avoid light spill onto any surrounding property. Maximum light levels on adjacent properties shall be no greater than one -quarter foot candle.
300-16 (1)
EXHIBIT 5
08/13/2024 PH1 137 of 183

Vista City Council Policy

8. Setbacks — Any skateboard ramp subject to this policy shall meet the setbacks required for a primary residence within the applicable zone, or as otherwise conditioned by the Planning Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, in a noticed public hearing.

The foregoing criteria do not limit the discretion of the Planning Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, to impose any other conditions upon a proposed skateboard ramp that is deemed necessary or desirable to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Skateboard ramps subject to this policy must also comply with all applicable requirements of the Vista Development Code that are not in conflict with this policy.

HISTORY
Adopted February 14, 2023, City Council Ordinance No. 2023-4 300-16 (2)
08/13/2024 PH1 138 of 183

City of Vita Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
April 9, 2024
RE: Skateboard Ramp MUP for 1264 Oak Dr.

Dear City of Vista Planning Commission,
We, the undersigned residents of the neighborhood surrounding 1264 Oak Drive in Vista, wish to offer our support to grant a Minor Use Permit for the skateboard ramp at the aforementioned address.

The applicants and owners of the property are respectful neighbors and we have no problems with the use of the ramp and have no concerns with issuing the MUP.

Respectfully,
11 Name (print)Address Signature Date
�%GG�N"vv-\ �A C'
t. a u rrx S C-� v- rr,. OL C'
o \aK 1 d Y�-'
V1`;tN , G �A
1-2-4) S-
EXHIBIT 6
08/13/2024 PHII 139 of 183

City of Vista Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
April 9, 2024
RE: Skateboard Ramp MUP for 1264 Oak Dr.

The applicants and owners of the property are respectful neighbors and we have no problems with the use of the ramp and have no concerns with issuing the MUP.

Respectfully,
P 2 3 - 0 2 1 6
Community
Development
APR 1 5 ?924

RECEIVED
08/13/2024 PH1 140 of 183

08/13/2024 PH1 141 of 183

From:

To:

Michael Ressler
Cc:

Eva nd roskt(cba mail. com
Subject:

Backyard Ramp
Date:

Sunday, April 14, 2024 1:03:16 PM
[You don't often get email fro Learn why this is important at hops://aka.ms/LeamAboutSenderldentification ]
Michael,
My name is Tony Luna. I am a neighbor of Evandro Menezes, who has a skateboard ramp in his backyard. We share a property line, as I am at- Oak Knoll Dr. I am right next door. I just wanted to say Evandro, and his family are good neighbors, and I don't mind the skateboarding on the ramp. He has always been respectful to me, and considerate.

Thank you for your time,
Tony
08/13/2024 PH1 142 of 183

From: Evandro menezes
To: Michael Ressler
Subject: Fwd: Our neighbors, the Menezes
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 7:17:37 AM
Hey Michael,
This is a letter from our neighbor Elizabeth from the sit back side of the ramp. ---------- Forwarded messa e----------
From: elizabeth shahbazi
Date: Apr 16, 2024 at 12:24 PM -0700
To: [email protected]
Subject: Our neighbors, the Menezes
Dear City of Vista,
We are writing this letter to share with you what exemplar neighbors the Menezes are. We live right next door to them. Our relations with them, Evandro, Courtney and their children, are extremely respectful and friendly. We share the common interests of raising heathy responsible children, gardening ,as well as community building here in beautiful Vista.

From:

Mark Beckelman Jr
To:

Michael Ressler
Subject:

Letter in Support of Evandro
Date:

Monday, April 15, 2024 8:19:11 AM
IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Michael,
I live at- Oak Dr. Across the street from Evandro. I support Evandro's efforts to teach kids to skate. Vista has a history with big ramps with in the skating community and Evandro is keeping that alive.

Thank you.

