Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2003, PH 6 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC) DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO INSTALL A 50-FOOT HIGH counaL X11 1,003 j acEnba nEpout ®"Pot/ CITY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC) DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO INSTALL A 50-FOOT HIGH ILLUMINATED FLAGPOLE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE KSBY STUDIOS IN A CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE ZONE (ARC MOD 92-03; 1772 CALLE JOAQUIN). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action to deny the project, based on findings. INTRODUCTORY COMMENT The American flag is a symbol of our country and our history and values. Thus, issues involving the American flag understandably evoke strong emotions. In many ways, however, policies exist to assure that judgments are not solely made based on emotion or the pressures of the moment. Therefore, in considering this issue, it has been important for staff and the ARC to try to impartially evaluate the request while applying General Plan policies and the intent they convey, without adding considerations related to the symbolism and values associated with displays of the flag. This analytic task has not been an easy one, but a recommendation is now forwarded to the City Council. The City Council, on the other hand, is free to weigh the analytic considerations against matters involving both values and symbols, and to the extent allowed by law, make interpretations. In this case, there are values and symbols associated with both the flag and our open space policies, and thus reaching a conclusion may be similarly difficult. Staff has attempted to assist by expressing the analytic considerations that underlie the ARC recommendation in a complete and impartial manner. In addition, the discretion available to the Council to reach a different conclusion is set forth, along with proposed findings in support of the flag installation, should this alternative be preferred. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant, American Legion Post 66, would like to install an exterior-illuminated, 50-foot tall flagpole with a 10' x 15' American flag on the south side of the project site in an open space zone, which is visible from Highway 101. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the project at three separate meetings (see Attachment 6—ARC meeting minutes). The ARC's action at the first two meetings was to continue the item with direction to locate the flagpole on the portion of the site zoned Office, which is owned by KSBY. 6 -1 Council Agenda Report- &I of ARC's action on American Legion-r'lagpole (ARC MOD 92-03) Page 2 Prior to the ARC's last review of the project on October 20, 2003, the applicants and City staff had met with KSBY management to explore the possibility of locating the flagpole on their property with the Office zoning. While not opposed to the applicant's original proposal to locate the flagpole on Rob Rossi's open space property adjacent to the site, KSBY indicated that they are unable to give the applicant permission to locate the flagpole on their property (see Attachment 7.) Therefore, the applicant returned to the ARC on October 20`h with their original proposal to locate the flagpole in the open space area near the southern edge of KSBY's parking lot. On October 20, 2003, the ARC on a 4-3 vote (Commrs. Boudreau, Smith & Wilhelm voting no), denied the request to install the 50-foot tall illuminated flagpole on the hillside open space, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan (Attachment 5 — 10-21-03 ARC follow-up letter). The hearing room was packed with interested members of the public, the majority of which were representatives of various veterans' organizations. Discussion and testimony of the item, which had been on two previous agendas, took about two hours. The main issues with the request have been the flagpole's proposed location in an open space zone, its proposed height of 50', where a 35-foot maximum is allowed, and concerns with lighting. While all of the Commissioners were supportive of the applicant's goal to install a flagpole, a majority found that the proposed location on a prominent hillside along a City gateway in an open space zone was not appropriate. The majority did not feel that the proposed flagpole met identified criteria for an exemption to Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2 A., which allows specified types of structures within open space areas. The majority also concluded that the proposal was inconsistent with Open Space Policy 11.2.3, which prohibits structures in highly visible hillside locations, unless it can be substantiated that no practicable alternative exists. On October 28, 2003, the applicant filed an appeal of the ARC's decision to deny the flagpole request (Attachment 4). The attached statement indicates that they disagree with the findings made by the ARC because they believe that the flagpole is exempt from the standards contained in the sign regulations, and that State law pre-empts the City from regulating the display of the flag except for health and safety reasons. For these reasons, the applicant also believes that the General Plan policies cited by the ARC in their findings for denial are not applicable. