Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07. Appeal of Architectural Commission Decision #23-AS06 - 692 West Twelfth StreetClaremont City Council Agenda Report File #:4848 Item No:7. TO:ADAM PIRRIE, CITY MANAGER FROM:BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE:SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 Reviewed by: City Manager:AP SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD PLANNING DIVISION STAFF’S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL STAFF REVIEW #23-AS06 FOR THE DEMOLITION,RECONSTRUCTION,AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING ATTACHED,TWO- CAR GARAGE AT THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 692 WEST TWELFTH STREET - APPELLANT: MELISSA PAUL SUMMARY On May 3,2023,the Planning Division approved the staff-level design review for project file #23- AS06,which includes demolition of an existing attached two-car garage and construction of a new, slightly larger,two-car garage that includes a storage mezzanine at its rear (east)side.The property is located at 692 West Twelfth Street in the RS 8,000 Single-Family Residential zoning district.The design of the new garage is intended to more closely match the existing home. On May 15,2023,Melissa Paul (Appellant),who owns and lives at the property directly to the south of the subject property,submitted an appeal of staff’s approval of the project.In her appeal,the Appellant focuses primarily on construction impacts associated with the renovation of the home in 2020 and 2021 and claims that she would be subject to similar detrimental impacts should the proposed project be approved and implemented.Additionally,the appeal cites concerns regarding noise impacts due to the revised design of the home and a loss of privacy stemming from the increased height of the proposed garage rebuild. On July 26,2023,the Architectural Commission held a public hearing where they considered the appeal of staff’s design review approval.After hearing testimony from both the Appellant and the Applicant,the Commission voted unanimously to uphold staff’s decision to approve the project, finding that it meets all of the design review criteria set forth in Claremont Municipal Code Section 16.300.060.On August 7,2023,Melissa Paul submitted an appeal of the Commission’s decision which provides much of the same justification as the May 15,2023,appeal,with some additional information regarding the relationship between noise impacts and vegetation in urban settings. CLAREMONT Printed on 9/21/2023Page 1 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Staff appreciates the concerns of the Appellant;however,staff continues to find the Applicant’s request to be reasonable and of a design that is appropriate for the home and surrounding neighborhood and believes the approval of the project was appropriate.Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the Architectural Commission’s decision to uphold staff’s approval and has provided a draft resolution to that effect (Attachment A). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council: A.Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA,DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD PLANNING DIVISION’S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL STAFF REVIEW (FILE #23-AS06)FOR THE DEMOLITION, RECONSTRUCTION,AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING ATTACHED,TWO-CAR GARAGE AT THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 692 WEST TWELFTH STREET - APPELLANT: MELISSA PAUL; and B.Find that the proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15301 -Existing Facilities in that the proposed project constitutes a minor addition to an existing private structure involving no expansion of habitable space. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary. ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION In addition to the recommendation,there are the following alternatives.If any of these alternatives are selected (except for Alternative A),a formal resolution recording the findings and action taken by the City Council will be placed on the City Council’s agenda at an upcoming meeting. A.Continue the item for additional information. B.Deny the appeal and approve the project with additional or revised Conditions of Approval. C.Find that significant new evidence has been presented and refer the matter back to the staff for further consideration. D.Grant the appeal,reverse the staff decision by determining that the project does not meet one or more of the required design review criteria for approval,and specifically identify why the criteria cannot be met. FINANCIAL REVIEW The appellant,Melissa Paul,submitted the fixed fee for non-applicant appeals of City decisions for both submitted appeals.The appeal fee covers the costs of City staff and City Attorney time spent on the two appeals. ANALYSIS Background The single-family residential property was built in 1946,is located in the Old Claremont neighborhood,and has a zoning designation of RS 8,000.The property is located on the southeast CLAREMONT Printed on 9/21/2023Page 2 of 7 powered by Legistar™ neighborhood,and has a zoning designation of RS 8,000.The property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Twelfth Street and Cambridge Avenue.The property is surrounded by single-family residences also having the RS 8,000 zoning designation on all sides.Foothill Boulevard is located approximately 160-feet to the north of the subject property. The property was sold in 2019 and in May of 2020,the City issued a building permit for interior remodeling of the home and a re-roof,as well as for the replacement of the home’s windows and doors.In July 2021,the City issued a building permit for a new outdoor BBQ and seating area and a new wood fence and gates in the rear yard.The owner of the property at the time renovated the home with the intention of selling it once the remodel was complete. The renovation was extensive and considerably more disruptive than similar projects in the City.City involvement was required at multiple points during construction.The former owner removed a number of mature trees,including City-owned trees in the public right-of-way.As a result,the former owner was required to pay a fee to the City to provide for the eventual replanting of the street trees. Additionally,during the construction process,the former owner violated the provisions of the Claremont Municipal Code pertaining to permitted hours of construction and noise levels,leading the City to take enforcement action.In September of 2021,the City issued a retroactive design review approval (File #21-AS04)for modifications to the property’s landscape,which were extensive enough to warrant review by the City based on CMC requirements.In 2022,the property sold to the current owner and resident,who is not a contractor and has no connection to the previous owner other than purchasing the property through a real estate transaction. Project Description The Applicant proposes to demolish an existing attached,two-car garage and construct a new, slightly larger,two-car garage that includes a storage mezzanine at its rear (east)side.The footprint of the proposed garage will match that of the existing garage,maintaining existing setbacks from the southern property line and Cambridge Avenue to the west.The current garage is minimal in size,with a flat roof as it was previously a carport that was later converted to an enclosed garage.The flat roof of the garage, which is approximately ten feet high, sits below the sloped roof of the residence. The new garage will have a gabled roofline designed to align with the roof line of the existing home. The height of the proposed garage would increase to 16’-0”as the street-facing roof plane would be extended to provide increased height.The increased roof height would allow for the creation of a small mezzanine storage area in the rear portion of the proposed garage.The exterior finishes and roof materials of the proposed garage would match those found on the existing residence.In staff’s review of the application,staff found that the proposed garage met all of the required architectural and site plan review criteria set forth in CMC Section 16.300.060 (Review Criteria).The project plans approved under file #23-AS06 are included as Attachment B.Attachment C is a copy of the approval letter for #23-AS06. Basis for Recommendation Appeal Arguments The Planning Division’s approval of the project has been appealed by Melissa Paul based on noise, safety,and privacy concerns resulting from previous construction on this property.The basis for the appeal provided in a two-page narrative,along with other supporting documents is attached to the appeal form.The appeal and supporting materials are included as Attachment D.The Appellant’s CLAREMONT Printed on 9/21/2023Page 3 of 7 powered by Legistar™ core arguments are summarized below. Appeal Argument 1:Exposure to prolonged and excessive noise levels resulting from improper construction activities. “I have reached past my level of tolerance to the life-threatening extreme construction noise practices already used there,2020 onward…Additional high levels of noise from the same property could be hazardous to my health…The invasion of privacy on a permanent basis from a now very noisy property, and a proposed even noisier one.” “Many neighbors have had construction work done on their properties over the years,including multiple adjoining mine.None have been a problem.They’ve been nicely done and involved normal sounds of building -hammering,sawing,etc.They weren’t building on Sundays,no seven days a week for months on end.” Appeal Argument 2:Removal of street and privately owned trees along with destruction of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. “The flipper owner had almost every single tree on the property cut down,including a massive old oak tree,other mature native trees,and multiple city street trees,including 2 gingkos on Cambridge Avenue [c]ausing great wildlife habitat loss.” The Appellant also indicated their yard is identified as a National Wildlife Federation Certified Wildlife Habitat and is “visited by more than 60 species of birds which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CA wild bird protection laws.”They also stated their yard has “more than 85 species of California native plants,most of which are from the California Botanic Garden…Multiple of those plants are in the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.” Appeal Argument 3: Incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. “This demolition/construction should be considered part of an extension of construction projects begun on the same property in 2020,which totally changed a historically…quiet neighborhood into a very noisy property that no longer fits in with the neighborhood.” Appeal Argument 4:Increased noise impacts as well as privacy impacts to existing and proposed modifications to the property. “I am very much worried how much the sound level will increase…Over the years,plent[y]of people were in that backyard,speaking normally…Now voices are amplified and sound like shouting…Some changes from the back door area of that house caused noise to head straight into my house…I am worried that any of that noise that might dissipate over the roof at its current height,will then also be guided into not just my house but also my house but also my backyard as well which is a prime bird habitat.” Staff Response to Appeal Response to Appeal Argument 1:Exposure to prolonged and excessive noise levels and privacy and safety concerns resulting from improper construction activities. Appeal Argument 1 claims that previous construction on the subject property has reached alarming CLAREMONT Printed on 9/21/2023Page 4 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Appeal Argument 1 claims that previous construction on the subject property has reached alarming noise levels,invaded their privacy,and affected wildlife and natural habitat.Pursuant to CMC Section 16.154.020.F.4, the following activities are exempt from these standards: Noise sources associated with or vibration created by construction,repair,remodeling,or grading of any real property, or during authorized seismic surveys, provided: a.Activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 8:00 p.m.weekdays and Saturdays, excluding national holidays; and b.Noise levels,as measured on residential properties,do not exceed 65 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any one hour,70 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 10 minutes in any one hour,79 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any one hour or 80 dBA at any time; and c.Any vibration created does not endanger the public health, welfare, and safety. Only that construction,repair,remodeling and grading activity that does not exceed the noise levels set by Section 16.154.020.D may occur on Sundays and national holidays. Staff acknowledges that the construction undertaken by the previous owner appeared to have violated CMC regulations pertaining to permitted hours of construction,days of construction,and permitted maximum noise levels associated with these activities.While City Building,Community Improvement,and Police Department staff were responsive to the Appellant’s complaints and concerns at the time,the construction impacts were not able to be fully mitigated.Ultimately,the City pursued legal remedies against the former owner and the property was brought into compliance. While staff regrets the detrimental impacts stemming for the former owner’s activities,this does not represent grounds to deny the currently proposed project.The Conditions of Approval set forth in the draft resolution are in place to avoid similar impacts from the proposed project and would be vigorously enforced should the project be approved and built. Response to Appeal Argument 2:Removal of street and privately owned trees along with destruction of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. Appeal Argument 2 states the Applicant removed several street trees and mature trees within the property without obtaining necessary City approvals.Staff has confirmed that the previous property owner (not the current Applicant)removed several street trees (along with trees on private property) without receiving prior approval from the City.The former property owner was required to compensate the City for the unpermitted removals and the Community Services Department is working with the current Applicant to plant new trees in the subject property’s right-of-way. The garage rebuild proposal includes a small extension of 71 square feet beyond the existing footprint of the existing two-car garage.Therefore,it can be concluded that additional impacts on integrated ecosystems stemming from the approval of the currently proposed project would be minimal or close to none.The previous owner’s actions do not comply with the “Tree Preservation” criterion in CMC Section 16.300.060.A.9.Unfortunately,there is no legal requirement to receive a permit prior to removing vegetation from private property unless it is proposed as part of a broader project that requires design review approval.Staff regrets the previous owner’s removal of the mature trees.However,staff finds that the current project does not require the removal of any existing mature trees.As such,the actions taken by the prior property owner do not represent grounds to affirm the appeal and deny the currently proposed project. CLAREMONT Printed on 9/21/2023Page 5 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Response to Appeal Argument 3: Incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Appeal Argument 3 argues that the proposed garage rebuild are incompatible with the historic character of the existing home and surrounding neighborhood.Although the property is located in Old Claremont,one of the earliest large-scale,suburban developments in the city,and some of the neighboring properties are listed on the Register of Structures of Historical and Architectural Merit, this subject property is not.Regardless of whether or not the property is listed on the Register,staff evaluates development proposals for conformance with development standards and if the project meets the design review criteria in the CMC. In the case of the proposed project,staff was able to find that it complies with the development standards and has a design that is consistent with and appropriate for the design of the existing Ranch-style home.While the proposed garage rebuild would increase the height of the roof over the garage,the roof’s design would be consistent and integrated with the roof form of the existing residence.The existing garage was originally constructed as a carport in 1965 and was enclosed to create a garage in 1980;which is why the roof of the garage is flat,as opposed the gable roof found on the rest of the residence.In extending the Cambridge-facing sloped roof of the primary residence, the proposed project seeks to create a mezzanine storage area under the east-facing roof plane. Overall,staff found that the project was consistent with surrounding development in terms of form and in terms of quality, satisfying the review criteria in CMC Section 16.300.060. In summary,the appellant’s justification for denying the project rely more on the actions taken by the previous owner and less on the proposed project’s ability to meet the design review criteria in the Code.While the actions taken by the prior owner violated Code regulations and requirements and resulted in unnecessary and outsized impacts to the Appellant and to other neighboring properties, they fall short of representing sufficient grounds to deny the project.As described in the Commission Review section below,the Architectural Commission concurred and voted to uphold staff’s decision to approve the project.The project is able to meet all of the Code’s design review criteria,will result in the storage space desired by the current owner,and will upgrade the existing garage making it more consistent with the existing home while also making it more usable for the owner. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff has evaluated the agenda item in relationship to the City’s strategic and visioning documents and finds that it applies to the following City Planning Documents:Council Priorities,Sustainable City Plan, Economic Sustainability Plan, General Plan, and 2022-24 Budget. CEQA REVIEW The proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15301 -Existing Facilities in that the proposed project constitutes a minor addition to an existing private structure involving no expansion of habitable space.Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary. COMMISSION REVIEW On July 26,2023,the Architectural Commission held a public hearing where they heard Planning Division staff’s report regarding the proposed project and background on the actions taken at the property,including the actions of a “flipper”who was responsible for the noise impacts the Appellant cites and the removal of vegetation on the property.The Commission also heard testimony from the Appellant,who described in detail the noise impacts stemming from the previous owner’s permitted CLAREMONT Printed on 9/21/2023Page 6 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Appellant,who described in detail the noise impacts stemming from the previous owner’s permitted and unpermitted construction at the property,and also described the potential continued impacts she expected to occur should the proposed garage rebuild be approved.The Commission heard testimony from the Applicant and asked questions regarding the anticipated duration of the construction to rebuild and the anticipated duration and noise impacts stemming from the loudest portions of the construction activity.Staff anticipates the loudest activities will include demolition of the existing garage, laying down of the pad for the new garage, and framing of the structure. The Applicant responded by indicating the noisiest portions of the construction would take place over several contiguous days and offered to coordinate with the Appellant when those days would occur. After hearing both testimonies and entertaining some discussion regarding the use of noise- deadening materials as part of the project’s construction fencing,the Commission voted unanimously to uphold staff’s decision,finding that the previous owner’s irresponsible management of the home’s remodel did not serve as sufficient justification to deny the proposed project.The Commission also found that the design of the project met all of the design review criteria set forth in CMC Section 16.300.060.The meeting minutes from the July 26,2023 Architectural Commission meeting are provided as Attachment E. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS The agenda and staff report for this item have been posted on the City website and distributed to interested parties. If you desire a copy, please contact the City Clerk’s Office. Notice of this meeting was mailed on September 14,2023 to the same surrounding properties who received notice of the application submittal,staff-level approval and the Architectural Commission appeal hearing.A copy of this report has been sent to the Appellant,Applicant,project architect,and other interested parties. Submitted by:Prepared by: Brad Johnson Nikola Hlady Community Development Director Senior Planner Reviewed by: Chris Veirs Principal Planner Attachments: A - Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal B - Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2023-05 C - Project Plans and Supporting Documentation D - Appeal Forms and Supporting Documentation E - Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes of July 26, 2023 CLAREMONT Printed on 9/21/2023Page 7 of 7 powered by Legistar™ ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 2023- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING DIVISION'S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL STAFF REVIEW (FILE #23-AS06) FOR THE DEMOLITION, RECONSTRUCTION, AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING ATTACHED, TWO -CAR GARAGE AT THE SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 692 WEST TWELFTH STREET — APPELLANT: MELISSA PAUL WHEREAS, on February 14, 2023, the applicant filed a request (File #23-AS06) to demolish the existing 504-square-foot attached, two -car garage and construct a new 517 square -foot attached, two -car garage that includes a storage mezzanine at its rear (east) side located at 692 West Twelfth Street; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2023, a notice regarding staff's review of the design of the proposed project was mailed to property owners and residents in the close vicinity of the subject site; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2022, the Planning Division approved the Architectural Staff Review (File #23-AS06) sending notice of the approval to the same property owners and residents that received the March 21, 2023 notice; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2022, the City received an appeal of staffs decision to approve the project from Melissa Paul; and WHEREAS, under Claremont Municipal Code Section 16.321.010, the Architectural Commission may affirm or reverse, wholly or in part, or may modify the decision of City staff; the Architectural Commission may also choose to refer the request for review for further consideration and decision if significant new evidence is presented in conjunction with the appeal; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2023, the Architectural Commission held a public hearing regarding the appeal, at which time the appellant, applicant, and all other persons wishing to testify in connection with the appeals were heard and where the Architectural Commission voted unanimously to uphold the Planning Division's approval of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2023, the City received an appeal of the Architectural Commission's decision to uphold the Planning Division's decision to approve the project from Melissa Paul; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2023, notice of the City Council hearing to consider the appeal was mailed to all persons and properties that received prior notices related to decisions taken on the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the appeal at which time the appellant, applicant, and all other persons wishing to testify in connection with the appeals were heard and the matter was considered. Resolution No. 2023- Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. SECTION 2. The City Council has determined that the proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 — Existing Facilities in that the proposed project constitutes a minor addition to an existing private structure involving no expansion of habitable space. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary. SECTION 3. For the reasons set forth herein, and based on the whole of the Record, the City Council concurs with the Architectural Commission and with City staff and finds that the general review criteria of Section 16.300.060.A of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC) can be met in regards to the above -described project as follows: A. Conformity with Development Standards —The proposed project is inconformity with all development standards for the Single -Family Residential (RS 8,000) zoning district, including setbacks, lot coverage, floor area, and building height. The proposed project meets the street and interior side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 8 feet, respectively. The new garage would maintain the existing street side setback of 20'-10" and the interior side setback of 8'-6". The maximum allowed lot coverage (40%) and floor area (3,665-square feet) are met given the project would increase the size of the home 3,327 square feet, which is 30% of the total lot size and below the maximum allowable floor area of 3,665-square feet. The increased height of the proposed garage is 16 feet, under the maximum height of 25 feet for main structures. B. General Plan Consistency — The proposed project is consistent with the following goals/policies of the General Plan: 1. Promote neighborhood identity and conservation of individual neighborhood character (Policy 2-2.2) in that the proposed project builds upon and is consistent with the character of the single-family residences located adjacent to the subject property and neighborhood in which it is located. The proposed project would not substantially modify the character of the existing home, allowing it to remain consistent with surrounding structures in terms of both design, scale and architectural quality. 2. Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to neighborhood context and building forms and scale (Policy 2-11.3) in that the proposed garage rebuild entails minimal changes from what currently exists which makes the proposed garage rebuild sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood context. 3. Maintain and enhance the City's collection of street trees, and improve Claremont's image of a "City with trees" (Policy 2-13.1) in that the City will work with the Resolution No. 2023- Page 3 applicant/property owner to reinstate the trees along the public right-of-way facing Cambridge Avenue and Twelfth Street. C. Compatibility of Form with Surrounding Development — The proposed demolition, rebuild, and expansion will not unduly interfere, not visually dominate the existing development pattern of the surrounding single-family residential areas, which feature a mix of both single -story and two-story residential buildings. The proposed project is designed in a manner that meets all development standards, and the proposed height of the new garage complies with the maximum allowable height requirement. D. Compatibility of Quality with Surrounding Development — The proposed project features a well -considered design that employs high -quality materials that reflect the character of the Single -Family Residential zoning district. Some of the proposed materials include black metal frame for lighting fixtures, garage doorframe, and rear - facing porch roof panel. There will be three identical clerestory windows constructed of black anodized aluminum on three sides of the attached garage, which would match that of the primary residence in material and sequence. As such, the proposed project has a level of quality that is compatible with surrounding development in the RS 8,000 zoning district. E. Internal Consistency of Design — The garage rebuild will match the primary residence in terms of having compatible materials, colors, design, and design details. F. Privacy — The mezzanine of the rebuilt garage will introduce new windows and sightlines into neighboring properties. The doors and windows on the first floor create little concern for privacy impacts as they face the street or interior lot far in distance from the neighboring residential property to the east. The windows on the second floor are a cluster of small clerestory windows designed to provide natural light into the reconstructed garage and storage mezzanine. The storage mezzanine itself does not entail a privacy impact as it is not intended for extended occupancy. G. Internal Circulation — The design of the project will maintain adequate and safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the property. The orientation of the attached garage will not change maintaining the same access pattern that currently exists. H. Sustainability — The proposed garage will be energy and water efficient as they will be required to meet all applicable sustainability requirements and codes adopted by the City as well as the State's stringent green building code. The project is expected to improve the energy efficiency of the existing building, which were constructed prior to the establishment of energy codes. I. Tree Preservation — The proposed project does not entail the removal of any existing on -site trees. The applicant is required to cooperate with the City in reinstating or replacing the street trees that were removed by the previous property owner. J. Light and Air — The sloped height of the garage, ranging from 9'-3" to 16', is well below the maximum allowable height for main structures in the RS 8,000 zone of 25 feet. The proposed project is not expected to have the potential to impinge on the neighbor's access to light and air as the expanded height meets the maximum height and setback Resolution No. 2023- Page 4 requirements of the Code. K. Environmental Protections — The proposed development has been reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the reasons stated above in Section A. L. Health and Safety — The visual effect of the development from adjacent public streets will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. It features a design that is consistent with the existing single-family residences and employs high -quality materials, meets all development standards, and has been designed to harmonize with the exiting residence, adjacent buildings and the surrounding streetscape. As such, the development does not have the potential to be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves Architectural Staff Review #23-AS06 based on the review criteria as outlined in Sections A and B above, subject to the following conditions of approval: A. This approval is for the demolition of the existing attached two -car garage and the construction of a new, slightly larger two -car garage that includes a storage mezzanine at its rear (east) side. The footprint of the proposed garage will match that of the existing garage, maintaining existing setbacks from the southern property line and Cambridge Avenue to the west. The height of the proposed garage will increase to 16-0", approximately 10" taller than the height of the primary residence, in order to accommodate the proposed storage mezzanine. The exterior finishes and roof materials of the approved garage match those found on the existing residence. B. This design approval (File #23-AS06) shall be valid for two years from the date of Planning Division approval. If building permits are not issued, or a time extension has not been granted during this period, this design review approval will automatically expire without further action by the City. C. Plans submitted for building permit plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Architectural Staff Review (#23-AS06). If the plan check submittal is not in substantial compliance with the approved design, the new plans may require further staff review and re -notification of the surrounding property owners, which may delay construction and require additional fees. D. Noise sources associated with construction activities shall not exceed the noise levels as set forth in Section 16.154.020(f) of the Claremont Municipal Code. E. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall: 1. Ascertain and comply with all requirements of the City's Building and Engineering Divisions, including the submittal of complete architectural, electrical, mechanical, and structural plans duly wet stamped and signed by a licensed architect or engineer. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial conformance with those approved under Architectural Review File #23-AS06 by the Planning Division staff. Resolution No. 2023- Page 5 2. Ascertain and comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. 3. Pay any/all outstanding development review fees associated with Architectural Review File #23-AS06. 4. Pay all applicable permit and development fees including, but not limited to, fire facility, plan check fees, and any outstanding development review fees, as established by City ordinances and resolutions. F. To ensure compliance with the provisions of this design approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work has been completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an appointment for such an inspection. G. Non-compliance with any condition of this approval shall constitute a violation of the City's Municipal Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the administrative fines program of Chapter 1.14 of the Claremont Municipal Code. H. The applicant and owner, by utilizing the benefits of this approval, shall thereby agree to defend at its sole expense any action against the City, its agents, officers, and employees because of the issues of such approval. In addition, the applicant and owner shall reimburse the City et al for any court costs and attorney fees that the City et al may be required to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant/owner of its obligation hereunder. Failure to comply with any of the conditions, including design issues as shown on plans reviewed and approved by the City of Claremont, may result in failure to obtain a building final and a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a non- compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred, where the project does not comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits were pulled to construct the project. SECTION 5. For the reasons set forth herein, and based on the whole of the Record, the City Council hereby denies the appeal of the Architectural Commission's decision to uphold the Planning Division's May 3, 2023 approval of Architectural Staff Review File #23-AS06 for a garage demolition, rebuild, and expansion located at 692 West Twelfth Street. SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 2023. Mayor, City of Claremont Resolution No. 2023- Page 6 ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Claremont APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorn , City of Claremont ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO.2023-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING DIVISION'S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL STAFF REVIEW (FILE #23- AS06) FOR THE DEMOLITION, RECONSTRUCTION, AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING ATTACHED, TWO -CAR GARAGE AT THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 692 WEST TWELFTH STREET — APPELLANT: MELISSA PAUL. WHEREAS, on February 14, 2023, the applicant filed a request (File #23-AS06) to demolish the existing 504-square-foot attached, two -car garage and construct a new 517- square-foot attached, two -car garage that includes a storage mezzanine at its rear (east) side located at 692 West Twelfth Street; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2023, a notice regarding staffs review of the design of the proposed project was mailed to property owners and residents in the close vicinity of the subject site; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2023, the Planning Division approved the Architectural Staff Review (File #23-AS06), notice of the approval was sent to the same property owners and residents that received the March 21, 2023 notice; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2023, the City received an appeal of staffs decision to approve the project from Melissa Paul; and WHEREAS, under the Claremont Municipal Code Section 16.321.010, the Architectural Commission may affirm or reverse, wholly or in part, or may modify the decision of City staff; the Architectural Commission may also choose to refer the request for further consideration and decision if significant new evidence is presented in conjunction with the appeal; and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2023, notice of the Architectural Commission hearing to consider the appeal was mailed to all persons and properties that received the March 21, 2023 and May 3, 2023 notices; WHEREAS, on July 12, 2023, the Architectural Commission hearing regarding the appeal was continued to July 26, 2023 due to lack of a quorum of Commission members and staff forwarded notice of the continuance to all persons that had previously been notified regarding the appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2023, the Architectural Commission held a public hearing regarding the appeal, at which time the appellant, the applicant, and all other persons wishing to testify in connection with the appeal was heard and the matter was considered. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CLAREMONT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1. The Architectural Commission has determined that the proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 — Existing Facilities in that the proposed project consists of Resolution No. 2023-05 Page 2 reconstructing an existing two -car garage on an existing single-family lot that includes a minor addition to the garage (13 square feet) that involves no expansion of habitable space. The proposed project will not result in the removal of any existing trees or other natural habitat and the garage being reconstructed is not a historic or cultural resource. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary. SECTION 2. For the reasons set forth herein, and based on the whole of the Record, the Architectural Commission concurs with City staff and finds that the general review criteria of Section 16.300.060.A of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC) can be met in regards to the above -described project as follows: A. Conformity with Development Standards — The proposed project is in conformity with all development standards for the Single -Family Residential (IRS 8,000) zoning district, including setbacks, lot coverage, floor area, and building height. The proposed project meets the street and interior side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 8 feet, respectively. The new garage would maintain the existing street side setback of 20'-10" and the interior side setback of 8'-6". The maximum allowed lot coverage (40%) and floor area (3,665-square feet) are met given the project would increase the size of the home to 3,327 square feet, which is 30% of the total lot size and below the maximum allowable floor area of 3,665-square feet. The increased height of the proposed garage is 16 feet, well below the maximum height of 25 feet for main structures. B. General Plan Consistency — The proposed project is consistent with the following goals/policies of the General Plan: Promote neighborhood identity and conservation of individual neighborhood character (Policy 2-2.2) in that the proposed project builds upon and is consistent with the character of the single-family residences located adjacent to the subject property and neighborhood in which it is located. The proposed project is intended to replace an existing converted carport with a new gabled garage designed to match the architecture of the original residence. By reinforcing as opposed to substantially modifying the character of the existing home, the design will allow the project to remain consistent with surrounding structures in terms of design, scale, and architectural quality. 2. Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to neighborhood context and building forms and scale (Policy 2- 11.3) in that the proposed garage rebuild entails minimal changes from what currently exists, which makes the proposed garage rebuild sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood context. 3. Maintain and enhance the City's collection of street trees, and improve Claremont's image of a "City with trees" (Policy 2-13.1) in that the City will work with the applicant/Property owner to reinstate the trees along the public right-of-way facing Cambridge Avenue and Twelfth Street. C. Compatibility of Form with Surrounding Development — The proposed demolition, rebuild, and expansion will not unduly interfere, nor . visually dominate the existing Resolution No. 2023-05 Page 3 development pattern of the surrounding single-family residential areas, which feature a mix of both single -story and two-story residential buildings. The proposed project is designed in a manner that meets all development standards, and the proposed height of the new garage complies with the maximum allowable height requirement. D. Compatibility of Quality with Surrounding Development — The proposed project features a reasonable design that employs high -quality materials that reflect the character of the Single -Family Residential zoning district. When viewed from the street, the proposed roof line, exterior materials, and colors will match those of the existing home, which has existed on the site since the time it and the neighboring homes were constructed decades ago. In addition, the home was recently renovated to restore and refresh the home with the same quality of materials found on surrounding, well - maintained homes. As such, the proposed project has a level of quality that is compatible with surrounding development in the RS 8,000 zoning district. E. Internal Consistency of Design — The garage rebuild will match the primary residence in terms of having compatible materials, colors, design, and design details. F. Privacy —The doors and windows on the first floor create little concern for privacy impacts as they face the street or the interior of the lot far from the neighboring residential property to the east. The proposed storage mezzanine includes new second story windows on the north, south, and east facades that could introduce sightlines to neighboring properties; however, these small clerestory windows are designed to provide natural daylight into a structure that is not intended for extended human occupancy and therefore will not impact privacy. G. Internal Circulation — The design of the project will maintain adequate and safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the property. The driveway and orientation of the attached garage will not change; maintaining the same access pattern that currently exists. H. Sustainability — The proposed garage will be energy efficient, as the applicant will be required to meet all applicable sustainability requirements and codes adopted by the City as well as the State's stringent green building code. Tree Preservation — The proposed project does not entail the removal of any existing on -site trees. The applicant is required to cooperate with the City to replace all street trees that were removed by the previous property owner. J. Light and Air — The sloped height of the garage, ranging from 9'-Y to 16', is well below the maximum allowable height for main structures in the RS 8,000 zone of 25 feet. The proposed project is not expected to have the potential to impinge on the neighbor's access to light and air as the expanded height meets the maximum height and setback requirements of the Code. K. Environmental Protections — The proposed development has been reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the reasons stated above in Section A. Resolution No. 2023-05 Page 4 L. Health and Safety — The visual effect of the development from adjacent public streets will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. It features a design that is consistent with the existing single-family residences and employs high -quality materials, meets all development standards, and has been designed to harmonize with the existing residence, adjacent buildings, and the surrounding streetscape. As such, the development does not have the potential to be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. SECTION 3. The Architectural Commission hereby approves Architectural Staff Review #23-AS06 based on the review criteria as outlined in Sections A and B above, subject to the following conditions of approval: A. This approval is for the demolition of the existing attached two -car garage and the construction of a new, slightly larger, two -car garage that includes a storage mezzanine at its rear (east) side. The footprint of the proposed garage will generally match that of the existing garage, maintaining existing setbacks from the southern property line and Cambridge Avenue to the west. The height of the proposed garage will increase to 16 feet, approximately 10 inches taller than the height of the primary residence, in order to accommodate the proposed storage mezzanine. The exterior finishes and roof materials of the approved garage match those found on the existing residence. B. This design approval (File #23-AS06) shall be valid for two years from the date of Planning Division approval. If building permits are not issued, or a time extension has not been granted during this period, this design review approval will automatically expire without further action by the City. C. Plans submitted for building permit plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Architectural Staff Review (File #23-AS06). If the plan check submittal is not in substantial compliance with the approved design, the new plans may require further staff review and re -notification of the surrounding property owners, which may delay construction and require additional fees. D. Noise sources associated with construction activities shall not exceed the noise levels as set forth in Section 16.154.020(f) of the Claremont Municipal Code. E. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall: 1. Ascertain and comply with all requirements of the City's Building and Engineering Divisions, including the submittal of complete architectural, electrical, mechanical, and structural plans duly wet stamped and signed by a licensed architect or engineer. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial conformance with those approved under Architectural Review File #23-AS06 by the Planning Division staff. 2. Ascertain and comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. 3. Pay any/all outstanding development review fees associated with Architectural Review File #23-AS06. Resolution No. 2023-05 Page 5 4. Pay all applicable permit and development fees including, but not limited to, fire facility, plan check fees, and any outstanding development review fees, as established by City ordinances and resolutions. F. The applicant and contractor shall be cognizant of the neighbor's extreme sensitivity to sound and seek to minimize construction noise and other construction disruptions to the greatest extent possible. This includes both maximum noise levels as well duration of noisy elements of construction. G. To ensure compliance with the provisions of this design approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work has been completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an appointment for such an inspection. H. Upon final inspection, the City will commence a 30-day lighting level review of all, exterior lights. If illumination levels, glare, or other applicable issues are found to be excessive, the applicant will be directed to modify the lighting as necessary to be at an acceptable level. I. Non-compliance with any condition of this approval shall constitute a violation of the City's Municipal Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the administrative fines program of Chapter 1.14 of the Claremont Municipal Code. J. The applicant and owner, by utilizing the benefits of this approval, shall thereby agree to defend at its sole expense any action against the City, its agents, officers, and employees because of the issues of such approval. In addition, the applicant and owner shall reimburse the City et al for any court costs and attorney fees that the City et al may be required to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant/owner of its obligation hereunder. K. Failure to comply with any of the conditions, including design issues as shown on plans reviewed and approved by the City of Claremont, may result in failure to obtain a building final and a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a non- compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred, where the project does not comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits were pulled to construct the project. SECTION 4. For the reasons set forth herein, and based on the whole of the Record, the Architectural Commission hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Division's May 3, 2023 approval of Architectural Staff Review File #23-AS06 for a garage demolition, rebuild, and expansion located at 692 West Twelfth Street. SECTION 5. The Architectural Chair shall sign this Resolution and the Commission's secretary shall certify to the passage and adoption thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July, 2023. Resolution No. 2023-05 Page 6 —�Xrchitectural Commission Chair ATTEST: %rc-77 - Ar4teyural Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss. CITY OF CLAREMONT ) I, Melissa Sanabria, Administrative Assistant of the City of Claremont, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-05 was adopted by the Architectural Commission of said City of Claremont at a regular meeting of said Commission held on July 26, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSTENSIONS: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners . �ry A inistrativ Assistant City e nt Bennett, Cervera, Neiuber, and Perri None None Castillo and Spivack ATTACHMENT Shoot Index Id 91 namm General Notes Symbols Site Plan Vicinity Map Site Info /Project Data of b �— Eaat Elevation 103 to SoufhwElevaflon ... m.mx_m m West Elevation e-..d...x...•x ,�,,,,,y x� pe.mm a.. mn •r. ..p�mN.mm m.n.xe N.D.e,„N. prox Deme.mm.mxe...,e.e mnm ..v.lp m.c.p �mmhnoe.mn.ue...ke9.neoxe .ImuNa me.m� xn: illuwmrxn..o mkon evn.e. onmdx. mma p exna Ml wemov.m Ml.nwb.em.uhmmxvmv.apeem wooeh UorNxmxmn.mN xYdxgl.x�vwKemruNn m. roe.oaeero ��rm. �xNL.ebrx 9�i.��.hr moxrx.feurum xlbD'wmv.MoaNnom.nnw•M ...I`..w..mF..�. wY.�m. irru.a.w•..w: r�x Y 1 I i I Il+p greoe-WarAlsnl I pD.D.m: IDD eo —North` A2.0 Is leans €+bn'�p Ag�l3teb E�e.f:lnr �. {a�q A..-_. �• PafNNBlghf8be Eb.abn r..o fimMap Away. .LL. .re.aaai a.ynawlaa uaa.m Ekbtllip Fgnf Ebv.Nm n..e W. IBh&mf `�~ &j.&W 81gb 81Ne Elanflgn li rw PANIe181ghf8EWWan — bp.Avmu. ba CYmb ..a. l�.al nMalerwlnoPTV.'h' CYo A NCNhcWnl pnM tlfrpluA oF4NdM rC1r.�A) �OP/M� .ppmW pwl /�N I.dQ �).Glwtl.N..Ntl by- NON: No.Me vwMlblbn (mmwnM.XbJ pr AIIPYN.^A.hrypmYbb. eeutl4Y.d � .M.(1 mW pminlbns wI1E M .n tlpeMd m.mx. see rvmma..�a... rer.p.am. Roo! Plen J-1— Sect /on A -A Sec�f/on 8- we �m b .wl.: unoNtl A3.0 of h. p UNIT, ; ♦' � ` `' ....: � • . stem :'�. 4 �4 J r r k t•p�• ♦4' f ` 4� ;1'.-X7 1. 44 _- -��'� .,•�'.r�s.a, -.ate -/ - +'� .�; .� ��o- �.� �#�. .,� ,�- ryKx y, :` y d �.�ay� �v ^ o-� � �'. ±'�` y. i ~ ' .. E1{iT � �� � � `�„ L�r ;i',] r * 1 kr,�,.,r�- -b� .s - '',F � �a�� �N �� �`� For �p�! ` t' '' _ .rt� � _- —~ F � ti��. �/{ �� ��•� " - `++�- �- _ 'I ,, .. sr�."* ., '`,�T �' X Wi mrbo- ATTACHMENT D RECEIVED ¢te r - APPEAL OF DECISIONS AUG 0 7 2023 CITY OF CL.AREMONT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT W'� A CITY CLERK 207 HARVARD AVENUE, P. O. BOX 380 CL�AREMONT, CA 91711-0880 CITY OF CLAREMONT 1 S 8 7 - (909) 399-5470 APPELLANT INFORMATION Name of Appellant: 1 y �-I �`5 �� POL' ] Address: Phone Number: APPEAL INFORMATION d Application Number: 07 !T �J Appeal of: Staff Decision Decision pate: '7J" Z& l ?pZ3 Planning Commission Architectural Commission Please describe the specific decision being appealed and state the reasons for this appeal. Appeals shall set forth alleged inconsistency or non -conformity with procedures or criteria set forth in City codes. If additional sheets are necessary, please attach them to this form. ww },1n he c6`:lion 4-A w Glarwol;leon r w�1� ai'w �� ea)'69ZI � 7fec�[ UACk2 5 wrg �{',� o 4�rr A r, � r r� . b�; ,c-H1:z volairs cl'a jwl4• 00.0G0 3t1� 9r1uC o{ �"C Glmre4 4 u ni i i n u Ti ri0. i rtiCL r u n4 es ex_.'al I 4 3 9� [� ``T $ U .�.n�yr. �h 2oFz the r v � � e•�v � 'r,�jth�.mMerl� v� V' f�� �i iVeW'-' W(GQ Wi�i ij (j>Y �{�++F�sn ,t vrh I+R tA nn So irkCl FKaI i� �._,,.4 `t d ; f dc-i Own ifwigN nt5- iA � ✓BLS Fti iY1 19h'�ev r l^ 1' 2a21. rer' b 46 �r, UcJ}t�l wa wtr C� i e t� Se�rsrrr �� •E f ArYr x7e�'ry U � he �S� C''Y� rr� Wh 7' J Z-7 -fI d_c�� f—J es Appellanfs Signature , r FEES [J Project Applicant In Accordance with our Fee Schedule®-®-- ZNon -Applicant - In Accordance with our Fee Schedule Received Date: el-7 Fixed Fee.", ee 1 � Hourly Deposit: Outline for presentation July 26, 2023 Introduction to commission My family bought the house at 1230 N Cambridge Avenue in the early 1960s I have lived there for most of my life My property has 4 adjoining neighbor properties Over the years every one of them has had construction None these construction projects over the years affected either my blood pressure or my migraines Until the 2020 construction began at 692 W 12th Street — At the 692 W 12th property There was a succession of wonderful families that lived there over the years — Very lively families with children and pets, lots of them Starting with the Bollingers in 1960s who owned Casa Flores the downtown Claremont florist Then next to the Village Theatre —the Bollingers added many rare and beautiful plants. The last owners before the house flipper was A family of 4 with dogs, cats, parrots, chickens, a pheasant and koi in the backyard koi pond The property was heavily wooded, with the keystone tree, teeming with birds, was the magnificent huge Coast Live Oak in the backyard Because of all the plants, the property was not in the least noisy even with so many animals and people —it was a joyful, happy, classical Claremont property Then came a property flipper and the nightmare for the neighborhood began — Abnormal construction noise, months on end, 7 days a week, and including holidays — This culminated in March 2021 with the almost complete clear-cutting/deforestation of the property, including multiple Claremont city trees (lawsuit happened after the Claremont community demanded the city council take action) and the magnificent Coast Live Oak and many other mature trees were cut down, with many birds' nests strewn on the ground —see my images of before and after deforesting that property Noise levels went up dramatically with all this plant life gone — Please, I ask that the commissioners read the 3 articles I have provided about the science behind noise levels, plants which absorb noise versus hard materials such as cement that reflect noise, before you make a decision. — The 3 are: "The Investigation of Noise Attenuation by Plants and the Corresponding Noise -Reducing Spectrum", 2010 "The Potential of Building Envelope Greening to Achieve Quietness", 2013 "Assessment of Spatial and Physical Neighborhood Characteristics That Influence Sound Quality and Herewith Well -Being and Health", 2017 The plants that suppressed noise for decades, all gone and replaced by materials that increase noise, including paving stones and the redwood deck (redwood is an appreciated wood for guitar soundboards). Now I don't know what exactly is in the current staff report because my blood pressure has recently become too high to risk reading it, but from what Chris Veirs told me on the phone, there is something in it about me and sound. However, the extreme amount of noise didn't affect just my health. From my appeal you should know that I was taken to the ER on May 5 of 2021. What you may not know is that on the same day, the son of a neighbor was also taken to the very same ER. There could have been 2 fatalities that day. His mother wrote on my Facebook timeline that day, "My son had another seizure today. I'm at the ER now. He has had one every month since the jackhammering started." She also later wrote me: "I'm really sick of the disruptions. It drives me nuts". "This constant noise unbearable for people with preexisting conditions. This house is taking too long and is a public nuisance." That is exactly what it is now, a public nuisance when it comes to noise. Since I filed my appeal the neighbors have made a big effort not to be noisy, but I am under no illusions that will last if this plan is approved —it will be back to the hellish level it was before my appeal. Last August my doctor sent me to physical therapy. However, because of all the noise coming from 692 W 12th Street the threshold for my migraines was lowered and I had to cancel most of my appointments. The city really needs to do some permanent noise mitigation For that property before any additional building is considered. The current garage demolition/rebuild.. Along the wall between the properties, on my property, those are All bedrooms and the master bathroom. The storage for that garage looks like a peeping tom mezzanine complete with 2nd story windows, on the south, whose view would be of my bedrooms and roof — In addition, the east end of this garage has 2nd story windows that Would also have a view of my bedrooms, roof, and my backyard as well would likely lose privacy. That kind of privacy invasion does not meet Claremont community standards. No one needs that ability for their garage, its outrageous. 1 walked Cambridge Avenue all the way from Foothill Blvd down to 8th Street — The proposed garage is taller than the main house—1 couldn't find a single garage taller than the main house on Cambridge. The east end of the garage significantly raises the garage roof —that is like adding a huge sound wall that will reflect even more noise. Back in the 1960s Cambridge was open to Foothill Blvd. People turning south from Foothill sped down Cambridge. A neighborhood child was almost killed. Neighbors complained about the lack of safety to the city. And the city walled off Cambridge Avenue at Foothill back then. In the last approximately 60 years, Cambridge has become a magnet for pedestrians. Especially seniors, people using walkers, bikes, or wheelchairs. The proposed garage, in my opinion, is being built to accommodate the new owners very big, tall truck. I think it is a recipe for disaster for Cambridge Avenue. A high truck, if it comes out of that Garage rapidly could easily miss slow moving low -profile seniors. In short, this garage doesn't fit the neighborhood. As to my health, at that May 5, 2021 ER visit, the doctor there said my blood pressure was out of control (it was previously stable). My doctor said I needed peace and quiet. The construction continued into 2022, so I did not get it. It is only because I have such an outstanding doctor that I am alive today. Since that visit I have had to take extra medication and have to be monitored with many doctor visits per year. It took from May 5, 2021 to the Spring of 2023 for my blood pressure to be out of the danger zone. Since I filed this appeal my blood pressure has steadily risen. It is again quite high. I have been getting nightmares about the prior construction —it was so horrible, and I was often completely helpless with migraines that left me unable to see or speak. The city did very little to protect either me or other neighbors during construction, and I am concerned if this project occurs, right next to my house, and my bedrooms, that I may not survive this time. Some of my neighbors are so concerned they are praying for me. The neighbor at 692 W 12th Street wants more storage and a bigger garage, I am fighting for my life. I ask you to deny these plans. 692 W. 12th Street, Claremont, CA 91711 Horne Noise & Health � Current issue .•1 i>;ir�rc►ntllh Ir�ccr-�li.+c•rj�liri:ln� Irrt�rlrrtinr�.�1 fuErm:rl t Instructions Submit article Noise Health. 2017 May -Jun; 19(88): 154-164. d oi: 10.4103/nah. NAH_53_16: 10.4103/nah. NAH_53_16 PMCID: PMC5501026 PMID: 28615546 Assessment of spatial and physical neighborhood characteristics that influence sound quality and herewith well-being and health Jeroen Devilee, Elise van Kempen, Wim Swart, Irene van Kamp, and Caroline Ameling Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands Address for correspondence: Jeroen Devilee, Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Tel: 0031 30 2748672, 00331 652838152; e-mail: j eroe n. devi lee@ r ivrn . n I Copyright: © 2017 Noise & Health This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non -commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. Abstract Environmental noise and health studies seldom address the positive effect of environments with high acoustic quality. Sound quality, in turn, is influenced by a large number of factors, including the spatial —physical characteristics of a neighborhood. In general, these characteristics cannot be retrieved from existing databases. In this article, we describe the design of an audit instrument and demonstrate its value for gathering information about these characteristics of neighborhoods. The audit instrument used was derived from research in other fields than environmental health. The instrument was tested in 33 neighborhoods in the Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Arnhem. In these neighborhoods, more or less homogeneous subareas were identified that were subject of the audit. The results show that the audit approach is suitable to gather neighborhood data that are relevant for the sound quality of neighborhoods. Together with survey data, they provide information that could further the field of soundscape and health. Several suggestions for improvement of the audit instrument were made. Keywords: Auditing, neighborhoods, noise, soundscapes INTRODUCTION In the last decades, the quality of life in many western countries has improved significantly. People live in better houses, the standard of living has increased, and people live longer in better health. The environmental conditions have improved as well: the air quality is much better, several soil pollutions have been cleaned up, and the surface water is much cleaner. 111 A remarkable exception is environmental noise. The annoyance and sleep disturbance caused by noise in western countries, as a result of predominantly road, rail, and air traffic, is still at the same level as several decades ago, and this has been shown to have a negative effect on health and well-being.[2,3] An important indicator of these effects, especially in urban areas, is the extent to which people are able to recover from environmental stressors such as noise exposure. In the recovering process, both sound levels and meanings of sounds play an important part. For the meaning of sound different taxonomies have been developed, but a very straightforward one differentiates simply between pleasant (wanted) and annoying (unwanted) sounds.