Mark H. Beckelman Jr. USMC (retired)
08/13/2024 PH1 144 of 183

Love ACacjem,-, y
9:15 7
�-iddle�S',

Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA
Q r�
Saved
Recents
Q X�Restaurants ICI Hotels O Things to do Transit P Parking }={ Pharma > , J i
Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA
Oceanside
& Encinitas

3.9 * * * * (97)
Fitness center • ('
Overview Reviews About
Texas
O�?
Orange
County
Directions Save Nearby Send to Share
phone
Q 200 Saxony Rd, Encinitas, CA 92024
08/13/2024

From:

Pats, Chow
To:

Pats, Chow
Cc:

Michael Ressler; Esmeralds Romero
Subject:

FW: Oak or Ramp
Date:

Tuesday, June 4, 2024 12:58:51 PM
Attachments:
1000013915. ona
aae001.ona
Good afternoon Commissioners, see below email RE: PH item for tonight, Skate ramp for Eva ndro M.

Thanks,
Patsy Chow
Patsy Chow
Community Development Department
Assistant Director
Direct: (760) 643-5390
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
—.Citvofvista.com
From: C B
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 12:14 PM
To: Patsy Chow
Subject: Oak Or Ramp
You don't often get email from —
Hello Patsy,
Thank you for consideration of adding this email to the Planning commission report. Apologies for the delay. I did not have your email correct within the city department.

The ramp was brought over from the Boys & Girls Club when it was assembled in the backyard on Oak drive. The ramp since has had additional enlargements, electrical additions, and an additional ramp that was added that stands at the 6-ft height. The lot size and the space and location to other neighbors is not conducive to maintaining property rights of peace and tranquility and non-interference for surrounding neighbors. Because of this, our property values will be affected whenever these properties are sold.

Please understand that we do not seek to stop kids from skating and luckily on Oak Drive there are two ramps and one one that perfectly fits for children's skating.

Also calling a chain link fence a security fence is not appropriate. The fencing and noise abatement issues that the staff report considers is something that I think should be reevaluated to what actually is currently there.

If you're unaware, the history of this ramp has created problems within the community for some homeowners. In fact, in the past the city has told the ramp's owner not to hold any more large events (200+) and that was ignored. And if you would like me to provide the sheriffs incident number report I can do that.

Unfortunately, when an event occurs on the weekend and a violation of permit or code happens I'm sure you know there is little that a sheriffs department can do and unfortunately this is what we run up against. I know of at least four calls to law enforcement during the occurrence ofjust one event. Additionally, several times the cities guidance was ignored. In my case on the private drive people parked on my property multiple times and when I approached the ramp owner I cannot repeat fully what they said to me but I was told to deal with it or put cones up.

Also, I'd like to comment that I do not believe this meets the criteria it should under Vista's General Plan. Also, the number of differences between the ramp on Highland and the ramp on Oak are also significant. He has a very large lot with extensive buffers both visually and sound and has a very limited plan of a few hours every couple days that he may be impacting neighbors as opposed to, but looks to be close to 40 hours a week that the Oak ramp will be permitted to operate. I understand the time between the last meeting is great so please understand that there was, and will continue to be a business operating on the Oak Drive ramp. I will address those tonight at the planning commission meeting.

I also ask that you consider the many years of history dealing with the ramp, its owners and its attendees. The city did intervene and the city's guidance was ignored. I do believe as property owners the city should allow us to use our property in a manner consistent with all other R1's owned properties within the city of Vista.

Thank you for your time and consideration
Connie Brown
08/13/2024 PH1 147 of 183

- Oak Drive
This photo was taken in 2014. My living area of the house is at the far end of the house that is closest to the ramp In this photo. This is the original size of the ramp which now has had additions to the impact on property and land but those around it. 08/13/2024 PH1 148 of 183

08/13/2024 PH1 149 of 183

ORDINANCE NO. 9962 (N.S.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, DIVISION 6, CHAPTER 4

OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES

RELATING TO NOISE CONTROL AND ABATEMENT
The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego ordains as follows:

Section 1. Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4 of the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances is amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 4. NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
SEC. 36.401. PURPOSE.

SEC. 36.402. DEFINITIONS.