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 1772 Calle Joaquin Applicant/Appellant: American Legion Post No. 66 Representative: Robert P. Bryn Property Owner: NVG—Santa Barbara LLC ETAL Zoning: C/OS-10 (Conservation/Open Space) General Plan: Open Space_ Environmental Status: Categorically exempt under Class 11, Accessory Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines. (�_Z_ Council Agenda.Report-A eal of ARC's action on American Legio" r1agpole (ARC MOD 92=03) Page 3 Project Description Plans submitted by the applicant to illustrate the proposed location of the flagpole are somewhat imprecise, but show that the flagpole would be placed beyond the center of the last field of parking spaces on the south side of the KSBY studios (Attachment 2). The dimensioned plan indicates that the flagpole would be placed about 40 feet away from the edge of the asphalt parking lot. Based on an aerial photograph of the site with zoning boundaries superimposed, staff estimates that the boundary between the Office and C/OS-10 boundaries is approximately ten feet away from the paving edge of the parking lot (Attachment 3). Therefore, the proposed flagpole would be located about 30 feet into the open space area. The applicant indicated at the October 20'b ARC meeting that they would be willing to move the flagpole about 8-10 feet closer to the parking lot, which would result in the flagpole being about 20 feet away from the zone boundary. To provide a representation of the proposed flagpole installation, staff prepared the visual simulation below. The appropriate flagpole height was estimated by using the billboard in the photo as a scale representation. In addition, the size of the flag may differ with the applicant's proposal. ( . l y T y n r O O - Photo Simulation of Proposed Flagpole Installation (c3 Council Agenda Report-Appeal of ARC's action on American Legiou r'lagpole (ARC MOD 92-03) Page 4 Site Description The project site is located at the top of a knoll on the west side of Highway 101. Calle Joaquin, located to the south of Los Osos Valley Road, provides access to the site. The site is developed with the former restaurant building, now KSBY's broadcast studios and offices, and parking lot areas. The nearest land uses include motels and restaurants. General Plan Consistency General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing development applications. The City must make a finding that a development approval is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the City's Zoning Regulations (Section 11.02.050) state that the City's regulations and standards will be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the General Plan. The proposed location of the flagpole is zoned Conservation/Open Space with a 10-acre minimum (C/OS-10). While it could be argued that installing a flagpole at the proposed location would not significantly disturb the natural environment because the land itself is not steeply sloping and does not contain significant vegetation, the real issue is that its location raises policy issues related to the purpose and use of open space areas within the City. In 1996, the City Council approved a rezoning of the developed part of the site from Tourist Commercial to Office. This was done in anticipation of the impending move of KSBY from its former location on Hill Street to the project site. This rezoning was viewed as a win-win for the City as it removed KSBY, a long-standing nonconforming use, from a R-1 neighborhood, and resulted in a less intensive use for this isolated and visible hillside location. According to Figure 6 in the Land Use Element (LUE), the site is located in the Calle Joaquin Hillside Planning area. The building on the site predated the City's Hillside Planning Program. The LUE states that the Calle Joaquin area should allow the continuation of a commercial use for the existing building on the hill, but no further development. This is the reason that the remainder of the area around the developed part of the site is zoned C/OS. In the hillside areas, the areas inappropriate for development have either been placed in a C/OS zoning or called out in the General Plan by a specific contour elevation. In the case of the KSBY property, the development limit line is the edge of the Office zoning. Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2 states that development, including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas, shall be within the development limit line. The only exceptions to this are for a structure necessary to protect public health and safety, a designated wireless telecommunication facility on the South Street Hills, or a replacement dwelling. The ARC concluded that the proposed flagpole does not fit any of these exception categories. However, were a majority of the Council supportive of the request as presented, then a finding in support of the flagpole could cite the public health and safety benefits of the installation. Draft Resolutions B & C (Attachment 11) upholding the appeal and supporting the installation include a finding to this effect. Council Agenda Report- Appeal of ARC's action on American Legion r tagpole(ARC MOD 92-03) Page 5 The other primary element of the General Plan that provides direction on the appropriateness of the placement of a flagpole structure in an open space area is the Open Space Element. Policy OS 11.2.3 states: "Public or private development should be required to protect scenic resources by: A.) Prohibiting structures along ridgelines, steep slopes, or in other highly visible locations unless no practicable alternative is available, otherwise provided for in the Land Use Element, or such a location is necessary to protect public health and safety." The Open Space Element defines a structure as "anything assembled or constructed on the ground, or attached to anything with a foundation on the ground." Open space is defined as "land or water area which remains in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state, and is generally free of structures." The proposed flagpole, which is 50 feet tall, with an engineered caisson footing, and electrical wiring for lighting, would meet the referenced definition of a structure. The open space definition reiterates that the intention of the open space zoning is generally not to allow structures. The proposed location of the flagpole is highly visible and on top of prominent knoll, which the above policy would prohibit. To approve the requested flagpole, the City Council would need to a make a finding determining that there is no practicable alternative to in the flagpole in its proposed location in the open space zone. Practicable Alternative is defined in the General Plan as: "Practicable alternative shall mean (1) the project's basic purpose could still be accomplished either through a redesign or a reduction in massing, scale, or density, or (2) if changes are required to the project's design, scale, or density, reasonable use of the subject property could still occur. Reasonable use of the property in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already developed site, reasonable development may mean that no additional development is reasonable considering site constraints and the existing development's scale, design, or density." This definition of practicable alternative relates more to sites where development may occur, but should be limited in some manner to avoid sensitive environmental resources. It is particularly difficult to make a finding of no practicable alternative in the present case, because it is a request for a structure that is not linked with other development at the site, which the definition above seems more directed toward. In this instance, there are alternative sites potentially available where a flagpole would not raise such strong policy issues. However, were a majority of the Council inclined to support the flagpole at its proposed open space location, then the following factors could be cited as findings of why there is no practicable alternative: 1. a landowner willing to permit the installation; 2. close proximity to an existing building, freeway, and billboard sign in an area not conducive to passive recreation; and 3. the prominence and visibility of the site at a major entrance to the City. 6—s� 1 Council Agenda Report-Afeeal of ARC's action on American Legiotrrlagpole(ARC MOD 92-03) Page 6 It is important to note that while the billboard is also located on portions of the hillside designated as Conservation Open Space, it was placed there prior to adoption of the City's open space protection policies. The billboard is therefore considered non-conforming. Pertinent Regulations The City's sign regulations allow flagpoles displaying the national, state, or local flags, if they conform to required setbacks and height standards for the underlying zones where they are proposed. In this case, there are two primary issues with the request: 1. The proposed 50-foot height of the flagpole exceeds the maximum allowed 35-foot height for the Conservation Open Space (C/OS)zone. 2. The location of the proposed flagpole in a C/OS zone is inconsistent with General Plan policies that attempt to strictly limit the type of structures and improvements allowed in open space zones. Because the proposed flagpole does not conform to City requirements contained in the sign regulations, it required