[-' j However, as a result of sound (noise) by traffic, neighbors and mechanical devices in urban areas, the variation in sounds (wanted and unwanted) is diminishing. Norms for noise levels cannot prevent that urban areas get covered by a blanket of background noise that masks differences in the levels and the meanings of sound. Consequently, the impact of the use of norms for sound (noise) levels on the quality of life in urban areas is limited. Therefore, the attention in noise and health research has partly shifted from the effects of noise levels to the effects of sound quality. Sound quality refers to levels of sound as well as their meaning. Identifying and designing areas with a good sound quality is not an easy task due to the rather large number of factors that can have an influence on it. To get an idea of these relevant variables, at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment a literature review has been done[5] as part of the project "towards a sustainable sound environment" (TASTE). Key finding of this review was that areas with good sound quality are not only characterized by acoustic aspects, but also by aspects other than sounds. Kang et al. j L� J showed, for example, that the shape of an area affects its sound quality. Salomons et al. 17 j demonstrated that characteristics and interruption of facades of buildings have strong effects on propagation and reflection. Van Renterghem et al. 1 ,; I provide evidence that boundary materials (street surfaces, bricks, concrete, glazing, etc.) influence the reverberation and attenuation of sounds. Moreover, several studies [2, p 0,_ I 1 show that vegetation is capable to reduce sound levels by reflecting, refracting, scattering, and absorbing sound. In addition to the physical characteristics of a place, its visual features also are of importance of the sound quality of a place. A large number of studies[ 12,13,14,155,16,17 1 S,L9] have shown that vision and hearing are not independent, but reinforce each other in complex ways. The reviewl 51 showed that, although a significant amount of knowledge about the determinants of sound quality has been developed, a (validated) instrument that enables the measurement of sound quality in urban areas does not exist yet. Consequently, it is not possible to make a link between spending time in urban areas with good sound quality and its effects on human health and well-being. To fill this gap, in the TASTE project, a research design has been developed to study sound quality in urban areas. This design uses different methods and includes a survey to register the perceived sound quality of residents. Details about the design and the results of the survey will be reported elsewhere. To acquire data about the spatial —physical characteristics of neighborhoods a different approach was needed. Most of the attributes of neighborhoods as described above cannot be retrieved from databases or other information systems. Consequently, it was decided that an audit at neighborhood level was needed to gather these data. In an audit, trained research assistants enter an (urban) area and systematically register the spatial and physical characteristics in a form, laptop, tablet, or smartphone. In this way, information about neighborhoods can be collected that cannot be derived from secondary data or registrations. In this article, we describe the design and demonstrate the feasibility of an audit instrument that registers relevant spatial —physical neighborhood characteristics. For this purpose, a selection of the variables in the audit instrument will be made. DEsfGN OF THE ALuf)fT INSTRUMENT Although in the last decades, several audit tools have been developed, for example, to study sound characteristics of nature areas[ U,21,2,2 23 ] or to study spatial and physical traits of urban areas, [24 25,2C..27,28,29,3(}] they are not very common in the field of noise and health. In this type of research, neighborhood characteristics are usually derived from existing databases and registrations. The choice of indicators for the audit instrument presented here [Table 11, was partly based on an evaluation of the literature about these instruments, supplemented with indicators from existing tools. SAMPLING OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS The audit was tested in 33 neighborhoods in three Dutch cities (Arnhem, Amsterdam, and Rotterdam) that have very different characteristics [Table 2]. Of the three cities, Amsterdam has the most typical urban characteristics. It has the largest number of inhabitants, the largest population density, the highest level of criminality, and the relatively smallest surface area of forest and nature. Rotterdam takes a middle position, whereas Arnhem has clearly the least typical urban characteristics. In fact, the area taken by forest and nature in this city is larger than the built area. We included Arnhem in the sample as it may provide a vivid contrast with Rotterdam and Amsterdam. The neighborhoods included in the test were selected according to level of urbanization (variation in), yearly averaged noise levels (L den), morphology, and the date of construction. Moreover, we used socioeconomic status (at neighborhood level) as a selection criterion. Representatives of municipal health services in the three cities provided assistance in the selection process. In this way, relevant local information was taken into account. There is a large variety of neighborhoods in terms of the variables mentioned above. Figure I displays the scores of the neighborhoods in our study on these variables by using star plots. In these plots, a set of related variables is presented in a kind of pie chart, in which the radius of a piece of the pie is dependent upon the relative strength of a variable. In these plots, neighborhood characteristics are presented and ordered by the overall impression of an area (see the "Results" section for the construction of this last variable). By providing the plots for all neighborhoods in a particular city a compact description of relevant neighborhood characteristics can be given and a comparison between different neighborhoods can be made. The figure shows for instance that IJburg West is the youngest neighborhood in our study, in which the urbanity is very limited, the socioeconomic status is high and there is a large amount of blue and green. Moreover, there is no variation in noise levels (and background noise levels are low). As it was not feasible to audit entire neighborhoods, we decided to select to draw a purpose full sample of streets per neighborhood. To this end, we divided the neighborhood in more or less homogenous subareas. Decisions about the homogeneity of neighborhood parts were based on combinations of data in geographical information system (GIS). These data provided an overview of the building period of houses (in classes of 15 years), which is an important indicator in The Netherlands for the morphology of a neighborhood, spatial distribution of noise levels in L den (less than 50 dBA, between 50 and 65 dBA, and larger than 65 dBA) and an overview of logical subareas as a result of physical barriers like roads, railways, waterways, and other obstacles. Subsequently, we constructed a route of two to three streets that was assumed to be representative through each subarea. THE AUDITING PROCESS We instructed 12 research assistants (with a background in planology and/or architecture) to register the features of the selected neighborhoods in a systematic way (auditing). The research assistants were asked to walk the abovementioned predetermined route in the relatively homogeneous parts of neighborhood and to audit the elements they met. For this purpose, they received several small maps with directions that were generated by the GIS system, illustrated in Figure 2. In the lower part of the figure, an overview of the neighborhood is provided in which the numbers indicate the homogeneous areas. In the upper part, the predetermined route has been drawn. Moreover, the auditors received a detailed map of the municipality and a small notebook to register situations that had not been anticipated in the audit form. The auditors were allowed to contact the researchers by phone or e-mail to solve these unforeseen problems. In addition, auditors were asked to take five photographs during the walk and to include GPS-trackings. This provided the possibility to monitor the quality of the data and gave us some additional visual information about the neighborhoods audited. Two research assistants walked a route together, each recording his own impressions in the audit form. They were allowed to deliberate about scores, but a consensus was not required. The research assistants were recruited locally and each walked routes in one specific city only. Within the city, the routes were divided between assistants themselves. This means the pairs were mostly constant in formation. The resulting correlation structure in the data leads to limited options for the statistical analysis. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS To ensure good quality, double data entry according to a codebook was done by two research assistants who had not been involved in the auditing process. Data entry was followed by comparison and correction of errors. After data cleaning, a dataset with 216 observations was obtained. The first step in the analysis was to create, using SAS (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA), ordinal variables defined in terms of scales (e.g., of 1 to 5) to represent the different aspects or characteristics of a neighborhood. In a second step, correlations between these variables were calculated. The purpose of these correlational analyses was to examine the usefulness and validity of the scale constructs. For the same reasons, means, standard deviations and, when appropriate, frequencies of the ordinal variables have been examined. In a last step, we made star plots to present neighborhood characteristics. RESULTS The audits were done by the 12 research assistants in July 2013 [Table 3 j. It took them on average 25 min to perform one audit, which was done at office hours between 9.00 and 17.00 h. The number of homogeneous routes ranged between 2 and 10 routes in a neighborhood. There was a variety of the weather conditions, but, in general, the weather was pleasant. Most of the time it was sunny, dry, and the temperature was mild or warm. Intercoder Consistency To get an idea about the reliability of the instrument, the fraction of identical scores of auditor pairs on a predetermined route in a homogeneous subarea has been calculated and is shown in Figure 3. A plus symbol in the figure represents a pair of auditors that visited a neighborhood. For example, in the neighborhood zevenkamp, there are four auditor pairs of which the fraction of identical scores is between 90 and 100%. In general holds that the correspondence between auditor pairs is between 70 and 100%, which we interpret as an indication that the measurement instrument is generally reliable and that the scores obtained with it should be replicated in other, independent audits. Definition and Assessment of Summary Variables As the number of items in the audit is quite large, data reduction is needed to provide indicators to describe the neighborhoods. Consequently, we performed internal consistency analysis on the indicators in the audit instrument 1 1'able ].We were able to construct a summary index for economic activity based on four items observing the presence of shops, offices or companies, places to meet, and bars, pubs, and restaurants (3 points scale: 1 = absent, 2 = a few, and 3 = many). This resulted in an index with an internal consistency coefficient, or Cronbach's a, of 0.63.On average, the level of economic activity in the neighborhoods in our study is weak to moderate. The availability of places to meet is the item with the highest score. See the appendix for more characteristics of this scale and others that will be discussed below. A second index formed pertains to the availability of public facilities, including eight items on "availability of litter bins" and "availability of bicycle racks." This index has an internal consistency coefficient of 0.66. The facilities most often present according to the auditors were street lightning and litter bins. The presence of public facilities in the neighborhoods is moderate. A third index represents the "quality of urban environments." It consists of nine items related to "graffiti", "litter", "signs of vandalism", and has an internal consistency coefficient of 0.73.On average, the negative characteristics in our study neighborhoods are hardly visible to absent. The presence of elements with a strong positive influence scores moderately, whereas the presence of elements with a strong negative influence is weak. We also constructed an index for the availability of private green (three items: "number of gardens", "size of gardens", and "type of garden"), with an internal consistency coefficient of 0.86. As there are a significant number of buildings without a garden, the means in the scale analysis are not very indicative. Studying the frequencies shows that in approximately 35% of the homogeneous parts of neighborhoods, there are no gardens. In the remaining 65%, the categories "less than half of the buildings with gardens", "more than half of the buildings with gardens," and "all buildings with gardens" are evenly distributed. In the case of gardens, small and average sized front yards are the dominant type. In the gardens, mixtures between plants and hard surface are the predominant layout. "Predominantly plants, with partly hard surface" makes up 26%, whereas "predominantly hard surface with some plants" makes up 24% of the garden layouts in the homogeneous neighborhood parts. A fifth analysis was performed to construct an index for "public green and blue." This index included nine items like "trees in the area," "small parks," "ditches," and "canals," and had an internal consistency coefficient of 0.47. Although an a of 0.47 is considered too low to conclude on a sufficiently reliable index, there were no opportunities to improve this, and we temporarily allowed for using the sum score nevertheless. Another two indices have been created for the quality of private green (five items like `general impression," "maintenance," "tidyness," a = 0.74), a scale for quality of public blue (four items like "maintenance," "tidyness," a = 0.86). Statistics suggested that the consistency of the quality of private green could be improved significantly (to a = 0.87) by excluding the item about human litter. This suggestion has been taken by heart. Finally, a seven -item index for the overall perception of an area (items like "variety of streetscapes," "perception of safety," and "the area looked cared for"), with an internal consistency coefficient of 0.86 was constructed. Correlations between the Indices A check of validity and usability of the thus formed indices was done by looking at the correlations between them. A first look at the correlations ITable 51 shows that the quality of urban environments is negatively associated with the presence of economic activities (r = —0.45) and public facilities (r = —0.43), and positively associated with the presence (r = 0.36) and quality (r = 0.49) of especially private green. There is a strong correlation between the perceived quality of blue and that of green (r = 0.70). The overall impression of a neighborhood has the strongest correlations with the quality of urban environments (r = 0.63), the quality of green (r = 0.73), and the quality of blue (r = 0.54). This implies that a lack of negative urban traits like litter, graffiti, and others is related with a better overall impression of an area. Moreover, it is not the presence of green and blue alone that counts, for the correlations indicate that the quality of green and blue is a very important factor for neighborhood quality. As it is not possible to create an index for building characteristics, in a second analysis the correlations between audited neighborhood characteristics and features of buildings have been calculated. These correlations, shown in Table 6, reveal some obvious associations, such as the negative association between private green and height of buildings (r = —0.64) and the positive association between public facilities and height of buildings (r = 0.42). The positive relationship between cultural historic elements, historic character, and economic activity (r = 0.39 and 0.43, respectively) are also not unexpected. All correlations represent typical urban traits such as balconies rather than gardens; the presence of public facilities in urban areas and the fact that economic centers often have a long history. Correlations that are less evident are the association between the quality of urban environments and the variety of buildings. Apparently, there are fewer negative urban traits like presence of litter, dog excrements, and graffiti in neighborhoods with a richer architecture. The correlation of 0.62 between "overall perception" and "variety of buildings" shows that this aspect of urban environments has more or less the same impact as "quality of green," "quality of blue," and "quality of urban environments" [ Table 61 on the "overall perception." Star Plots Describing and Comparing Neighborhoods To describe and compare neighborhoods with the data obtained in the audit we use star plots again. In the star plots, the perceived neighborhood characteristics as displayed in Table 4 are presented. The plots have been made for each city that participated in the study and have been ordered by overall neighborhood impression. In Figure 4, the star plots for Rotterdam are presented. What the figure illustrates vividly (notice that the overall impression in the first three rows is more or less the same) is that the overall impression of the neighborhood is a result of different mixtures of green, blue, urban environments, public facilities, and economic activities. The worst overall neighborhood impression was obtained in the Bergpolder neighborhood and the best overall impression was scored in Kralingen-Oost. In Bergpolder, there is hardly any private green, the quality of the (public) green present is very poor, and there is a qualitatively very bad urban environment. However, the quality of blue in this neighborhood is quite good. Furthermore, there is some economic activity, and there are public facilities. For Kralingen-Oost, the neighborhood with the best overall impression, holds that public facilities, economic activities, green, and blue areas and a moderate positive urban environment are all present. Moreover, the quality of both the blue and the green areas is high. The results show vividly that the overall perception of urban areas is dependent upon a mix of perceived urban characteristics. This illustrates that nonnatural elements such as economic activity and the quality of urban environments are also important drivers behind the overall perception. In many studies of urban environments, the importance of the presence of green and blue is stressed. Our results do not dispute this, but show that a variety of functions in urban environments can result in good overall impressions. Remarkable is that the correlation with objective information from geographic information systems is limited. There are no significant correlations between the perceived overall quality of a neighborhood with objective noise indicators and with objective indicators for green and blue. There is a positive significant correlation, however, between the perceived overall quality of neighborhoods and neighborhood with a high -socioeconomic status (r = 0.55; sig 0.01)) and a significant negative correlation with neighborhoods that were built shortly after the Second World War (r = —0.50; sig 0.01). These associations make sense as the postwar neighborhoods (1945-1959) in The Netherlands are often of a dubious quality. Moreover, people with a higher income and education usually live in the best neighborhoods. DISCUSSION This paper describes the development and result of a neighborhood audit tool that can be used to measure physical characteristics of neighborhoods that are usually not registered in existing databases in GIS. In reality green and blue, as distinguished on a map, are often very different from what might be expected. The quality of blue and green cannot be evaluated by means of geographic information systems. Moreover, part of the audit data is not available in datasets. This holds for instance for building variety and the variable "quality of the urban environment." To audit homogeneous neighborhood parts, several decisions about the inclusion of neighborhoods and the identification of homogeneous neighborhood parts were needed. This process is not always very straightforward and sometimes required difficult decisions about classification. Nevertheless, we are convinced that it is necessary to use this kind of selective sampling techniques to audit neighborhood characteristics in studies investigating peoples' perception of the sound quality of their neighborhood. The alternative is to rely fully on average noise levels and other noise indicators in these studies. This ignores the interaction between auditive and visual perception. j J Moreover, soundwalks could be used to study the sound quality of single routes or places. The disadvantage of the last approach is that soundwalks have strong spatial and temporal restrictions. This does not mean that no improvements on our audit of urban areas are possible. For future studies, the use of an app to register the physical traits is a realistic option. As it is often difficult to recall noises, apps can be very valuable in this process. In our study, the perception of the sound quality was reported by local residents who were asked about the sound quality in a survey in the selected neighborhoods. Moreover, complementary to the audit of physical traits of urban areas, soundwalks on different parts of the day and on different days of a week may provide additional information about sound quality. For the soundwalks, more or less the same routes as those used in the audits can be used. The index on public green and blue was by far the weakest and is a point of concern. For future use, this index need improvement possibly by separating the items on blue and green area. Another improvement of the approach might be to assign auditors randomly to homogeneous neighborhood parts. In our approach, selection effects might have occurred; for example; if auditors agree to perform an audit of an area they like or are familiar with. Moreover, the approach can be improved by increasing the number of auditors of a homogeneous subarea. In our study, we used a minimum number of two auditors per homogeneous subarea. In an improved approach four to six auditors for such an area may be used. CONCLUSION The results above show that it is possible to use audits to gather neighborhood data to complement survey data in studies that aim to study sound quality in neighborhoods. These data are fundamentally different from data that can be retrieved from databases and registrations. The overall perception of urban areas is dependent upon the perceived quality of different components of urban areas, including public facilities and economic activities. There are several opportunities to improve the audit instrument. Nevertheless, this instrument is already very useful auditing the qualities of urban areas. Financial support and sponsorship Nil Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. APPENDIX SCALE ANALYSES REFERENCES I. OECD. OECD Better Life Index. Consulted at April 25, 2016 by http://%%, w.occdbet[criifeiridex.or=J 2. Weber M. Noise Policy: Sound Policy? Utrecht: Utrecht University; 2013. 3. Goines L, Hagler L. Noise pollution: a modem plague. South Med J. 2007;100:287-99. [PubMed: 17396733] 4. Brown AL. A review of progress in soundscapes and an approach to soundscape planning. Int JAcoust Vibe: 2012;17:73- 81. 5. van Kempen E, Devilee J, Swart W, van Kamp I. Characterizing urban areas with good sound quality: development of a research protocol. Noise Health. 