(e) "Container" means any receptacle, regardless of contents, manufactured from wood, metal, plastic, paper or any other material including but not limited to any barrel, basket, box, crate, tub, bottle, can or refuse container. (f) "Decibel' means a unit for measuring the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals.
(g) "Disturbing, excessive or offensive noise" means any sound or noise that:
(1) Endangers the health or safety of any person.
(2) Causes discomfort or annoyance to a person of normal sensitivity. (h) "Emergency work" means work: (1) necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, (2) required to protect a person or property from injury or damage or (3) by a public or private utility to restore utility service. (i) "Impulsive noise" means a single noise event or a series of single noise events, which causes a high peak noise level of short duration (one second or less), measured at a specific location. Examples include, but are not limited to, a gun shot, an explosion or a noise generated by construction equipment.
0) "Maximum sound level' means the highest sound level reached when measuring noise with a sound level meter using the A -weighted network and slow time weighting.

The "maximum sound level' is equivalent to the industry standard known as LMAx. (k) "Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code and includes a mini -bike and a go-cart.
(1) "Noise control officer" means the County Director of the Department of Planning and Land Use or a person appointed or retained by the Director to perform this function. (m) "Occupied property" means property on which there is a building for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued.
(n) "Off -road recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle that is being operated other than on a public or private roadway, whether or not the vehicle was designed or intended for off -road use and may include but is not limited to a motorcycle, go-cart, camper, dune buggy, ATV, racecar, automobile, SUV, pick-up truck or truck. A piece of farm equipment or a motor vehicle being used for an agricultural, military, fire, emergency or law enforcement use or by a public or private utility for work on utilities is not an "off - road recreational vehicle."
2 08/13/2024 PH1 151 of 183

SEC. 36.403. SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT.
(a) A sound level measurement made pursuant to this chapter shall be measured with a sound level meter using A -weighting and a "slow" response time, as these terms are used in ANSI S 1.1-1994 or its latest revision.
(b) Each measurement shall be conducted at the boundary line of the property on which the noise source is located or any place on the affected property, but no closer than five feet from the noise source.
(c) The sound level meter shall be calibrated and adjusted by means of an acoustical calibrator of the coupler -type to assure meter accuracy within the tolerances in the ANSI specifications for sound level meters, ANSI 51.4-1983 or its latest revision. The sound level meter shall be used as provided in the manufacturer's instructions. 08/13/2024 PH 1 152 of 183

TABLE 36.404
SOUND LEVEL LIMITS IN DECIBELS (dBA)
ZONE
TIME

ONE -HOUR AVERAGE

SOUND LEVEL LIMITS
(dBA)
(1) RS, RD, RR, RMH, A70, A72, S80, S81,
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
50 S87, S90, S92 and RV and RU with a density
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
45 of less than 11 dwelling units per acre.
(2) RRO, RC, RM, S86, V5 and RV and RU
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
55 with a density of 11 or more dwelling units
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
50 per acre.
(3) S94, V4 and all commercial zones.
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
60 �55
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
(4) V1, V2
7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
60 V1, V2
7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
55 V1
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
55 V2
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
50 V3
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
70 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
65 5 M50, M52 and M54
Anytime
70 (6) S82, M56 and M58.

SEC. 36.405. REPAIRING, REBUILDING OR TESTING MOTOR VEHICLES.

It shall be unlawful for any person to repair, rebuild or test any motor vehicle in such a manner as to cause a disturbing, excessive or offensive noise as defined in section 36.402 of this chapter.

SEC. 36.406. POWERED MODEL VEHICLES.

SEC. 36.407. REFUSE VEHICLES & PARKING LOT SWEEPERS.

SEC. 36.408. HOURS OF OPERATION OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.

Except for emergency work, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, construction equipment:
(a) Between7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
(b) On a Sunday or a holiday. For purposes of this section, a holiday means January 1 st, the last Monday in May, July 4th, the first Monday in September, December 25th and any day appointed by the President as a special national holiday or the Governor of the State as a special State holiday. A person may, however, operate construction equipment on a Sunday or holiday between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the person's residence or for the purpose of constructing a residence for himself or herself, provided that the operation of construction equipment is not carried out for financial consideration or other consideration of any kind and does not violate the limitations in sections 36.409 and

36.410.

SEC. 36.409. SOUND LEVEL LIMITATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.