the review and approval by the ARC as an exception. In response to a comment made in the applicant's appeal statement, Section 15.140.170 G. (Attachment 8) does require that ",flag poles displaying only national, state, or local flags shall be located outside of required setback areas and shall conform to the height requirements for structures in the site's zoning district`'. The maximum building height in the C/OS zone is 35 feet, which would apply to the flagpole. The appellant incorrectly interpreted the next sentence of this paragraph to exempt them from the height restrictions.. That sentence reads: "Flag poles displaying other than national, state, or local flags shall be subject to height, area, lighting, and location standards established by this chapter for pole signs." The above sentence does not exempt flagpoles displaying the national flag from the height requirements of the zone cited earlier, but requires unofficial flagpoles to be subject to the more stringent requirements for pole signs in the particular zone where they are proposed. The proposed flagpole at 50 feet in height is 15 feet over the maximum allowed height of 35 feet. Therefore, if a majority of the Council were in support of the request, then either a condition would need to be added that the flagpole not exceed 35 feet, or the Council would need to grant a height exception. Section 15.40.200 of the sign regulations includes the needed findings to approve an exception to the sign regulations (Attachment 8). The required findings for an exception to the sign regulations are similar to the findings required by State law to approve a variance and include stipulating exceptional site circumstances, establishing that the exception does not constitute a grant of special privilege, and noting that public health and safety are not jeopardized. Findings in support of the requested height exception are difficult to support, and were not made by the ARC. If the Council were to support this height exception, then findings citing the exceptional site circumstances might include how the flagpole at this prominent, visible entry to the City would constitute an area focal point or landmark, yet would not disrupt views of community landscape features. Draft Resolution B supports approval of the flagpole in the C/OS zone with a condition limiting the height to 35 feet. Council Agenda Report-A%leal of ARC's action on American Legion r1agpole(ARC MOD 92-03) Page 7 Draft Resolution C supports approval of the flagpole in the C/OS zone with a 50-foot height as proposed by the applicant. Applicability of the State Government Code Government Code section 435.5 (Prohibitions or Restrictions on Legal Right to Display United States Flag) provides in part: (b) (1) No...governmental agency shall adopt any rule, regulations or ordinance...that prevents any person or private entity that would otherwise have the legal right to display the Flag of the United States on private property from exercising that right, unless it is used as, or in conjunction with, an advertising display. (2)Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent a city... from imposing reasonable restrictions as to the time, place, and manner of placement or display of a Flag of the United States when necessary for the preservation of the public's health, safety, or order. (d) No restrictions solely to promote aesthetic considerations shall be imposed pursuant to paragraph(2) or subdivision (b)... This statute allows a city to impose reasonable restrictions as to the time, place, and manner of placement or display of a flag of the United States when necessary for the preservation of the public's health, safety, or order. However, such restrictions cannot be imposed solely to promote aesthetic considerations. In San Luis Obispo, as set forth in the General Plan Digest, the general goals of the Open Space Element of the General Plan are to: 1. Provide open space, agricultural, and rural lands that meet the needs of present and future City populations. 2. Protect resources (such as creeks, sensitive habitat, and agriculture), and be sensitive to the factors which allow these resources to remain viable.. 3. Provide a Greenbelt around the City's perimeter to: (a) define the urban limit of San Luis Obispo, (b) provide a physical separation between urban communities, (c) protect important agricultural areas from urban uses and maintain agriculture as an economically viable activity, (d) maintain the area's scenic beauty, and (e) protect the community's character and quality of life. 4. Provide for passive recreation where such low intensity uses will not damage the resources that are being protected, and preserve lands as open space or parkland which serve as important linkages between other open space lands, parks, or trails. 