2014;16:380-7. [PubMed: 253875341 6. Kang J. Sound propagation in interconnected urban streets: a parametric study. Environ Plami B. 2001;28:281-94. 7. Salomons EM, Polinder H, Lohman WJA, Zhou H, Borst HC, Miedema HME. Engineering modeling of traffic noise in shielded areas in cities. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126:2340-9. [PubMed: 198948171 8. van Renterghem T, Hornikx M, Forssen J, Botteldooren D. The potential of building envelope greening to achieve quietness. Build Environ. 2013;61:34-44. 9. Zhang M, Kang J. Towards the evaluation, description, and creation of soundscapes in urban open spaces. Environ Plann B. 2007;34:68-86. 10. Samara T, Tsitsoni T. Road traffic noise reduction by vegetation in the city ring road of a big city. In: Kungolos A, Aravossis K, Karagiannidis A, Samaras P, editors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Management, Engineering, Planning and Economics, Skiathos, June 24--28, 2007. 2007. pp. 2591-6. 11. Fan Y, Zhiyi B, Zhujun Z, Jiani L. The investigation of noise attenuation by plants and the corresponding noise -reducing spectrum. J Environ Health. 2010;72:8-15. [PubMed: 204200481 12. Ge J, Hokao K. Applying the methods of image evaluation and spatial analysis to study the sound environment of urban street areas. J Environ Psychol. 2005;25:455-66. 13. Ge J, Lu J, Morotomi K, Hokao K. Developing soundscapegraphy for the notation of urban soundscape: its concept, method, analysis and application. Acta Acust Acust. 2009;95:65-75. 14. Southworth M. The sonic environment of cities. Environ Behav 1969;1:49-70. 15. Canes JL, Bernaldez FG, De Lucio JV. Audiovisual interactions and the soundscape preferences. Landsc Res. 1992;17:52-6. 16. Tamura A. Effect of landscaping on the feeling of annoyance of a space. In: Schick A, Matte M, editors. Contributions to psychological acoustics: Results of the Seventh Oldenburg Symposium on Psychological Acoustics. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Information's system der Universiti t Oldenburg; 1997. pp. 135-61. 17. Rohrmann B, Bishop 1. Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 2002;22:319-31. 18. Pedersen E, Larsman P. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. J Environ Psychol. 2008;28:379-89. 19. Gidl6f-Gunnarsson A, Ohstr6m E. Attractive "quiet" courtyards: a potential modifier of urban residents' responses to road traffic noise? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7:3359-75. [PMCID: PMC29545501 [PubMed: 209489291 20. Blaauw K. Stiltebeleving in de Weerribben en de Wieden. Utrecht. [Perception of silence in the Weerribben and Wieden nature areas]. Net►verk van de 12 provinciale Milieufederaties en de Stichting Namur en Milieu. 2003. 21. Goossen CM, Langers F, De Vries S. Gelderse stilte? Onderzoek naar stiltebeleving van recreanten [Silence in the Gelderland region? A study on the perception of silence by recreating people] Wageningen: Alterra; 2001. 22. De Jong RG. Beoordelingsmethode stiltegebieden. Deelrapport belevingsonderzoek [Assessment method for quiet areas. Sub report perception study] Leiden: TNO Preventie en Gezondheid; 1998. 23.Oudelaar JL, van den Berg GP. Op zoek naar stilte. Indicatoren van stilte in stiltegebieden in Friesland [Looking for silence. Indicators for silence in quiet areas in Friesland region] Groningen: Natuurkundewinkel, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen; 2006. 24. Boarnet MG, Day K, Alfonzo M, Forsyth A, Oakes M. The Irvine -Minnesota inventory to measure built environments. Reliability tests. Am J Prev Med 2006;30:153-9. [PubMed: 16459214] 25. Caughy MO, O'Campo PJ, Patterson J. A brief observational measure for urban neighborhoods. Health Place. 2001;7:225-36. [PubMed: 114392571 26. Cunningham GO, Michael YL, Farquhar SA, Lapidus J. Developing a reliable senior walking environmental assessment tool. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29:215-7. [PubMed: 161688711 27. Day K, Boarnet M, Alfonzo M, Forsyth A. The Irvine -Minnesota inventory to measure built environments. Development. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:144--52, [PubMed: 16459213] 28. Michael YL, Keast EM, Chaudhury H, Day K, Mahmood A, Sarte AFI. Revising the senior walking environmental assessment tool. Prev Med. 2009;48:247-9. [PMCID: PMC50036011 [PubMed: 191360251 29. Pikora TJ, Bull FCL, Jamrozik K, Knuiman M, Giles -Corti B, Donovan RJ. Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity. Ain J Prev Med 2002;23:187-94. [PubMed: 12350451 ] 30. Weich S, Burton E, Blanchard M, Prince M, Sproston K, Erens B. Measuring the built environment: validity of a site survey instrument for use in urban settings. Health Place. 2001;7:283-92. [PubMed: 11682328] 31. CBS. Statline. 2011. Consulted at April, 25 2016 by http./Atatlineml . Figures and Tables Table 1 Summary of the audit instrument Name of audit component Indicators included I. General Name of auditors, name of city, date, weather conditions, time, positive, or negative elements in the neighborhood, remarkable issues II. Characteristics of buildings Type of roads, closedness of building blocks, predominant height of buildings, staggering facades, cultural historic elements, historic, or diversity in architecture III. Playing, meeting, and public facilities Shops, businesses, meeting places, catering, suitability for playing, suitability for social meetings, litter bins, benches, bus shelters, bike racks, mutual planters or letter boxes, and street lightning IV. Traffic safety Speed limits, traffic safety measures, car parking style, and presence of a car park V. Physical characteristics of green areas Number of visible gardens, size and style of these gardens, trees in the street, type of public green, and type of public blue (water) VI. pollution, rubbish, decay, and social Litter, rubbish, signs of alcohol or drug use, graffiti, broken glass, vandalism, insecurity and dog defecation VII. Perception Diversity of streetscapes, attractive furnishing of streets, area was properly looked after; during the audit I felt safe, I encountered several disrupting physical elements, the design of the area did not match its function, quality of green and blue areas, and overall impression of the area Table 2 Overview of city characteristics (source: CBS)�_I Total number of inhabitants Number of inhabitants in very dense urban areas (2500 addresses or more per km2) Number of inhabitants in dense urban areas (1500-2500 addresses per krn2) Number of inhabitants in moderate urban areas (1000-1500 addresses per km2) Number of inhabitants in weak urban areas (500-1000 addresses per km2) Number of inhabitants in no urban areas (less than 500 addresses per krn2) Yearly personal income Population density Registered criminality Traffic area Build area Partly build area Recreation area Agricultural area Forrest and nature area Figure 1 Rotterdam Arnhem Amsterdam 593,049 147,018 767,457 419,170 26,650 625,100 120,410 70,120 119,940 32,490 32,250 12,410 17,320 14,750 5690 3660 3250 4320 28,100 euro 28,300 euro 32,200 euro 2903 ih/km2 1501 ih/km2 4625 ih/km2 110.8 per 1000 112.1 per 1000 127.3 per 1000 ih ih ih 9.8% 6.2% 8.2% 53.5% 27.0% 47.5% 10.6% 4.1% 9.1% 11.2% 9.9% 15.3% 11.0% 16.6% 17.0% 4.0% 36.3% 2.8% Characteristics of neighborhoods in the study, ordered by overall perception Example of a GIS-map with route directions Overview of audit characteristics Characteristic Data collection period Time frame Average duration Number of neighborhoods Total number of homogene routes audited Number of homogeneous routes Weather conditions (multiple answers allowed) e Figure 3 Entry Between July 2 and 12, 2013 Evenly spread between 9.00 and 17.00 25 min 33 (11 in each city) 216 Range: 2-10 Sunny without clouds (33%) Sunny with clouds (33%) Clouds no sun (30%) Rain (6`fb) Thunderstorm (10%) Cold (10%) Cool (10%) Warm (33%) Mid (48%) Fraction of identical scores of auditor pairs per predetermined route in a neighborhood Table 4 Summary of characteristic for the eight scales on neighborhood conditions Scale N No of items Range of scores Mean score Cronbach's a Economic activity 212 4 4-12 6.35 0.61 Public facilities 207 9 9-18 11.28 0.66 Quality of urban environments 214 9 9-38 15.79 0.73 Private green 212 3 0-10 4.32 0.85 Public green and blue 211 9 9-32 14.58 0.47 Quality green 216 5 5-25 16.04 0.74 Quality blue 212 4 4-20 11.23 0.86 Overall perception 212 7 7-35 24.34 0.86 Table 5 Pearson correlations between audited neighborhood characteristics Economic activity (EA) Public facilities (PF) Quality of urban environments (QUE) Private green (PG) Public green and blue (PGB) Quality green (QG) Quality blue (QB) Overall perception (OP) EA PF QUE PG PGB QG QB OP i 0.34 -0.45 -0.24 -0.12 -0.39 -0.14 -0.27 1 -0.43 -0.27 0.21 0.13 0.27 0.05 1 0.36 0.29 0.49 0.29 0.63 1 0.32 -0.03 -0.28 0.12 1 0.40 0.31 0.22 1 0.70 0.73 1 0.54 1 Table 6 Pearson correlations between characteristics of neighborhood and buildings (both audited) Closed Height Facade variety Economic activity 0.16 0.37 Public facilities 0.34 0.42 Quality of urban -0.21 -0.26 environments Private green -0.28 -0.64 Public green and blue -0.32 -010 Quality green -0.07 0.00 Quality blue -0.06 0.31 Overall perception -0.03 0.12 -0.08 -0.36 0.32 Cultural historic Historic elements character 0.39 0.43 -0.01 0.05 0.01 -0.06 Variety of buildings (color, architecture) -0.10 -0.12 0.43 0.21 -0.05 -0.05 0.27 -0.08 -0.31 -0.17 0.11 0.06 -0.03 -0.12 0.31 -0,16 0.06 0.10 -0.07 0.25 0.11 0.05 0.62 Audited neighborhood characteristics in Rotterdam, ordered by overall impression 9 ScienceDirect' Building and Environment Volume 61, March 2013, Pages 34-44 The potential of building envelope greening to achieve quietness Timothy Van Renterghem a ° Em, Maarten Hornikx b, lens Forssen c, Dick Botteldooren a Show more v 4 Share 95 Cite https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.12.001 71 Get rights and content 71 Abstract Reduction of noise is one of the multiple benefits of building envelope greening measures. The potential of wall vegetation systems, green roofs, vegetated low screens at roof edges, and also combinations of such treatments, have been studied by means of combining 2D and 3D full -wave numerical methodologies. This study is concerned with road traffic noise prop_a ag tion towards the traffic -free sides of inner-city buildings (courtyards). Preserving quietness at such locations has been shown before to be beneficial for the health and well-being of citizens. The results in this study show that green roofs have the highest potential to enhance quietness in courtyards. Favourable combinations of roof shape and green roofs have been identified. Vegetated fagades are most efficient when applied to narrow city canyons with otherwise acoustically hard fagade materials. Greening of the upper storey's in the street and (full) fagades in the courtyard itself is most efficient to achieve noise reduction. Low -height roof screens were shown to be effective when multiple screens are placed, but only on conditions that their faces are absorbing. The combination of different greening measures results in a lower combined effect than when the separate effects would have been linearly added. The combination of green roofs or wall vegetation with roof screens seems most interesting. Highlights ► Full -wave numerical models were used to study many building envelope greening measures. ► Green roofs are most interesting to achieve noise reduction at quiet sides. ► Roof edge screens and fagade vegetation can lead to significant noise reductions too. ► Combinations of green walls or green roofs with roof edge screens are efficient. Introduction The use of vegetation has become an essential aspect in urban planning nowadays. In densely built-up city centers, building envelope greening is often the only possibility to meet this demand. These measures have many ecological advantages too, ranging from increasing the thermal insulation of the building envelope and reduction of urban heat island effects [11, [2], [3], [4]. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], acting as a buffer for storm water [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], improving air quality and increased carbon dioxide uptake [15], [16], [17], increasing urban biodiversity [18], [19], [20], [211, [22], providing a visually pleasant environment [23], to even crop harvesting. In addition, also from an economical point of view, building greening seems interesting [24], [25], [26], [27]. Recently, the noise reducing possibilities of such building envelope greening measures have been identified [28], [29], [30], [311, [32]. The presence of mainly acoustically rigid materials in cities (streets, bricks, concrete, glazings, etc.) leads to a strong amplification of the emitted sound from road traffic noise, and large sound pressure levels are observed in city canyons. The noise problem has indeed become one of the major environmental challenges in the urban environment. The WHO report "burden of disease by environmental noise" [33] quantified the many health -related effects by long-term exposure to environmental noise. The positive influence of quiet urban areas, as a possible mitigating measure, has been shown before [34], [35], [36] and has become part of European noise policy [37]. As a result, the sound environment in potentially quiet areas, like urban courtyards, has been studied in recent years [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Such courtyards are often shielded from direct exposure to road traffic noise, however, many of such places were found to exhibit noise levels that are too high to function as quiet areas, see e.g. references in [44]. Further reducing noise levels in urban courtyards is therefore needed such that citizens can fully benefit from access to quietness. Applying building envelope greening and at the same time tackling noise issues can therefore be considered as a highly sustainable goal. A question of main concern is what type of building envelope measure is most efficient in achieving noise abatement. In this numerical study, 3 types of measures are considered namely green roofs, green walls and vegetated low -height noise barriers positioned near roof edges. Such green measures further help to increase the visual attractiveness of urban areas, which was shown to be important as well based on noise -related surveys [45]. Low -height noise barriers were shown to be useful in road traffic noise applications at street level. This has been assessed by calculations with different numerical methods [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] and by scale modeling [46], [48]. These devices can be placed close to the driving lanes, thereby yielding significant road traffic noise reduction. For sound propagating towards enclosed urban courtyards, edges of (flat) roofs are considered to be an important zone given that diffraction is the main sound path. All sound paths propagating towards the non -directly exposed side of a building have to interact with these edges. Placing barriers, even with a limited height, could therefore be quite efficient, although the relative increase in building height is very limited. The noise reducing potential of green roofs has been identified before, by means of numerical simulations [28], [29], by in -situ measurements [31 ] and laboratory measurements [32]. The substrate, which is a highly porous medium, is thought to exert the main effect. Sound diffracting over green roofs is especially attenuated since it propagates nearly parallel to the roof surface, increasing significantly the absorption coefficient as compared to other angles of incidence [51 ]. The vegetation present on the green roof will mainly have an effect at higher frequencies [311, [32]. In case of canyon -to -canyon propagation, these high frequencies are in many cases sufficiently attenuated by the diffraction process itself, in contrast to low frequencies. As a result, the sound field in a shielded zone becomes typically low frequent [391. Although there can be a complex interaction between vegetation and the substrate itself [52], this aspect is not considered here. Roof geometry is an important aspect when dealing with the noise shielding of a building. It was shown in [53] that in case of an equal building volume, differences may amount up to 10 dBA, averaged over the courtyard fagades in an urban setting. Building top height was considered to be a bad predictor for the noise shielding in an urban context. In Ref. [29] it was further indicated that roof shape and the presence of a green roof could interact. This aspect has been worked out in detail in this study. In green wall systems, a growing substrate is placed in a confinement system at limited distance in front of the building fa4ade. To resist gravity and to relax constructional demands, green wall systems usually consist of highly porous and low -weight materials, making them interesting sound absorbers. In urban streets, there are typically many reflections in between opposite fagades. Upon each interaction with the green wall, part of the acoustical energy is absorbed. The strong amplification of noise by fagade reflections in urban streets could be significantly reduced by the presence of green wall systems. This amplification effect is most pronounced in case of small street widths [54], [55]. Calculations in Refs. [38] and [42] showed that applying facade absorption in the source canyon is especially interesting to achieve noise abatement in an adjacent canyon. In the street itself, there is still an important contribution of direct sound reaching a receiver, making in -street applications of green walls usually less effective. The focus in this study is on road traffic noise, which is the most important and widespread environmental noise source in the urban environment The noise reducing potential of green roofs, green walls, and low - height vegetated roof screens is numerically assessed for receivers at the shielded side of a building. This study looks at what type of building envelope greening measure is most efficient, and which combinations of such measures are useful. Section snippets Computational approaches Sound propagation between urban canyons is a complex problem, involving multiple reflections in between the fagades of both the source canyon (e.g. street) and receiving canyon (e.g. a courtyard), involving diffraction over (complexly shaped) buildings, and the development of diffuse sound fields. For accurate predictions, full -wave numerical methods are therefore needed. Current engineering models are not capable of sufficiently capturing geometrical details like fagade irregularities or to... Reference geometry As a case study (see Fig.1), two adjacent canyons with dimensions 19.2 m x 19.2 m (width x height) are considered, corresponding to six -storey buildings. The 3D configurations (Fig. lc) include cross -streets and fully enclosed roadside courtyards. The cross -street dimensions are 9.6 m x 19.2 m, while the courtyard dimensions are 19.2 m x 19.2 in x 19.2 m (width x depth x height). The computational cost is reduced by treating this case as being periodic in the y-direction, which creates a long street aligned with... Conclusions The potential of building envelope greening measures at residential urban areas is numerically studied. Focus is on road traffic noise propagation from a street to a nearby courtyard. The benefits of two full -wave numerical techniques, namely FDTD and PSTD, have been combined. The former has been used to study the proposed noise reduction measures in 2D (which is equivalent to elongated courtyards) and the latter has been used for extending the 2D results to the 3D configuration (confined... Discussion The cases defined in Fig. 2 assume that the dominant sound paths are those diffracting over the roof. However, in case of openings connecting the street and courtyard, such openings can become the main sound paths. As a result, the measures studied here would be much less effective. Applying absorption at courtyard openings was shown to be an effective measure [69]. Distant traffic has not been considered in this study. The only contributions come from the adjacent street canyon. Typically,... Acknowledgement The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (MJ2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 234306, collaborative project HOSANNA.... References (72) A. Niachou et al. Analysis of the green roof thermal properties and investigation of its energy performance Energy Build (2001) R. Kumar et al. Performance evaluation of green roof and shading for thermal protection of buildings Build Environ (2005) H. Takebayashi et al. Surface heat budget on green roof and high reflection roof for mitigation of urban heat island Build Environ (2007) E. Alexandri et al. Temperature decreases in an urban canyon due to green walls and green roofs in diverse climates Build Environ (2008) K. Perini et al. Vertical greening systems and the effect on air flow and temperature on the building envelope Build Environ (2011) G. P6rez et al. Green vertical systems for buildings as passive systems for energy savings Appl Energy (2011) I. JaffaI et al. A comprehensive study of the impact of green roofs on building energy performance Renew Energy (2012) R. Fioretti et al. Green roof energy and water related performance in the Mediterranean climate Build Environ (2010) E. Villarreal et al. Response of a Sedum green -roof to individual rain events Ecol Eng (2005) J. Mentens et al. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21 st century? Landsc Urban Plan (2006) ElView more references Cited by (140) Utilizing the green view index to improve the urban street greenery index system: A statistical study using road patterns and vegetation structures as entry points 2023, Landscape and Urban Planning Show abstract \/ Designing with nature: Advancing three-dimensional green spaces in architecture through frameworks for biophilic design and sustainability 2023, Frontiers of Architectural Research Show abstract %/ Green roofs as a nature -based solution for improving urban sustainability: Progress and perspectives 2023, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Show abstract \/ Simulation -based study on the role of green roof settings on energy demand reduction in seven Australian climate zones 2023, Energy and Buildings Show abstract 1%/ Bio-solar green roofs increase solar energy output: The sunny side of integrating sustainable technologies 2022, Building and Environment Show abstract �/ Characterisation of the acoustic impedance of vegetated roofs with a multiple -geometry approach 2022, Applied Acoustics Citation Excerpt : ...Vegetated roofs can absorb the diffracted sound waves passing over the vegetated roofs [22]. It has been shown that vegetated roofs promote quite courtyards better than vegetated walls [24]. Therefore, it is of high importance to investigate the acoustic benefits of vegetated roofs.... Study of Living Wall Systems' (LWSs) Support system for improving LWSs Life cycle performance and noise reduction potential Building and Environment, Volume 216, 2022, Article 109007 Show abstract \/ View full text Copyright© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Copyright g) 2023 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Show abstract \/ NView all citing articles on Scopus Recommended articles (6) Research article Genetic algorithm for building envelope calibration Applied Energy, Volume 168, 2016, pp. 691-705 Show abstract \/ Research article Reduction of surface transport noise by ground roughness Applied Acoustics, Volume 83, 2014, pp. 1-15 Show abstract ./ Research article More than just a Green Facade: The sound absorption properties of a vertical garden with and without plants Building and Environment, Volume 116, 2017, pp. 64-72 Show abstract %/ Research article Accounting for the effect of diffuse reflections and fittings within street canyons, on the sound propagation predicted by ray tracing codes Applied Acoustics, Volume 96, 2015, pp. 83-93 Show abstract \/ Research article A case study on controlling sound fields in a courtyard by landscape designs Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 123, 2014, pp. 10-20 Show abstract -%/ Research article The Investigation of Noise Attenuation by Plants and the Corresponding Noise -Reducing Spectrum Ab s L r a G t . noise pollution is becoming more and more scri- ous, man researchers are sttid"'ing the noise attenuation effect provided hN I plants. 'I his article exannnes six hinds of ciergreens as research subjects So as to compare the different arrangements and densities of plants and their effect on noise attenuation. The authors studied the relationship between each of the plans characteristics (the characicristics include leaf area, leaf r fresh Wcight, leaf tactility, and leaf Sh:ipe) and their average relative llllisc,, attenuation (AL; d. 'The authors then generated the noise -reducing spec- truun of the six planes. The results show that there is a notable difference in noise -reducing effects for low- frequency- and high frequency (p < .03) when the plants are arranged differently. Also, ever-- plant demonstrates a Spe- CifiC noi-Se-reducing spectrum, By- quantifying noise attenuation character- istics anti abilities of plants, the anchors combine noise attenuation species to achieve the rnutual benefits of plant varieties and establish an ecoty'pic sound bartier- model with effective density and arrangement Introduction People suffer from liaise pollution every day: As one of the four major pollutions in the world, noise pollution reduces the quality of the urban environment and human health. It has been estimated that about 80 million people (approximately- 20% of the popula- tion) in the European Union suffer from noise levels considered unacceptable (above 65 dB (decibelsl in so-called "black areas-), while an additional 170 million people are living, in "grey areas" exposed to noise levels between 55 and 65 dB (European Community, 1996). Findings from a large body of studies show that traffic noise causes non -auditory stress effects such as changes in the physiological systems (e-g.. elevates[ blood pressure). vari- ous cognitive deficits (e.g.. poor sustained attention, memory/concentration problems), sleep disturbances, psychosocial stress-rclaued symptoms, and einotional/motiyational ef- fects (e.g.. annoyance, learner] helpless- ness) (Babisch, Berle, Schust, Kersten, & using, 2005: B1uhm, Berglind, Nothing, Sr Rosenlund. 2007:Ohtsir6m, 2004). Because noise pollution affects so many populations, the research on noise control is plentiful. During the 1970s and 1980s, sev- eral studies showed that plants could attenu- ate noise pollution by reflecting. refracting, scattering, and absorbing sound. Aylor (1972) indicated that the foliage, stems, and soil can directly attenuate noise, and that the effect of a sound barrier of vegetation on sound propagating through it was highly frequency dependent: at frequencies below about 1 kHZ, the vegetation -,.,as almost transparent to noise {Bullen & Fricke. 1982; Kragh, 1981). It was conjectured that certain types of vegetation would be lacier at attenuating sound than Yang Fan Bao Zhiyi, PhD Zhu Zhujun, PhD Liu Jiani, MSc others, so, factors such as the source height. microphone height, placement of the sound source, the spectrum and duration of the source, the size and density of the trees used. and the atmospheric conditions of a region had to be controlled in order to make a valid comparison between different types of web elation (Fricke, 1984). Since the idea of sonic crystals was introduced at the end of the 20th century. the way that the arrangement and density of plants impacts noise attenuation was tasted Nvith ibis rising theory. Schotars discovered that a correlation existed between noise attenuation :and the biological factors of plants (arrangement, density, etc). Moreover. they found that the most effective Wily to create sonic crystals from trees to be used as noise -reducing devices was by planting in multiple periodic rows (Mari ine_ Salaa et al., 2006)• Furthermore, the visihiliLV tree height. belt width, and other abiolugic•al factors were important in achieving noise attenuation by foliage (Fang S Ling, 2003, 2005). All the conclusions above indicate that the research concerning the noise reduction function of foliage was focused on the noise reduction of the equivalent continuous sound level A (L �j, the reason for the different noise atten- uation at low and high frequencies, and the correlation between the foliage's biological factors and the capacity for noise reduction. Based on the findings given by previous researchers, we presumed that the species, leaf shape, leaf tactility, and other biologi- cal faictors may affects the foliage's ability to achieve noise attenuation. So we measured the noise -reducing spectrum of several plant species, compared the influences of different noise frequencies. and examined the char- acteristics of the foliage for noise reduction by creating a general ecoty-pic sound barrier made up of several plant species. Volume 72 • Number 8 1-ABLE 1 Characteristics of Six Hedges Used in the Experiment Species Length I Height ilrrowwood (in) 80 2.86 Width 2.80 Branch Height (M) 0.20 Noise Source and Receiver Height (in) 1.5 Location Zhejiang University campus ffiburnum odotat&imum) Oleander 94 3,20 3.20 0.25 1.5 Zhejiang University campus (Nenum indicum) Chinese Photinia 86 ! 2.60 2.55 0.25 1.5 "Viewing fish at flower (Photinia sermiafa) harbor" park Bamboo 1 73 4.20 3.00 0.20 1.5 'Viewing fish at flower (ftosfachyum lubmum) harbor" park Red Robin Photinia I 20 1.30 1AO 0.15 0,75 Sunshine Horticulture Nursery (Photinia lydseri) Deodar Cedar 20 1.20 0.80 0.30 0.75 Sunshine Horticulture Nursery (Cedrus deodara) Materials and Methods Apparatus and Materials The electro-signal of white noise was simu- lated by computer and translated by an AWA629OA multichannel noise and vibra- tion analyzer, and then inputed into a KMS- EV1010 loudspeaker as a noise source. Both data measurements and analysis use an A%VA6290A multichannel noise and vibra- tion analyzer. Six evergreen hedges were tested in this experiment: Red Robin Photinia (Photinia frascri), Chinese Photinia (Photinia Semi- lata), oleander (Ncrium indicant), bamboo (Oligoslachviini lubdaim), deodar cedar (Ccdnts deodara), and arrownvood (Vibum nrr odoraiissinnun). All of the plants are com- monly used in urban green spaces in the east- em part of China and some of them are wide- ly used in other parts of the world. For exam- ple, Red Robin Photinia and deodar cedar are commonly used in the U.S. This experiment was conducted in Zhejiang province, in the eastern part of China. All of the characteris- tics of the hedges are shown in fable 1. Experimental Design Foliage Arrangement and the Ability to Reduce Noise We. chose Red Robin Photinia (Phoiirria fra- scri) as a sample for broad-leaved plants and deodar cedar (Cedrtu deodara) for needlelike- or sc•alelike-leaved plants so that we might study the relationship between the arrange- ment of the foliage and their ability- to reduce noise (Fang & Ling, 2003. 2005; Martinez- Salaa et al-, 2006). The experiment was carried out at Sunshine Horticulture Nursen; which is lo- cated in Deging county, Zhejiang province. It was sunny and breezy: the atmospheric humidity was about 30`vk. The ground was covered with foundation fabric. Red Robin Photinia (Photinia frasevi) and deodar cedar (Ccch-as dcndara) were put into individual tubs and placed in abreast and crossing ar- rangements. The noise source was place([ 5 in in front of the hedges, while the noise receivers were placed directly in front and behind the hedges. `f he noise sources and re- ceivers were 0.75 in above the ground. The noise-rcdtu;ing spectrums and the L la levels of oro different arrangements were recorded. Then, the density was adjusted according to the two arrangements, so as to provide 112 shrub breadth distance, single shrub breadth distance. and doable shrub breadth distance (Figure 1). Each combination was tested five times in order to rectify the deviation in each test. Similar experiments were conducted on open ground in order to create a blank com- parison control group. The differences in the mean sound pressure level resulted from the application of plants with different foliage types while the control group represented the relative attenuation value. Characteristic of the Plants'Noise-Reducing Spectnan and the Correlation of the Biological Factors The weather conditions %were the samte as above. All of the ground covers for the chosen hedges were soil, lawn, or other soft materials. The noise source was placed 5 in in front of the hedges. the noise receivers were placed closely in front and behind the hedges, and the height of the noise source and receivers were both 1.5 in above the ground. 1 he noise -reducing spec- trum (1i3 octave frequency spectrum) and the L� levels were measured five times. Tests were also conducted at sites where there were no hedges, but had similar conditions (same ground cover and similar environmental con- ditions). The results were subtracted from the former attenuation values in order to obtain the relative attenuation caused by the foliage. At the &.line time, we collected 501eaves from each plant. and measured the average area (.A) and the fresh weight of the leaves MI. 1'he leaf tactility (1) was; calculated by AA V The length and width of each leaf were also mea- sured. The scale of the leaf shape (S) w•as rai- culated by using leaf lengthAeaf width. The deodar cedar (Ccdnts deodarn) and Red Robin Photinia ;Photinia frasen) were planted in individual tubs. They were each around 1 in high. which was about half the height of the other four hedges. "therefore, we dropped the height of the noise source and receivers pro rata for the two hedges fused on the ratio of their height to the other hedges. The width of the six April 2010 • Joomal of Environmental Health FIGURE 1 Diagram of Experiment Design >20m Receiver 1 0 ❑ ❑ 0 "1 10 0 o< 3 sM • • Receiver 0 Noise source Q Q a=0.35m Abreast �Q Q Q 0.70m Q Q Q 1.40m �—i b=1.00m Q Q a=0.35m ZQ Q O 0.70m Crossing Q Q Q 1.40m i—a� b=1.00m Noise source Receiver 0 Receiver 1 0Ln 0 V V 3 TNT13 i 5m 2m hedges chosen in this experiment was between 0.8 and 3.2 m, all falling into the "noise shadow zone_" the noise -reducing ability of the foliage was in a linear correlation with hedge width (Fang & Ling. 2005). We used noise average relative attenuation (A -,_,) (Equation 1) m the pritnan� guideline to compare the ability of the hedges to reduce noise. "fhe similar heights of hedges were selected, and the experiment mcxl- el was logically designed to minimize the vari- ance caused by the height or width diflerences of the hedges. Then the relationship among the noise attenuation capacity of the six hedges, in- cluding leaf area (A), leaf weight M). leaf tac- tility (T), and leaf shape (5), was analyzed with statistical analysisswem (SAS) software. L,...rP—L— L. where is the equivalent continuous A - weighted sound pressure level in front of the 10 Volume 72 • Number 8 hedges: AL;:�, is the equivalent continuous a -weighted sound pressure level behind the hedges: L is the equivalent continuous _',-weighted sound pressure level of distance noise attenu- ation; and L1' is the width of the hedges. Results and Analysis Correlation Between the Density, Arrant irtcnt, and ALA V Table the results of carried out by different arrangements and densities. The diversity of arrangement and density showed significant difference in �L (Table 3). The crossing arrangement functioned better than abreast among cnt on _lf_, for both cico- dar cedar (Calms; deodwo) anal h'cd Robin Phounia (Photinia frascri). The density was positively correlated with relative attenuation, regardless of the shape of the plants leaves. Arrangements' Significant Effects on the Different Frequency Segments of Noise The third octave spectrogram of 20 Hz to 16LIL1 Hz was achieved by the test. The result shows that the noise attenuation of diverse frequen- cies was significantly diverse for the two ar- rangements, just taking the density of 1/2 shrub breadth distance as an example (Figure 2a, 2b). The frequency spectrum was classified into a low Frequency segment (20 Hz-160 Hz), it middle frequency segment (200 H7-1600 Hz). and a high frequency segment (20t)0 Hz-16000 Hz). The total sound pressure level of each frequency segment (L) is defined as L 101g where n is the number of third octave cen- ter frequencies in each segment and L,,, is the sound pressure level of each of the center fre- quencies Mang & Zhai. 2001). There is no TABLE 2 :ofDeodar The A Result Cedar and Red Robin Photinia irp Density Arrangement Red Robin Photinia Deodar Cedar d: d: 112 Shrub breadth distance Crossing 4.91 2.28 1/2 Shrub breadth distance Abreast 4.55 0.93 0.23 Single shrub breadth distance Crossing 2.91 Single shrub breadth distance Abreast 1.89 -0.33 Double shrub breadth distance Crossing 0.33 -1.11 -1,00 -0,78 Double shrub breadth distance Abreast TABLE 3 The ANOVA for Two -Way Factorial of Deodar Cedar's and Red Robin Photinia's I -A rn Red Robin f Arrangement Photinia° I DMsiiy Arrangement" density Error Corrected total 1 6,61 2 131.38 2 1.48 24 0.21 29 139.66 Deodar Cedar, I Arrangement 1 0.88 Density 2 1 32.04 Arrangement` density 2 4.56 Error 24 0.63 Corrected total 29 1 38.10 P Red Robin Photinia: RI = 0.99. " Deodar Cedar. R' = 0.98. significant difference in noise attenuation of the middle frequency segment between the two arrangements (p = .9009), which may be determined by applying AL.r' as an indepen- dent variable, which is defined as where nt = 5, L,O' is the total sound pressure level of each frequency segment in front of the hedges. L,,)' is the total sound pressure level of each frequency segment behind the hedges, and 6.61 759.13 c0001 65.69 7545.95 <.0001 0.74 84.79 <.0001 0.01 0.876 33.29 .0001 16.02 609.05 <.0001 2.28 86.75 <.0001 0.03 L,' is the total sound pressure level of each frequency segment caused by distance. The difference in noise frequency seg- ment attenuation indicates that the crossing arrangement is more effective in reducing noise than the abreast arrangement. We as- sume that this is mainly caused by the physi- cal laws related to the spread of sound waves. There are significant differences in the noise attenuation of high and low frequency seg- ments. When the noise waves spread through the hedges, a tower frequency resulted in a more obvious diffraction, which resulted in lower noise attenuation values abreast ar- rangement than the crossing arrangement. The sound waves diffused through ;air and foliage, while the energy of the sound wives caused the molecules of foliage to resonate. The higher the frequency, the more intense- ly resonating would occur. Therefore, more energy losses result in it higher noise at- tenuation a;tlue. The noise presumably has to suffer more resonance in the crossing ar- rangement than in the abreast arrangement, resulting in different noise attenuation values of high -frequency segments. The Plants' Noise -Reducing Spectrtun The experiment indicates that there are significant differences in � (Table 4) and the noise-rcclneing spectrum for the six hedges (Figure 3). The peak value fre- quencies of noise -reducing ability are deter- mined by the foliage species. liven if there were several hedges with partial same peak value frequencies, the degrees of noise -re- ducing ability were different. For example, the peaks for Chinese Photinia (Photinia serrulata) occur at the frequencies of 80 Hz. 160 Hz, 400 Hz. 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and so on; and there are peaks at 250 Hz and 800 Hz for bamboo (Oligosttic ltyurn hibncum); 1000 Hz is one of the peak values for ar- romwood (Viburnum odorcaiissim nt). olean- der (Nerimn indicum) and Chinese Photinia (Photinia serndatv); but the degrees of noise -reducing ability of these plants are dif- ferent. Therefore, it is unscientific to ignore the differences among the different plants, while considering the plants independent noise -reducing materials. In other words, every species has its own noise attenuation spectrum according to the. frequencies. By analyzing the noise -reducing spectrum of six hedges, we find that there are some com- monalities in the noise -reducing spectrum of the five evergreen. broad-leaved hedges ex- cept for deodar cedar (Cednas deodara). The noise attenuations of low frequency caused by the five plants are not significant. The standard deviations are large and the curves are not clearly separate, so the diversity is not significant among the five hedges. The noise attenuations of middle frequency fluc- tuated considerably. I hat is, fluctuations in peak -valley measurements were apparent so when the standard deviations decreased by degrees the curves started to separate. The noise attenuations increased significantly in the high frequency segment, anti as the stan- dard deviations decreased. the curves notice - April 2070 • Joumal of Environmental Health 11 FIGURE 2 The Noise -Reducing Spectrum of (a) Red Robin Photinia and (b) Deodar Cedar (a) 25 (b) a -15 pp oo pp ppp pp o pp LLo pp S 8 p S ppp pp C] oq M N N M V W t0 m ' fffDDD J Noise Frequency (Hz) 1400 1200 7 D.00 8.00 n - 600 x 2.00 0.00 -2.00i/ .400 x 3 -5.00 oo pp qp pa J op pp fp1 pp p p 8 ppp pS pQ ppN pQpQpQO Noise Frequency (Hz) In (a), blue represents Red Robin Photinia crossing arrangement; pods represents Red Robin Photinia abreast arrangement. In (b), blue represents Deodar Cedar crossing amrgement; pink represents Deodar Cedar abreast arrangement The densities were both V2 shrub breadth distance. 12 Volume 72 • Number 8 BLE 4 7Th e Characteristics of Six Foliages and theSpecies .,�r Leaf Area, (cm�j 25.31 (±3,06) Leaf Weight' (g) 12.02 (±2.71) Leaf Tactility' 0.47 (±0.05) Leaf ,. 2.69 (±0.40) 3.91 (±0.03) LArrow_waad Red Robin Photinia 17.83 (,t2 08) 7.68 (±1.73) 0.43 (±0.06) 2,26 (±0.23) 3.80 {�O.OB) Chinese Photinta 16.83 (±1.05) 6.38 (±0.72) 0.38 (±0.03) 2.57 (Y0,22) 3.39 ( 0.04) Oleander 10.34 (±1,09) 6.60 (±0.82) 0.64 (y0.02) 5.84 (-±0,27) 1.50 t±0,14) Bamboo 14.33 (±1.56) 2.84 (±O.M f 0.20 (s0.04) 11.78 (±0.53) 0.66 ftO.031 Deodar Cedar 3.77 (±0.38) 0.10(±-0.01) 0.03 (*0.01) 35.85 (±3,45) -0.44 Leaf area and leaf weight were the average area and weight of 50 leaves. Leaf tactility: leaf weight9eaf area Leaf shape: leaf length/leaf vridth. ably separated. All in all, the results indicate that plants with different morphological and physiological characteristics (evergreen. broad-leaved plants) have different effects in reducing noise, especially the noise on the middle and high frequency segments. The noise -reducing capability of the plorits is asulcimed with leaf shape. The noise attenu- ation value for plants with long and narnlvv leaves, such as oleander (Vcriurn indiceun) and bamboo (Oligoslach.Yton hubricion) are lower than the plants with ovate or elliptic types of leaves such as arrowwood (b'ibantiuu Moratis- simum) and Chinese Photinia (Photinia sc•nu- latct). The particular noise-rccluc•ing spectrum for deodar cedar (Cednis deodurd), which is the only conifer of the six hedges, shows that the morphological and physiological character- istics of plants remarkably affect the noise at- lenUatlUll. Consequently' we preSlllne that the noise -reducing ability is closely related to the leaf shape. leaf tactility: and other morphologi- cal and physiological characteristics. And the findings mentioned above imply than the spe- cies diversity of the noise -reducing spectrum may be a potential factor that can buffer against certain frequencies. For example. the deodar cedar would be good at attenuating noises cre- ated by traffic, which is mainly made up of mid- dle and low frequencies, because of its effective loin -frequency- noise -reducing spectrum. Multiple Regression Model of ALAX 1 he model was cstablislted by using Icaf v%riight, tactilit%, and shape as independent variables. an([ XL,,, as a dependent variable (in this model p < .001). Leaf area is ignored in this model since when it is involved is an independent variable this model is not statistically significant (h= .1128).'rhe model is defined as ,IL q, = 2.705 + 0.2661.V - 3.3371 - 0.091S (4) where lV is the Icaf weight. T is the leaf tactility, and S is lean shape. the leaf shape and leaf tactility are nega- tively correlated. while leal weight is posi- tively conTel,11M with the average relative at- tenuation. It indicates that leaves that have a long and narrow shape: (a larger length and width ratio) have a smaller area for acous- tic reflection car acoustic refraction than the ovate or elliptic shaped leaves. Hence they have a smatter noise attenuation Value. The thick Icaaves are always narrow and long or spread, so the plants can centralize their biomass, and the visibility of the hedge is also large. As a result, the noise a(LenuaLiotl is lower (Fang & Ling. 2003). I'he leaf tac- ti MCS of arrouwvood (Viburnum odoratissi- mum), Red Robin Photinia (Photinia (roseri). and Chinese Photinia (Photinia serrulaw) are positively correlated to their average rel- ative attenuation values. 