SEC. 36.410. SOUND LEVEL LIMITATIONS ON IMPULSIVE NOISE.

TABLE 36.410A.

MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL (IMPULSIVE) MEASURED
AT OCCUPIED PROPERTY IN DECIBELS (dBA)

OCCUPIED PROPERTY USE
DECIBELS (dBA)
Residential, village zoning or civic use
82 Agricultural, commercial or industrial use
85 (b) Except for emergency work, no person working on a public road project shall produce or cause to be produced an impulsive noise that exceeds the maximum sound level shown in Table 36.410B, when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is received, for 25 percent of the minutes in the measurement period, as described in subsection (c) below. The maximum sound level depends on the use being made of the occupied property. The uses in Table 36.410B are as described in the County Zoning Ordinance.

TABLE 36.410B.

MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL (IMPULSIVE) MEASURED AT OCCUPIED
PROPERTY IN DECIBELS (dBA) FOR PUBLIC ROAD PROJECTS

SEC. 36.411. CONTAINERS AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL.

It shall be unlawful for any person to handle, transport, or cause to be handled or transported in any public place, any container or any construction material in such a way 7 08/13/2024 PH1 156 of 183

as to create a disturbing, excessive or offensive noise as defined in section 36.402 of this chapter.

SEC. 36.412. SIGNAL DEVICE FOR FOOD TRUCKS.

SEC. 36.413. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.

TABLE 36.413

ALLOWABLE INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL
Type of Land
Use
Hours
Allowable
Interior Noise
Level (dBA)
No Time
1 min in 1 hour
5 min in I hour
Multifamily
10 m- 7 am 1>45
40 35
Residential
7 am-10 pm 1>55
50 135
( > greater than)
( less than or equal to)
SEC. 36.414. GENERAL NOISE PROHIBITIONS.

(1) The level of noise.
(2) Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual. (3) Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural (4) The ambient noise level.
(5) The proximity of the noise to a place where someone sleeps. (6) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates and where it is received.
(7) The time of day the noise occurs.
(8) The duration of the noise.
(9) Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant. (10) Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. (c) The following acts, among others, are declared to be disturbing, excessive and offensive noises that violate this chapter and are unlawful:
(1) Unnecessarily using or operating or allowing another person to use or operate a vehicle horn, signaling device or other similar device, other than as regulated by the Vehicle Code.
(2) Using, operating, playing or allowing another person to use operate or play, a radio, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other device for the production or reproduction of sound:
(A) That disturbs the peace, quiet and comfort of persons of normal sensitivity residing in the area.
(B) That exceeds the levels in section 36.404 when measured at a distance of twenty-five feet from a device operating in a public right-of-way. (C) That exceeds the levels in section 36.404 when measured at a distance of twenty-five feet from a device for the production or reproduction of sound operated in a County park unless a permit has been obtained from the County Parks and Recreation Department specifying the time, location and other conditions under which amplified 9 08/13/2024 PH1 158 of 183

Any sound reproducing equipment, however, may be placed upon the sound truck as to not vary more than 15' either side of the axis of the center of the direction of travel. 10 08/13/2024 PH1 159 of 183

SEC. 36.416. NOISE FROM OFF -ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

(2) Equipment associated with agricultural operations, provided that each piece of equipment and machinery powered by an internal-combustion engine is equipped with an appropriate muffler and air intake silencer in good working order and one of the following applies:
(A) Operations do not take place between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. of the following day.
(B) The operations and equipment are utilized for the preparation, planting, harvesting, protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions. (C) The operations and equipment are used for agricultural pest control in accordance with regulations and procedures administered by the County Department of Agriculture.

SEC. 36.418. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT.

The Sheriff shall have primary responsibility for enforcing sections 36.405, 36.407,

SEC. 36.419. ADDITIONAL REMEDIES.

SEC. 36.420. FALSE STATEMENT.

SEC. 36.421. REPRODUCTION OR ALTERATION OF DOCUMENTS.

SEC. 36.422. DISPLAY OF PERMIT, VARIANCE OR OTHER DOCUMENT.

Any permit, variance or other document that authorizes any activity regulated by this chapter shall be displayed or maintained on the property or at the location where the activity is occurring.