5. Provide continuing community education that underscores the value of the area's cultural, scenic, and natural resources. In addition, the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as listed in the General Plan Digest, sets forth community goals, some of which are: 1. Protect and enhance the natural environment, including the quality of air, water, soil, and Council Agenda Report- Meal of ARC's action on American Legioi.rlagpole(ARC MOD 92-03) Page S open space. 2. Protect, sustain, and where it has been degraded, enhance wildlife habitat on land surrounding the city, at Laguna Lake, along creeks and other wetlands, and on open hills and ridges within the city, so that diverse, native plants, fish, and animals can continue to live within the area. 3. Protect public views of surrounding hills and mountains. 4. Protect and restore natural landforms and features in and near the city, such as the volcanic morros, hillsides, marshes, and creeks. 5. Keep a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban development and surrounding open land. 6. Develop buildings and places which complement the natural landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods. 7. Manage growth so that the natural environment and air quality will be protected. 8. Broad, undeveloped open spaces should separate the City from nearby urban areas. The above goals make clear that the City's Open Space policies do not solely promote aesthetic considerations. These goals relate to protection of wildlife habitats, maintenance of a greenbelt around the City's urban area, preservation of the natural environment and landscape, in addition to protecting views of and from open spaces. City policy guidelines also express that the City's open space standards and regulations are important to the City in other ways. The City's economic well-being is strengthened by Open Space policies that preserve the area's scenic beauty — a feature important to tourists and other visitors to the community who stay at local hotels, dine in local restaurants, and shop in local stores. A City Council has broad discretion in determining what is reasonable in endeavoring to protect the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Courts have broadly construed the concept of the public health, safety and welfare to encompass zoning and most other manner of local governmental regulation. In the event of a conflict between State and local law, State law will prevail. In this instance, even though the statute was recently amended to preclude local regulation of flags solely for aesthetic reasons, Government Code Sec. 435.5 continues to allow for regulation to preserve the public health, safety, or order. The City's Sign Regulations, along with its Open Space regulations, serve to further the preservation of the public's health, safety, or order, beyond solely for aesthetic reasons. Therefore, State law does not preclude reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on a proposed flagpole within an open space area. The City clearly has the ability to regulate in this regard. The language of the State law does, however, illustrate the strong public policy in favor of allowing the display of the United States flag. This is an important factor to consider should the City Council decide to uphold the appeal and allow placement of the flagpole in the location sought by the appellants. Citizen Participation The discussions at the three ARC public hearings on the flagpole at times have been somewhat contentious and emotionally charged. Attachment 10 contains the various e-mails and letters that have been received since the application for the flagpole was received. s Council Agenda Report-Af eal of ARC's action on American Legion r lagpole(ARC MOD 92-03) Page 9 ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Draft Resolution B, upholding the appeal, and approving the project, based on findings, and with a condition limiting the height to 35 feet. 2. Adopt Draft Resolution C, upholding the appeal, and approving the project as submitted with a 50-foot high flagpole, based on findings, including findings supporting a height exception. 3. Continue with direction to the staff and appellant. Attached: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Applicant's flagpole location plans Attachment 3: Aerial photo with zoning boundaries superimposed Attachment 4: Appeal to City Council received 10-28-03 Attachment 5: 10-21-03 ARC follow-up letter Attachment 6: Draft 9-2-03, 10-7-03, & 10-21-03 ARC minutes Attachment 7: Letter from Tim Perry, General Manager of KSBY Attachment 8: Excerpts from the Sign Regulations Attachment 9: Excerpts from the General Plan Attachment 10: Copies of letters, emails, and summaries of phone calls received from citizens Attachment 11: Draft Resolutions A, B, and C Arc\92-03(Flagpole appeal) Attachment 1 c C/OS-20 C/ - C /O C/OS-1 2- C-S V LEX ol cow O-S � u r� VICINITY MAP MOD 92®03 N 1772 Calle Joaquin A Attachment 2 S SAN LUIS OBISPO POST No. 66, Inc. A Non Profit