'Phis indicates that when leaf shape remains unchanged, the leaf weight may affect the noise attenuation val- ue much more than leaf tactility. The higher the leaf tactility is. the more the leaf weighs, the larger the biomass of the plant, and the more energy the plant will lose when the sound wave spreads through the hedge. As a result, file noise attenuations are signifi- cantly increased. Discussion Plants reduce noise through reflection, refrac- tion, absorption, interference, and diffraction - Special arrangement can significantly increase the noise attenuations for certain frequencies. The results show that compared to abreast arrangements. [lie crossing arrangement has more significant effect towards reducing noise for middle and high frequencies. The reason for this phenomenon can be referral to the rule of souncl interference and diffraction. The phenomenon also agrees with Alartincz Salaa and co-authors (2006), 1hLy demonstrated that some periodic tree configurations work like sonic crystals, and that the existence of at- tenuation peaks and their position within cer- tain frequencies seem to bean exclusive func- tion of the parameters that govern the behav- ior of sonic crystals and arc not related to oth- cr factors such as the type of land. foliage, etc. The asult of our experiment, however, shows that the attenuation peak frequencies closeh correlate with the plant species. The different arrangements determine the degree of noise at- tenuation. For example, the two arrangements of Red Robin Photinia (Photinia rased) both result in attenuation peaks at 2000 Hz. but the attenuation value of the crossing arrangement is higher than the abreast arrangement. Density, height, length, and width of the green sound barriers are the most important factors to consider in reducing noise (Cook s Hanerbeke, 1974). Shrubs are most effective April 2010 0 Journal of Environmental Health 13 FIGURE 3 The Noise -Reducing Spectrum of Six Hedges 8-00 7 oo �--Arrowwood (Vibumum odoratissimum) 3 6.00 .- Oleander (Nerium indicum) m 5.00 0 i � 4.00 � 3.00 Q � 2.06 t_Lc 1.00 f -A cc 0.00 -1.00 0> Q -2.00 pO p p pp p QQ p p pp pp p pp N N r V` N fmU m r� ' m C O O c0] O O O O 800 O O f�f �O Op O 00 N t0 Noise Frequency (Hz) 14.00 Red Robin Pholinia (Pholinia fraseri) E 12.00 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) m10.00 w s v !, Mr, .. c 8.00 0 6.00 j � 4.00 _ 2.00 L jr w o(M I - t m .2.00 > -0(G)0 x T -6.00 o �n �n o o � o o � o 0 o in o pop 0 0 p0 0 0 pp0 �0l01 0 0 pp0 0 0 ppo a po N Noise Frequency (Hz) 8.00 E 7.00 -(Chinese Pholinia (PhoUnia serrulata) aZ - Bamboo (Oligoslachyum lubricum) 6,00 5.00 0 ca 4.00 It y]aIYJ z Q 3.00 > 2.00 1.00 k� 1-4,; m I - r,.. o-oo - _ Q> -1.a0 -z.00 M O O N O t0 op p p p ppp p p N N m C 10 M m O N Noise Frequency (Hz) 14 Volume 72 • Number 8 in reducing noise due to their ability to scat- ter noise its a result of their dense foliage and branches (Fang ter Ling, 2003). Aylor (1972) pointed out that foliage reduces sound trans- mission subs antialty especially at the higher frequencies where scattering is enhanced. The effectiveness of the foliage increases with the increase of leaf width and leaf weight, which is proven by the multiple regression model of av- erage relative attenuation in our study: The re- sult shows that the noise -reducing spectrums of different plants are significantly- different. The noose attenuations caused by hedges are mating, due to the foliage, stems, leaf shape. leaf tactil- ity; and other biolo ncal factors. For the foliages with diverse morphological and physiologi- cal characteristics, the sound wave is a kind of multiple energy wave: the attenuation of sound waves mainly depends on the species. Our study makes an additional contribution to the research on noise. and licllth and the influence of natural environments by showing that the noise attenuation of green sound barriers can lic enhanced by assembling diverse plants whose noise -reducing spectrums are complementary. Since those factors are determined by the spe- cies, it is important to consider the multiple re- gression model, which considers leaf character- istics such as shape. weight, and tactility to es- tablish the noise attenuation comparisons base(] on the type of foliage use. This is just it prelimi- nary study on the noise-rechacing spectrum of plans, hoyveyer. Scime IitnitatiOiiS in our study References need to be acknowledged. First. the number of species of plants used in the research is rela- tively small. especially regairding the conifer- ous ape of hedges. the impact of leaf shape on the noise -reducing spectrum needs to be veri- fied by other conifers after the characteristic of low -frequency reduction demonstrated by the deodar cedar (Cednis deodtiva) was discovered. Second, further research needs to examine the combination of diverse plants, such as a green sound barrier made up of a row of Red Robin Photnca arranged in front of it row of decdar cedar. Thus, well -designed longitudinal studies can offer valuable knowledge of potential cause- cffcct relationships and health benefits of green sound barriers in noise -polluted environments. Conclusion The ultimate goal of this research is to design due most effective ecotypic sound barrier with Plant,:,. By reviewing previous studies, and through our own research. some general SLIg- gestions of designing ecotypic sound harrier are. concluded. (1) Choose the plaints with a noise - reducing spectrum similar to the environmen- tal noise spectrum, or combine. several plants in order to achieve the most effective noise at- tenuation. Deodar cedar (Cednis deodura), for example, reduces low frequency noise more effectivel° than the other five plants studied, even though its XL—. is negative. It is lvyisibiv to combine deodar Cedar (Cednis detklara) ►With other plains in order to take advautages of en- Aylor, D. (1972) Noi-ic reduction by vegelation anti ground. The JoninaleftlicAconsticalSotict1,0f.lnte'rjtti.51(1B), 107-205- Babisch, W, Bc•ule, B.. Schusi, M., Kersten, iN , & king. H. (2005). frlffic noise and risk of myocardial infarction. Fpirlenniolo4ry. 16(1 )_ 33-40. Blulim. G. Berglind. _N., Nordling, E., S Rosenlund. NL f 2007). Road traffic noise an(] hypertension. Octttpalional & Environmental .]Medicine. 04(2). 122-126. Builen. R., & Fricke. F (19821. -sound propagation through vegeta- tion. Joiti)ual of Sound and Vibration, 800). 11-23, Cook, W., 6z Fiaverhlke, D.F.V. (1974). laces and shiabs Jai noise alkitcnunt (Bulletin R8246). Lincoln: University of Nebraska College of Agricuhkite Experiment Station. European CommIIunitt. (1996). Commission greelr paper nn filturt• noisy phis%. Retrieved August 16, 2007, from htrp://cc.curopa.cu/ enviroil meit l/noise/greenpap.h tin Fang, C E, n 15ng. D.l_. 1'2()03). Investigation of the noise reduction pro- vided by tree belts. I and_gfx- raid Udmn Planning, 63(4), 187-195. yiroument noise control properties. fhe bio- logical factors of the plants such as leaf shape, leaf weight, and leaf tactility directly affect the noise attenuation value, including S,,, and the frequencies. Each plant has its own noise - reducing Spectrum. Noise attenuation will be improved by combining plants with recipro- cal noise -reducing SpeC111.1111S. (2) Use crossing arrtng,ements to reduce low -frequency- noise. This arrangement is much more effective than the abreast arrangement. The attenuation peal; are determined by the species, while the ar- rangements determine the attenuation degrees. (3) Fulfill the basal demand for the length, width and height of hedges. The lnedgeroW is effective in noise recluction when it is high and rsdde if the distance between die noise source and receiver is less than eight times the tree height ( Fang & Ling, 2005). 40 Adrnowledbemeots: the authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their sug- gestions and remarks concerning the manu- script, and express deep gratitude to Nlr. Ti "Zhu for his embellishment and Mr. Weigiang Li and Mr. Zizheng Hu for their exceptional support of this research. CoIYYsi)ontling Author: Zlnvi Bao, Professor, Vice Dean of the School of Landscape Are'hiieeture. -Zhejiang Forestry l:niversity. North Huanclieng Road 88, Linan, Hang -hose, China. E-mail: bao9992W�188.com. Fang, (.F. & Ling, D L (2005). Guidance for none reduction pro- vided by tree belts. Lamis(ape and 1 rban Planning. 71(1), 29-34. Fricke. F. (.1984), Sound attenuation in forest Joumul of Sound told Vibration. 92(1), 149-138. Kragh, J. (1981). Road traffic noise attenuation by belts of trees. Journal o/ Sound and Vibi-atum. 74(2), 237--241 Martinez-Salaa, R , Rubio. C., Garc•ia-Raf1i. L.M.. Sanchez Pere_. J.V., Sanchez -Perez. F.A.. & Unriares, 1. (2006) Control of noise by trees arranged like Sonic cn•stals. Journal of Sound and Vibiatioll, 29111-2), 100-100. Ohrstrom, F. ;'2004). Longitudinal surveys on effects of changes in road traffic noise annoyance, activity disturbances, and psycho - social well being The Journal of rite Alenslie(1l Socit'ly of 'line17ri1, 115(2), 719-729. Z_hang. BJ., & Zhai, GQ (2001) The rrscarcli of enriionmental iinise. Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University Press April 2010 0 Journal of Environmental Health 15 it - - - E ���JI ,ry`1z o�'i i o` APPEAL OF DECISIONS ro CITY OF CLAREMONT MAY 15 2023 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a 13 207 HARVARD AVENUE, P. O. BOX 880 CITY CLERK U p CLAREMONT, CA 91711-0880 CITY OF CLAREMONT 18 7 - (909) 399-5470 APPELLANT INFORMATION Name of Appellant: %Vl2 i sSct pc" l Address: 1230 N Ca w+br- dQ-e- A.v-e.ntie, C I0-req l -71 1 Phone Number. q 0 q — 45D — q r3 8 r7 Date: 5-I14173 APPEAL INFORMATION Ljg2 W., 12�lst�, Application Number: Appeal of- [� Staff Decision 1 Planning Commission Decision Date: U �a ��� 9 Q Architectural Commission Please describe the specific decision being appealed and state the reasons for this appeal. Appeals shall set forth alleged inconsistency or non -conformity with procedures or criteria set forth in City codes. If additional sheets are necessary, please attach them to this form. R o f 4t f r,-ova,i -,Ca,-- Ick A+ 6 q Z, W },Ztl `3tf�e i. T►� i 5 �'�r#+'o�,lc� st�u y+��ra�r 6k"",tO1 b-t Collbrde, ��r�i r /A!, `e�}I hs1io� 6-P ro�,-f#,uuc.4inn / Wfiery1Zc� aepru.Sri. an T'� 5etinrtiA_orBioe+ ioL �2-07!..!_}k+Gk 7'o4� .(f4 C✓LGszQP.� �l h-Ov,lc,,Iiv av 4o l q (o0 s l lvl e. -r' ratrct vim_r<ti a,: s no �d �' ✓ �i I�`1 k11�.�'1 I�'Pi! � D CJ��-. fifi �' C.a u�S i�a.G�ia h �'tLVo� w s rea�-Fen,ti�, G vf+ti ufi�1 a� f�JLw� r^.01 S-e- a✓l� i �'"i [.a.n�- ci, r n �. � sw Tfy i1�1 �.v^rn�Y3•e+c'� is�S w T }nG1r i i✓1 f5.rrf5c- j fir Y4-6 ry 4a i �s r i7� e f } rt l� �5S Of r i1r0.L 1 r-T re rQ W i 5 Utz `IYG Y)v t vv I. 5 FCC I+ yA c rll eu Se in 6 I- �� 4o�� rr Ahp-►) conffrtt. i0 r)An," mdv-Q Stu ti7 ro! i er Ww rM1 e�17s 6_1'A'V\T0_ 1 ^ j n �Ju�c CC' c 7br()DO I 1 E35L Cwvrrti Gu lit G L G.Y21MD 2tin L Ph-n rinG�" i Y 1 1` 1 f 2oV COr I rw t rdle c. or,&v i See_ 12 (. w,-el vs) ct ash s e•et� ,(� Appellants Signature pts. V FEES Project Applicant - In Accordance with our Fee Schedule $ Q � XQ Non -Applicant - In Accordance with our Fee Schedule $ Received By: t long f C-driny Date: � � I � I z 3 Fixed Fee: _0 Hourly Deposit: 11 I am appealing the city staff decision to approve garage demolition and rebuild of a new one at 692 W 12th Street because I have reached past my level of tolerance to the life -threatening extreme construction noise practices already used there, 2020 onward. In May of 2021 after months of horrendous construction noise from a combination of jackhammering, rock grinding, pile driving, and even a flamethrower on the roof in addition to normal construction noise and often 7 days a week, my blood pressure reached dangerous levels. Urgent care called the paramedics and an ambulance, and I was taken to the ER. I thought I was going to die that day. That was when I decided enough is enough. I could not be out in my garden, and gardening, especially with CA natives, is one of my hobbies, as is rose breeding, and birdwatching. I could not spend time outside with my dog who had terminal illnesses —time with her which I will never get back. She died in 2022. It is only in the last month that my blood pressure has gone into the normal range —not quite normal for me yet, but much improved. It has taken some time. Additional high levels of noise from the same property could be hazardous to my health. During this 2020+ construction, which happened during a pandemic, it wasn't just me affected, multiple neighbors left town, others who normally worked from home no longer could, it was that bad. I was unable to leave, for medical reasons, and continued to suffer. People in war zones, and that is what this felt like, die from prolonged high levels of noise. Extreme noise is sometimes considered torture. The California Health and Safety Code, Sec 46000 should be applied to the proposed project. Especially a, b, c, and f. F reads, "All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare." Surely the Claremont Municipal Code Chapter 16.300 also applies in this situation. The invasion of privacy on a permanent basis from a now very noisy property, and a proposed even noisier one. The incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The unsustainability of heightened noise levels amplified into my yard which has a National Wildlife Federation Certified Wildlife Habitat. The Certified Wildlife Habitat is something the City of Claremont encourages in its Sustainable City Plan. My yard is visited by more than 60 species of birds which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CA wild bird protection laws. In addition, my yard currently has more than 85 species of California native plants, most of which are from the California Botanic Garden (formerly Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden). Multiple of those plants are in the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. These plants provide food and shelter for birds. Nesting habitat. One of my all time favorite birds is the Spotted Towhee. It is a very shy bird yet it has nested in my garden for decades. The construction put a stop to that. The Spotted Towhee has begun returning to my garden, but has not nested again. Will it ever? Will more construction harass it away again. Will permanent amplified noise coming from the back of 692 W 12th from the new project see it and other species avoid the area? The California Towhee managed to raise one chick, from one brood last year, the first since the 2020 construction. It normally raises 2 or 3 broods each with 2 or 3 chicks. But prime nesting area in my garden previously used, but adjacent 692 W 12th Street property line is being avoided. Is that permanent or temporary habitat loss? The Claremont Sustainable City Plan encourages bio diversity. This new proposed project goes against that. During the 2020+ construction, multiple of my rare native plants were damaged, another native tree was killed. The driveway of 692 W 12th Street is close to many of my native plants. How will they be protected. There are water sources for wild birds. With all the construction dust, how will that water be safe for them to drink? How many times per day, will I have to change it? I am a senior with disabilities and a lifelong resident of Claremont. I have lived at 1230 N Cambridge Avenue most of my life. My parents bought the property in the early/mid 1960s, and I have never experienced any construction project like this or heard of one like it anywhere in the city. Even the Foothill Improvement Project paled in comparison as not only did that work not involve the variety of extreme noise this did, it did not concentrate all the noise in one location for 2 years. No property owner should be faced with taking the brunt of that amount of sound. Many neighbors have had construction work done on their properties over the years, including multiple adjoining mine. None have been a problem. They've been nicely done and involved normal sounds of building —hammering, sawing, etc. They weren't building on Sundays, no seven days a week for months on end. Nothing has come close to this. I have attached email I sent to the City Council describing some of this, including helpful staff responses, pictures, etc. I also have many sound files of the ear-splitting noise. The project begun in 2020 has not yet been completed as the landscaping is not finished yet. In March of 2021, during what would normally be bird nesting season, the flipper owner had almost every single tree on the property cut down, including a massive old oak tree, other mature native trees, and multiple city street trees, including 2 ginkgos on Cambridge Avenue. Causing great wildlife habitat loss. In spite of staff reassurances that the city street trees would be replanted in fall of 2022, to date that had not been done. And in fact there was a 3rd city ginkgo tree located on the Cambridge Avenue side of 692 W 12th Street which died about 7 years ago, and was cut down, which still has not been replanted. It was on the south side of the driveway and can be seen in an attached photo from the 1980s. That presents an additional problem as during construction the driveway was widened into the city tree easement and concrete placed there. That is something the city, on its website, says not to do. How will that city tree be replaced and when? According to a city staff presentation at the 4/19/23 Tree Committee Meeting, "Semi -Annual Reporting of Urban Forest Maintenance Activities", Claremont plants city trees November through April each year. It is already May 2023, so the city street tree replanting on Cambridge Avenue will be again delayed from what staff told me would be fall of 2022. The redesign of the house at 692 W 12th Street begun in 2020 was a significant change which has caused permanent substantial levels of noise coming from the back of that property to be blasted directly into my house. The proposed project envisions matching that design change — it was the only part of the structure not changed in design. It seems to be a continuation of the changes recently done. I am very worried how much the sound level will increase. This was a very historically quiet property which was in harmony with the neighborhood. That is no longer the case. Over the years, plenty of people were in that backyard, speaking normally. No appreciable noise. Now voices are amplified and sound like shouting. l am not a building expert as to what exact combination of shapes and materials amplify sound, but city staff should have at least some knowledge of this and should have prevented a design being approved that caused this to happen. Some changes from the back door area of that house caused noise to head straight into my house. I cannot avoid hearing this. It is disturbing and invades my privacy. The proposed construction would raise the roof of the garage 10 feet. That is adjacent to where the sound seems to be amplified. I am worried that any of that noise that might dissipate over the roof at its current height, will then also be guided into not just my house but also my backyard as well, which is prime bird habitat. I suggest that due to all these concerns and recent construction, that this proposed construction at 692 W 12th Street, be delayed for a period of time at least as long as the 2020 construction which began in June 2020 and won't end until the Cambridge Avenue city street trees are installed, likely in fall of 2023—so for 3 years. I also ask that construction for that property be limited to the days of the week that Code Enforcement is available and that if a new garage is desired, it be relocated to face 12th Street. On 12th Street for multiple reasons. First a garage was located there in the 1960s—the sidewalk cutout for its driveway was only removed and changed to a regular sidewalk, I believe, in 2022. That location would give the homeowner additional storage. These changes would allow the ecosystem time to recover, and also for me to physically recover. It would better protect a Certified Wildlife Habitat, and many of the California native plants which support it. that it will be allowed for landscape work to occur Monday through Saturday from lam to 8pm. Well maybe that is fine for normal people doing construction, but in my opinion this will mean this construction actually will happen 6 days a week, lam to 8pm. That will mean my yard will be unusable 6 days a week during most daylight hours. This will be another nightmare for me. For one thing I can't afford like some to travel and for another due to a medical condition my doctor has not approved me getting the COVID vaccine. 