SEC. 36.424. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE.

applicant provides all information required by the application and any supplemental information requested by the noise control officer.

SEC. 36.425. REQUEST FOR DUPLICATE VARIANCE CERTIFICATE.

SEC. 36.427. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS.

SEC. 36.428. APPEALS.

(a) Serves a notice of denial or conditional approval of a variance or the date a variance request is deemed denied.
(b) Serves a notice of suspension or revocation of a variance.

SEC. 36.429. CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF APPEAL.

SEC. 36.430. DISMISSAL OF APPEAL.

The appellant may dismiss an appeal at any time before the appeal hearing by filing a written notice of dismissal with the Clerk with a copy to the noise control officer.

SEC. 36.431. HEARING OFFICER.

SEC. 36.432. SCHEDULING HEARINGS.

SEC. 36.433. HEARING PROCEDURES.

SEC. 36.434. CONTINUANCES.

The hearing officer may grant a continuance requested by either party for good cause.

SEC. 36.435. DECISION.

4:42
Payment
Lady Meek paid Evandro
Menezes
Mar 3, 2022 at 3:38 PM © Public
Skate!
(Z) Evandro Menezes
9 Write a comment
Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 167 of 183

4:40
Payment
RH ROBERT HYLDAHL paid
Evandro Menezes
Mar 18, 2022 at 1:13 PM © Public
Skate lesson!
Evandro Menezes
O Write a comment Send
08/13/2024 PH1 168 of 183

6:32 .� ■
Payment
s Teff Fairfield paid Evandro
Menezes
Apr 12, 2022 at 3:22 PM © Public
4/12 session
Evandro Menezes
9 Write a comment
Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 169 of 183

5:00 .�
Payment
RB Richmond Baek paid Evandro
Menezes
May 6, 2022 at 2:07 PM © Public
Calvin lesson
Evandro Menezes
O Write a comment Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 170 of 183

1:18 s1 5G
Payment
E� Ellee Igoe paid Evandro
Menezes
Jun 1, 2022 at 11:24 AM © Public
Lesson 6/1 $75 +veggie
box
Be the first person to like this.

O Write a comment Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 171 of 183

Payment
N
Chad Martin paid Evandro
Menezes
Jun 16, 2022 at 3:56 PM p Public
Skate
Evandro Menezes
08/13/2024 PH1 172 of 183

1:18 s1 5G
Payment
Teff Fairfield paid Evandro
Menezes
Jun 3, 2022 at 2:09 PM © Public
6/3/22 2hr session
Be the first person to like this.
9 Write a comment
Send
08/13/2024 PH 1 173 of 183

VI
Nk
r `''} t � - �4� 'I/ , � e� � Isla. � � �• � ' �•i:i r i) -;_ —OL
✓adoop
rl
R
), '' ::fit S�•'" i}Y' �'� �y b � e.. �r -ti�'1 Yr � -:
-t+''+�t- i •y-��gS�yflrJ�'#w,�'� Y '�`-A-•y �+!•evlw"x, y�r��,''`� `� a! ^r�ti

, NY'
WNW
.41
pul-,

r
- xi� jft - � �AI�;� lip f+��,®'l/f �) r►
\n
d
is a n

08/13/2024 PH 1 177 of 183

'4
L�C'ti� f

FOR SUBMITTED VIDEOS PLEASE SEE
EXHIBITS 6A AND 6B
08/13/2024 PH1 181 of 183

EXHIBIT 7: PROJECT LOCATION MAP

SKATEBOARD RAMP
Ak6 dA t.
08/13/2024
EXHIBIT 7
PH1
182 of 183

EXHIBIT 8: PROJECT PLANS

FULL SIZE (LIMITED DISTRIBUTION)
EXHIBIT 8
08/13/2024 PH1 183 of 183

Dear City Council Members,
My husband, Evandro, and I own the home at 1264 Oak Dr, where we have a vertical skateboarding ramp in the backyard. It's existed here for nearly 12 years, mostly without any issue. In the last couple of years, however, that has changed as our next door neighbor has started a campaign to attack our ramp and our reputation. While I hate to put the City in the midst of a neighbor dispute, that's exactly what this is.

First, an introduction. My husband Evandro has lived in Vista since 2005. He originally immigrated here from Brazil in late 2001 on an athlete visa (for skateboarding), arriving with less than $200 in his pocket and speaking no English. The person he was supposed to stay with changed his mind at the last minute and Evandro found himself homeless and penniless.

Through nothing but determination and hard work, he found his way. Today, he is a proud naturalized citizen, a Vista homeowner and runs his own business.

Before leaving Brazil, Evandro told his friends that his dream was to move to the United States and have his own backyard skateboard ramp. People laughed at him. Called him crazy. Said it could not be done. He was poor and Black and living in a third world country, and spoke no English. But he did do it! And it makes me so proud, to tears, every time one of his old friends calls up or visits and tells him they can't believe he did it. To hear them apologize for not believing in him.

We bought our current Vista property with the goal of fulfilling Evandro's dream. But I would like to emphasize that this decision to build our ramp in was made after lots of research and planning. We did not proceed without first emailing the City of Vista to learn if building this ramp was possible. After learning there were no legal barriers, we consulted with neighbors. All adjacent neighbors gave us their blessing and so we moved forward. That was 2012.

We poured our life savings into this ramp; into fulfilling my husband's dream. And we continue to invest. In the past year, we remodeled part of our backyard around the ramp, costing more than $10,000. Without the ramp, those modifications are useless. And this was done before we were aware of any complaints to the city. To think that we could lose all of that, due to one neighbor's anger, is so incredibly heartbreaking to me. We worked hard to save up that money for those enhancements. And we are still paying off the second mortgage we took out to help cover the initial ramp construction.

We have four children who are all homeschooled. They grew up on this ramp. Two of them were born inside of this house, before Tony Hutchinson moved in.

When Tony moved in with his wife Lisi (Alicia), we soon became friends. I distinctly remember the first time they invited me over to their house and I stood in their backyard, looking at the ramp on our side of the fence. The trees covered most of it, and I asked if it ever bothers them.

I was told it did not, that they could barely see it, and that if things got loud they simply turned up the music and things were fine. I made it clear that there was an open line of

communication and asked them to let us know if there were ever any concerns or if they wanted us to take a day off.

Over the years, they asked us to take the day off only a few times: for a baby shower, for a wedding, for a family gathering (though we were invited to a few of those), and once for a gathering of church friends.

In early 2022, Tony met with Evandro a couple of times asking him to add more privacy screening along the fence line, because they felt like our guests could see over the fence from our back embankment. Not from the ramp, but our natural embankment! So we added some extra reed screening. A couple of months later, we were asked to add some more screening, so we did. Then during a third conversation in April 2022, Tony asked Evandro if he could modify the skateboarding hours slightly, to try and minimize skating after 5pm on Mondays and Wednesdays. It was agreed that Evandro would do his best, but also agreed that sometimes he may still skate during those hours alone or with a couple of friends. That was the last conversation, and my son was witness to it.

Fast forward a few months and we were made aware of some complaints pertaining to a small event we were having in June 2022, which was a very small kids "contest" we agreed to host as my son's 13th birthday party. The City came to inspect the event, but left without issuing a violation as we were not out of compliance. The code enforcement officers would not share the name of the neighbor who complained so we had no idea who it was.

We then asked the City for permission for a bigger party in July, and after several meetings with the City, we received permission. We were made aware that a neighbor had concerns but, again, the City would not tell us who it was. And so a week before the event, we put letters in all mailboxes along our road inviting neighbors to both attend the event, and to share any concerns. No one called or contacted us with concerns, and many neighbors attended the event. We were told that a neighbor had called the City and the police during the event. A sheriff came by and noted everything was fine and we could continue. There were no violations coming from the event.

Tony had previously attended one of our events and had allowed our guests to park in his driveway on multiple occasions. We had texted him before the event with a personal notification, and never heard any concerns. We had no reason to think he was the one complaining.

It was not until October 2022, at the first Commissioners hearing, that we learned it was Tony Hutchinson who was driving the complaints. Our friend! 1 am still in shock. We had maintained a friendship with him and his wife for more than 4 years, since they moved in.