1 am at high risk for,COVID, yet cannot be vaccinated, and won't have the ability to use my own yard for enjoyment indefinitely. Some serious review of these plans is warranted. I would like to request that construction can only be done on days of the week that Code Enforcement is staffed. I have reasonable concerns about this as now the construction workers tend to come on Saturdays and holidays for their most noisy week —not on weekdays. I have concerns that I will be retaliated against by this property owner should I report violations. Already there has been trespassing on my property, one of my fences badly damaged and one of my antique rambler roses climbing 30 feet then cut to the ground, what else might happen? I am also worried about my blood pressure if this never-ending project continues in the future as it has in the past. I suffer from serious migraine headaches and can lose vision and speech during a migraine. If the noise from this project is unendurable, and another massive migraine triggered, I may not have the ability to communicate with anyone. I also have particular concerns with what is being planned. The plans show another area with pavers to be added. You may think pavers are fine, but in another area of the property with pavers still only partially finished, that took weeks and weeks of daily LOUD pile driving. How much more of that is going to be allowed? Also the trees that are planned to line the property along the wall border with my property, shows them installing ficus trees, and the cultivar selected has a very wide spread of canopy, with a large portion coming over the wall into my yard. I'm afraid this will damage my roof. Just recently the water company sent out watering restrictions due to the drought. Very few days per week of watering. So how are a bunch of large plants going to be planted in the very high heat of summer with watering restrictions? Does this project get exemptions from these new watering restrictions? if they don't water a huge amount, my property will be inundated with dust and dirt. Our local botanic garden recommends against planting during the summer. In my opinion no one would approve these plans if THEY had to live next door to it. My suggestion would be to have the landscaping plan reviewed by both the City Council and the Architectural Commission. Something should be done that is more reasonable for adjacent properties. I suggest that the landscaping work should start this winter during cooler months, and that the work be limited to 3 or 4 days per week. I hope the City Council looks at this whole process. Ten days and $800 is so unfair for seniors on fixed incomes. During a pandemic it is even worse. Thank you very much for your consideration. Melissa Paul 1230 N. Cambridge Avenue Claremont TessieQsonic. net From: Melissa Paul tessie0sonic.net Subject: City Council Please Request a Review of Landsc ape Design Review File (File#21-ASO4), 692 W 12th Street Data: September 12, 2021 at 10:50 PM To: Jennifer Slark ptark@ei.claremontca.us, Jed Leano jleano@6c1aremont.ca.us, Sal Medina smedina@oi.claremont.cams, Ed Reece ereece@ci.claremont.ca.us, Corey Calaycay eealaycay@ci.claremontea.us Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you as a Claremont resident living at 1230 N Cambridge Avenue, next door to the construction at 692 W 12th Street that never seems to end and is extremely distressing. The past year has been sheer hell living next to that. I am a senior citizen with multiple health issues and disabilities. The noise has been very high and ongoing as has the huge amount of dust. It began with jackhammering at lam on a Saturday in June of 2020 and that job alone went on for weeks, hours and hours of jackhammering. What you may not know is for long stretches of time this and other noisy and intrusive work went on 7 days a week --yes, even on Sundays. I didn't know construction wasn't allowed on Sundays in Claremont but it was a frequent occurrence in 2020. The Sunday work continued into 2021 until neighbor complaints and the city put a stop to it. Since this work has been so disruptive, I had to give up some things that have brought me joy — gardening and spending time with my dog outside. My yard has been next to unusable because of the ongoing construction. Everything seems to be done using the most ear-splitting equipment ---whether it is jackharnmering, rock grinding, or pile driving (which makes my house shake, and even does the same to a neighbor's house across the street). The roofing job which normally takes a roofer 2 or 3 days to complete, at this house it went on for months, with constant daily hammering. After months and months of unendurable noise from this constructions, and being stuck in my home, and not being able to use my own yard for relaxation, my blood pressure spired very high in May 2021 and a trip to urgent care had them calling an ambulance and the paramedics. ! went to the ER at Pomona Valley, only to find out one of the other neighbors was also in the same ER because of the horrendous noise. Please put a stop to the excesses of this construction and review the landscaping plans for this 12th street property! I was only able to endure this construction project when told by city staff earlier this year that the permit for construction was expiring early this summer. I believed this. But on Saturday, September 4 ! received a letter from the Community Development Department informing me that landscape plans for the 692 W 12th property were being approved and that TWO MORE YEARS would be allowed to complete the project. The letter informed me that I had 10 calendar days from the date of the letter, September 2, to file an appeal. This is a very short amount of time, especially considering that time includes two Sundays plus a holiday. It was mentioned an appeal would have to be filed with the appropriate fee but no details about how this was to be done or how much that fee would be. I called the city staff member who signed the letter at the first opportunity, which was on Tuesday, September 7 and reached her that afternoon. 1 was told the property owner had multiple permit violations (that I was not surprised to learn)!! I was then sent an email later in the afternoon with a copy of the landscape plans, and only then told that the appeal fee was $800! 1 have to tell you I find this totally and completely unreasonable. I am a senior living on a fixed income. That $800 is completely out of reach for me. Is this what Claremont is doing, only rich people can afford to appeal, the rest of us just get steamrollered? This whole situation is so unfair and awful. Someone with multiple permit violations gets a new permit, for the usual time period of two years? Why is that okay, are there no consequences for what has already happened? Some may think no one would want to drag this project out as they will want to sell the property. But people have be wrong all along —this project has dragged on forever as everything is done with the speed of a snail but with the noise of Godzilla. It could go on for the entire two years. Please get that time period changed. I note IJVi FIL.i Tut Sent from my Pad <biQhjiso I4 cJ.if1l Ia eo €E.ca.us> wrote., Melissa, Thank you for your email regarding 692 W. 12t' Street. The City has unfortunately dad di'�ic-U ly WAi , ih-s ne`,v aropErcy. D,r,ner and is cuire-.iy pursuil)9 legal xemedies against the owner for a series of actions that have occurred. l have asked the Sr. Planner from the City to request the ficus trees be swapped out for wax leaf privet shrubs which should be more manageable to keep off of your house roof. if the owner is violating our Sunday and holiday workdays please call the Claremont Police e�art ,es�t dusirlg non- ho&, h©urs of city hail. Mso i1 you heax noise that seems to be violating our City's noise ordinance do not hesitate to call our community improvement division at (9091 399-547'0, or the Claremont Police Department after hours. Now that the ia,ndscape plan has been approved we expect the work to commence and be completed within a short timeframe. 1 understand your frusVataan Wkkh the two year appm'4ai a^.d eeqamn y hope that the project y4W be completed within a short Few weeks. This property is on our watch list as a high profle project and we are keeping tabs on the progress. - hank you €or your understanding and hopefully you wilii soon have new respectful neighbors that do not upset the quality of life of the neighborhood. Have a great rest of your week. Regards; Brad Johnson From: Melissa Paul <tessig sanic.net> Date: Sunday. September 12,21D21 at 10—.53 QM To: Jennifer Stark cjstark@ci.ciaremont.ca.us>. Jed Lean cjleano@ci.claremont.ca.us>, Sat Medina <srnedinaRci.clararnont.c Ed Reece Gorey:�ia►^; <cwcalar y @ ci.clarernont.ca.us> Subject: City Council Please Request a Review of Landscape Design Review File (File #21-AS 04)t 692 W 12th Street Heat City Counei4 Members, 1 am ,writing to you as a Claremont resident living at 1230 N Cambridge Avenue, next door to the construction at 692 W 12th Street that never seems to end and is extremely distressing. The past year has been sheer hell living next to that. 1 am a seni" c tizec, 4Vkh issues and disabUities. TPie not -be has men ver f high and ongoing as has the huge amount of dust. it began with jackhammering at Tarn on a SaIurday in June of 2020 and that job alone went on for weeks, hours and L —....— .-9 :--11L---.....-.---- 1AIL -.l , —, -- L_... ..... .— ate... 1_-- _1.... c.. L._.. _e A:w-_. SU:— From: Melissa Paul tesstegsonic.net subject: Re: 692 W. 121h Street Date: February 6, 2022 at 11:39 PM To: brad Johnson b1ohnson@d.daremont.ca.us On Feb 6. 2022. at 8.33 FM. Brats Johnson -z�biohr?songci.c,'3se.rno it.ca.us> wrote: Melissa. Yes wilt contact PD and the ownership and inform them to cease this activity on Sundays. Thank you for this update. Brad Hi Brad, Wow, thank you very much. 1 didn't expect you to get back to me tonight. Working on a weekend is really going above and beyond. It is appreciated! Melissa lessie(�Psonlc.net Sent from rely iPhone On Feb 6, 2022, at 4:43 PM, Melissa Paul < essie5sgnic.net> wrote-. Hi Brad, I'm writing to let you know there has been noisy construction work ali day today, a Sunday, from around Barn to now after 4pm at 682 W. 12th Street. I did call the Claremont Police Dept but the dispatcher didn't seem to be aware it's prohibited in Claremont for construction on Sunday. She thought it could be the owner. I told her no it's a bunch of people, and i can't teii her the name of any company as they don't post signs nor have a company name on vehicles. She said an officer will contact me. If that crew sees the police come to my house I'm afraid of retaliation. Please is there something you can do about this ongoing problem? Its given me a splinting migraine today. I do thank you for whatever action you took in the past because there was a lot of improvement for avvNe. Unfortunately they've again started working on Sundays. Today was not the only time. Melissa Paul T�c+c+irs�ctirsnir+ r-s�s� at: ry � /j+ fir. � i i• �' �. ��.�y"" ` • 1 `� t T. ,'. ,l j f , q': tt� �y Of :}. � - iit es _ � �tr'.,��•y 1 �j,+}( �' :.•� _ ' ��1�. ;. �.'rY � ,i �'� "' ' •.I .! .T Y�� ,} //!`ari ray. T vl' fA r "AiAll a , f. 210. w - IF 4-4 QL • �. ��y .� •� _"�;�. tom. f+ r All 1 rs 4 I Melissa Paul �en October 30, 2020, Ugh, what a terrible day. The men working on the neighbor's house (fairly recently sold). Tools half of my chain link fence down without permission (before I saw what they'd done and told them to stop and put it back!M), crossed into my property and chopped my Princess !Marie rose (raised in France in 1829) down to the ground. It was growing up my fence an into my ash tree. Why do men think it is okay to trespass and take advantage of senior women? That fence has been there for many, many decades and is extremely strung with gnat posts and fencing down into the ground. They sawed through the top rail on half of the fence, so it is damaged now —how they will pint it back to the way it was, I don't know. But I told there to bring hack the top rail they took away. They tore some holes in the chain link as well. Angry!!M Editing to add some photos. You can see what's left of my rose—1 put a tomato cage around the sad little remnant, photo in the comments (couldn't seem to add it here). • Jan Carson, Jill-&;''ar-ie Jones and 27 others lb Like Q comment 33 comments �:j Share Most relevant • Blaire Bradley I am so sorry Melissa. Did you get the name of the work crew or do you remember the realtor who listed the property? If you can get that info hopefully they will reimburse you & pay for the repairs. I know the can't replace your special rose but perhap... See more Like Reply 2y Karen McGoldrick Sorry you have assholes for new neighbors. Sucks. Like Reply 2y Laurie Jo Jensen What the HELL Like Reply 2y Dawn Jones -Low That's horrible! The company should be responsible for paying for a reputable restoration to be done. Just putting back the damaged fence is not sufficient. Like Reply 2y 4 Dawn Jones -Low replied - Z Reply Georgia Cheer Really would be so upset too!! Like Reply 2y Melissa Paul What's left of Princess Marie, 1829, France. 3 0 A Melissa Paul The little green plant at the bottom of the first photo is a California native plant, an incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) I bought at my local botanic garden. Thankfully they didn't chop it off —or maybe they would have if I'd arrived any later. Like Reply ?y Karen McGoldrick I can't believe they did not speak to you first. Have you spoken to the new neighbor personally? Like Reply ^,.,. Chris Farwell -Snort Even if there is a question as to the property boundary, the home owner should have contacted you before any work was done. Like Reply ?y Melissa Paul Btw I've never met the new property owner —don't even know their name. All I've heard via the grapevine is it is a property flipper from Las Vegas. And boy has all the construction next door been a real trial. They started months ago with early morning all day jackhammering, with no warning whatsoever. I'll have to check, but I think that was a Saturday morning. It woke me up as it was just outside my bedroom window. What people want to do with their property is their business, but there are limits to the amount of suffering they should be able to inflict on neighbors. A big difference is shown by how other neighbors have handled construction. One family that moved in across the street sent notes to all the neighbors about how long construction would take, they apologized for the noise, and as a token gave a bottle of wine to neighbors. Very nice. That is typical of this neighborhood. But apparently there are some jerks...... And unfortunately my blood pressure has shot up from today's damage and property invasion. My doctor has been very pleased at how my blood pressure has been. I do not need a visit to urgent care! Like Reply L,,r Diane Wilson Can commiserate with you Melissa Paul, my neighbour, as soon as they moved in, ripped out the dividing fence without my knowledge and therefore consent. It was lucky that I wasn't using one of the connecting paddocks at the time. Her reasoning (husband... See more Like Reply 2., L.11iC mt::Iity Z_Y Melissa Paul What's left of Princess Marie, 1829, France. Like Reply 2v Judy Barriek replied - 2 Replies .ti. Lauren Horn What's awful. I really hope your rose grows back. I love roses and I would be most bummed about the rose too. Maybe the new owner thought they owned the fence? Like Reply 2y 4 . • :; Melissa Paul replied • 1 Reply 1' � -I Melissa Paul The little green plant at the bottom of the first photo is a California native plant, an incense cedar (Caiocedrus decurrens) I bought at my local botanic garden. Thankfully they didn't chop it off —or maybe they would have if I'd arrived any later. Like Reply 2y Karen McGoldrick 1 can't believe they did not speak to you first. Have you spoken to the new neighbor personally? Like Reply 2y t a: ' Chris Farwell -Short Even if there is a question as to the property boundary, the home owner should have contacted you before any work was done. Like Reply 2 s i ATTACHMENT E Architectural Commission Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 2 Commissioner Bennett moved to approve the Architectural Commission Minutes of June 14, 2023, seconded by Commissioner Spivack; and carried on by roll call vote as follows: AYES: Commissioner — Bennett, Castillo, Cervera, Neiuber, and Spivack NOES: Commissioner — None ABSENT: Commissioner — None ABSTAIN: Commissioner — Perri PUBLIC HEARING This item starts at 00:04:42 in the archived video. 2. Appeal of the Planning Division Staff Level Approval of Architectural Review (File_=#23- AS06) for the Demolition Reconstruction and Expansion of the Existing Attached Two - Car Garage at the Single -Family Residential Property Located at 692 Vilest Twelfth Street - Applicant: Dan D'Andrea. Appellant: Melissa Patil. Senior Planner Hlady gave a PowerPoint presentation and responded to questions from the Commission regarding the previous property owner, if permitted work hours can be amended, the project's timeline, if project includes major landscaping or tree removal, and whether there is a clear demarcation between the previous and present owners. Chair Neiuber invited the Appellant to make a presentation. Melissa Paul Appellant, provided an oral presentation and supporting articles and photographs. Chair Neiuber invited the Applicant to make a presentation. Alexia Flores. ProDertv Owner and Dan D'Andrea, Proiect Applicant, provided oral presentations and responded to questions from the Commission regarding the project's scope, timeline, plan for noise mitigation, project work hours, dust mitigation strategies, and plan for providing Appellant with work schedule and advance notice to plan for the noisiest construction days. Chair Neiuber invited public comment. Suzanne Eckland shared concerns that the Applicant's contractor license does not show worker's compensation insurance and believes it would be best to provide this insurance for workers. There were no other requests to speak. Commissioner Cervera empathized and sympathized with the Appellant's bad experience with the previous owner's disruptive construction and behavior. He also shared that the new owners should not be blamed for the actions of the previous owner. He believes that the neighborhood will be able to come together and heal after the project's completion. Architectural Commission Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 3 Commissioner Bennett echoed Commissioner Cervera's comments. It will take time for the current owners to remedy issues on the property such as the missing foliage and plants. He offered noise mitigation ideas for the contractor to consider using and encouraged the neighborhood to heal together. Commissioner Perri agreed with fellow Commissioners and encouraged the use of panels to mitigate the construction noise. He did not find reason to reject the Applicant's proposal and offered the suggestion of using a skylight in place of windows on the south elevation to provide additional privacy. Chair Neiuber sympathized with the Appellant's situation and concurred with fellow Commissioners. He hopes that a new landscape plan will be provided to mitigate what was previously removed. The project meets both the guidelines of the City and the findings that the Commission utilizes to approve project. Chair Neiuber suggested the use of obscured glass, rather than a skylight, as means to mitigate the Appellant's privacy concerns. Principal Planner Veirs offered that, if the Commissioners wished to make changes to the Resolution to include modifications, they would need to be specified in the motion. Chair Neiuber asked fellow Commissioners if the use of sound dampening panels would be a modification to the conditions or a suggestion. Commissioner Perri offered the information as a suggestion, not a mandate, due to the short length of the construction schedule. Chair Neiuber discussed the possible cost for erecting the panels for noise mitigation with Principal Planner Veirs and the Commission. Commissioner Bennett agreed that using the panels could be a beneficial and suggested that it would cost about $2,000. Commissioner Cervera noted that a mandate was not warranted but recommended that the Applicant and Appellant work together to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. Chair Neiuber agreed with Commissioner Cervera and shared concern for adding requirements that may increase the cost for the homeowner's project. Instead he believes the two parties should work together to mitigate concerns and share the times when construction will occur. He also suggested using obscured glass for the windows or using a tubular skylight instead. Commissioner Bennett moved to: A. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-05, A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING DIVISION'S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL STAFF REVIEW (FILE #23-AS06) FOR THE DEMOLITION, RECONSTRUCTION, AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING ATTACHED, TWO - CAR GARAGE AT THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 692 WEST TWELFTH STREET; and Architectural Commission Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 4 B. Find this item is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Seconded by Commissioner Perri; and carried on by roll call vote as follows: AYES: Commissioner — Bennett, Cervera, Neiuber, and Perri NOES: Commissioner — None ABSENT. Commissioner — Castillo and Spivack Chair Neiuber noted that this decision can be appealed within ten calendar days. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS - NONE This item starts at 01:02:39 in the archived video. REPORTS This item starts at 01:02:59 in the archived video. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Bennett provided an Art Committee update. Commissioner Perri asked for an update on the new bus stops. Staff Briefing on Council Meetings Principal Planner Veirs reported on items of interest from the previous City Council meetings. Briefings on Other Items There was no report. Upcoming Agendas and Events Principal Planner Veirs described items expected to come before the Commission at the September 13, 2023 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Neiuber ad'ourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. Chair