His wife had called me and my kids to meet her out front just a few months before the hearing.

She wanted to give them gifts that she bought for her grandkids, and decided to buy my kids gifts too. That's the sort of friendship we had. During that conversation, Lisi Hutchinson shared

many of her life's woes, including health issues and sadness that her grown children and grandchildren were all moving out of state. But she never once shared any concerns about the ramp. I later realized, we had this conversation after her husband began complaining to the city! I felt and still feel so betrayed by my friend.

Another friend went to talk to Tony on our behalf, as he now completely ignores any of our text messages or attempts to talk to him. The friend mentioned how he used to see Tony at our house, and at our events, and recalled how they used to sit around and chat. The friend wanted to know why Tony was driving this when he used to be supportive. Tony's response? He claimed he didn't like my husband's "attitude" after their last conversation. That was it. So I can't help but feel this is out of personal vengeance.

In pursuit of his "evidence," Tony trespassed on our neighboring property to take photos of our backyard. The owner of that other property was dismayed to learn that Tony trespassed on their property in order to attack us. We also learned after talking with Code Enforcement that Tony was calling (at the time) nearly every single day to complain about ramp noise. Based on records, we noted that he called in to complain on days when the ramp was not in use, including days when we were not even home. One time he called to complain about ramp use while my husband was literally at the code enforcement office! This is false reporting and gross abuse of city time and resources. Tony has essentially weaponized the City in a proxy war against us. And now we are hearing stories from friends who have spoken to the city on our behalf that they feel bullied by Tony.

Almost everything Tony has claimed at the various meetings, and in the letters to the City that I have read, were heavily embellished as well as many outright fabrications. And most of that we can solidly prove, either through text message evidence or witness testimony. Each hearing, he seems to change his complaints. It's like a moving target. But so far we have not once heard Tony mention our years -long friendship. That he attended one of the events he complained about. That he had two very large, loud events of his own that blocked our driveway with cars (rules for thee, not for me?).

One time the complaint is that the ramp blocks Tony's pool view, and that Tony claims we continue to modify and add on to the ramp. Tony purchased his home with the ramp in place.

We have not modified the footprint since it was constructed, nor added to the height.

The only visible modifications we have made since Tony moved in were done with his knowledge and permission, and were done to improve sound control and aesthetics. None of these interfered with or changed the view line. The footprint and height are the same as they were when Tony purchased the home.

During the winter, our trees drop their leaves, making the ramp a little bit more visible. But for 9-10 months out of the year we have large, mature trees full of leaves that block Tony's view of the ramp. During the summer, you can barely see it.

Folks from City Planning have come by to inspect the structure and asked my husband to skate in order to observe the noise. They appeared impressed that it was not very noisy at all. I have personally taken decibel readings when the ramp is in use and compared that against the kids across the street when they were using their batting cage and basketball court — and the noise levels were nearly identical. The noise from the amphitheater is greater at times. My children are homeschooled and are often on Zoom calls with the windows open and the noise does not interfere. My home office faces the ramp and I am never bothered when I am in meetings. The noise is also very intermittent, especially when used by only a few people. And since learning of the complaints, we have made big efforts to reduce use and further minimize noise.

I would like to emphasize that we have a great relationship with our other adjacent neighbors, and have always attempted to keep an open communication with all of them. They have sent in support letters and have come to meetings in support of us and the ramp.

I have attached a brief document with some photos of our backyard showing the areas of the ramp that were modified since Tony arrived in 2018. 1 also included some screenshots of just a few of the many text messages showing our friendship with the Hutchinsons.

For more than four years, they were the neighbors that I instructed my kids to go see in case of emergency. They watched our home while we were away. My son took care of their animals.

We swam in their backyard with their kids and grandkids. We attended family gatherings. We exchanged fruits and eggs and homemade goods. We were those sort of neighbors. I am heartbroken at the friendship lost, and at having to explain to my children why our trusted friends betrayed us. Why my children are flat out ignored when they call out to Tony and Lisi as they walk by. I have never in my life felt so betrayed.

I really hope that you take the above into consideration in deciding what to do about the permit, which was unanimously voted in by the planning commission. I believe the commission members were appointed for good reason, and that they would not unanimously make a poor decision.

We did everything we could in good faith, to follow the law, to meet the existing code, to communicate with our neighbors. We stand everything to lose, especially financially. Our neighbors consciously purchased their home with the ramp already in place. We do have compassion for their changing views, and have made considerable efforts to meet them halfway by minimizing use of our investment and increasing screening. I truly hope the Council don't allow our neighbor's anger tear apart our family's dreams.

With utmost respect,
Courtney Menezes
1264 Oak Dr
Vista, CA 92084
760-613-0006

ADD TO PACKET
rmm:
race sma
To:
ram. valda�
S hjac
Slmte Ramp
Date:

Tuesday, Aujuff 13, 202 9:n B AM
You donY often get email from -
Good mooring
I am writing on behalf of the skate ramp application for the Menezes family on Oak Drive. I have been pleased with all the changes they have made regarding the skate ramp and our neighborhood. Since that hearing approving the ramp, I have seen great changes. They have limited the amount of people who are using the ramp, they are no longer parking in the street and the times they are using the ramp are within the allotted times allowed. The skate ramp is no longer an issue in our neighborhood. Please feel free to reach out with any questions.

Thank you
Katie Smith
- Oak Drive
PH1

From: barno760Cabaol.com
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: Skateboard Ramp
Date: Monday, August 12, 2024 10:09:31 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutScnderldentification ]
Dear Council Members,
I live at -Oak Knoll Dr, which shares a property line with 1264 Oak Dr. I am in support of the Minor Use Permit for the skateboard ramp. The owners of the property are respectful neighbors and I have no problem with the use of the ramp and therefore support the MUP.

I also have no issues with the existing setback of the ramp, and am in agreement to grandfather the ramp with the existing setback.

Respectfully,
Tony

From: elizabeth shahbazi
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: Skateboard Ramp MUP for 1264 Oak Dr.(P23-0216) Date: Monday, August 12, 2024 7:29:17 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutScndcrldcntification ]
City Council of the Chartered City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
Dear Council Members,
We live at- Oak Dr., which is right next door to the property with the skateboard ramp. We wish to offer our support to grant a Minor Use Permit for the skateboard ramp at 1264 Oak Dr. The applicants and owners of the property are respectful neighbors and we have no problems with the use of the ramp nor concerns with issuing the MUP.

We also have no issues with the existing setback of the ramp, and we are in agreement to grandfathering in the existing setback.

Respectfully,
Elizabeth Shahbazi
Sam Shahbazi
Benjamin Shahbazi
Summer Shahbazi

IdN]9iEel UdN N N I
Sandra Marino
Vista, CA 92084
August 7, 2024
To: Esmerelda Romero, City of Vista
Email: eromeroiRcityofvista.com
RE: Skateboard Ramp at 1264 Oak Drive, Vista, CA 92084
Dear Esmerelda,
Thank you returning my call about the appeal for the permit for a skateboard ramp a 1264 Oak Drive, Vista, CA 92094.

I am writing today, as I cannot attend the appeal meeting and do not think a skateboard ramp as described, is a good fit for the neighborhood. I live several doors away and know that thls street Is very narrow and cannot accommodate -the extra traffic and parking that may occur due to creating a group recreational site. Also, if someone would become injured, there is hardly room for emergency vehicles to maneuver. On this street In Vista, the lots and neighbors are very close together, so any noise from skateboarding, gatherings, etc. will be heard by all the neighbors. My back yard is only a few doors away and I feel I would be adversely affected. Even if it was promised that it was only for one or two people, there would be a considerable noise factor with skateboarding.

Also, the Community of Vista has kindly supported and built a very fine skateboard park off of Santa Fe Road in Vista. I hope that you will consider my thoughts and would appreciate it if you would please decline the appeal application for the skateboard ramp. Feel free to contact me for further information and to let me know what the outcome of the hearing is. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Sandra Marino
PH1

Vista City CouncilAugust 13, 2024

Vista City Council
August 13, 2024