organization 1661 MILL STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA • 93401 July 2, 2003 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Dear Sirs: The attached application is for a civic project conducted by a non-profit Veteran's Organization, American Legion Post 66 of San Luis Obispo. This project is to enhance the beauty of our City of-San Luis Obispo by installing a 50 foot flagpole on the hill next to KSBY Studios. We hereby respectfully request a waiver of the review fee for this project. Robert P. Bryn, Past Commander AMERICAN LEGION POST #66 641 . c I Attachment 2 I ' I � ti '1 i ! cf o, - a C9 Cu 'a-,c- �N\C>-o Cl\ o 3 `Ielo �-lz r Attachment 2 � r ZR N 0 1)c �� c �� i © ,Prp-k6Nq AREY r T r A 1 mxhate 10•foot setback beb Neen zone boundaryand _aura 0 � F C/OS-10 (Conservation/Open S Zone n os Office Special consideration zonel) 1 HWY 101 Ga (< Applicanrs Pmposed Location for Flag Pole tiny ij ! i ❑Q ParceMone Boundary N 50 0 50 Feet (g�1 1 Attachment 4 Filing Fee: $100.00 Paid ate Received - NIA ARC MOD ga-03 GI ,� Of 'REFER TO SECTION 4 s 'San lues OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION American Legion Post 66 - i66i Mill St. t MaSLO93401 iling Address and Zip Code Name 543-6445 Fax Phone Robert P. Bryn 783 Qlearview Mailing AdO 9345 dress and Zip Code Representative's Name Past Commander 545-7970 Cell 471 -5891 Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL s set forth I in 1. In accordance with the procedure I h ere appeal lthe dec s onChapterof the: 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy a Architectural Review Commission (Name of Officer.Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: October 20, 203 772 Calle Joaquin 3. The application or project was entitled: ARC 140D 92-03; I i 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: Oct. 20, 2003 pam gicci. � (Date) (Staff Members Name and Department) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: No =form SON FOR APPEAL y what actions you are appealing and your you believe may attach addithe Council tional pagesd consider, Include hat evidence you have that supportsy appeal. orm continues on the other side. Attachment 4 Reason for Appeal continued (SEE ATTACHMENT A) SECTION-4:. APY.fy:ANTS:RESPCNSIBiUry1 "'' The San Luis Obispo:City Council,values pu¢)i,Qpatt}cjpation inilocal:government and encourages.all fomis.of citizerhinvoivern Howevet,�duf�to W11 ap ea ssperta n nw to a i Council consideration of an appeal, including,puWq notific> tion;.all apps pe 9' planning applicatioh'or projecYare subject'tb'a filiiig fee of3$a00: Your right to exercise an appeal comes with ct.qa. esRQnsi4i[ es:.>tf You,file;an appeal, please understand that it must be heard wlthin"45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing-of the exacfldate your appeal v+jl�;.behgat tzef4 't�g Council. You:or your representativewill be expected to atte�d;the.public;hearjngr:and to b'eprepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited-to 10 minutes. A continuance may be-granted under certainarid:U>lusua(clrciatnstances. If you feet you need to request a continuance.you must submit 9,gvgst.in writ r1g j noticed t City Clerk. public,thee advised that if yoUrtequest for..'continuance:is.:,jqs rye'd;,d��{the aRP"A Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a n3quest for continuance does not guarantee"that it willa2e granted;that action i 1othe:discm.iAn of-the:CityCouncil. I hereby agree to appear and/orsend axopiesentative to-appear on my behalf when said app al ' sched ,.a p c efore hearing bth"e City Council. (Signature of Appellant) (Date " ' " " `�'' ' eliant Lias already paid Exceptions to.the fee: i)Appeafs.of Tree_Commlttee dedsiona, 22.The atiove:nan, app the city sloo to appeal,this Iaame matter to,a city;offcjAl„or C.4 incil advisory,body. This item is hereby calendared for Npy P )btr I �Q c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Cit �erk(ori aq 8/03 �- 1� Attachment 4 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Attachment A Appellant disagrees with the finding of the Architectural Review Commission as stated in Senior Planner Ricci's letter of October 23,2003. Appellant cites,including but not limited to, MC 15.40.17OG the use of the American Flag should have patriotic rather than commercial signing function.The Flag&Pole are exempt to height,area, (zoning)lighting&location standards established by this Chapter for Pole Sign. In the alternative,the appellant claims that both Title 4,United States code and California. Government Code,including but not limited to Section 434.5,exempts the displaying of Flag Poles with the National Colors from being included within County and City Ordinances and zoning restrictions unless for Health and Safety reasons.There are no Health& Safety reasons given or apparent in this matter.In no event is the display of the National Colors to be restricted because of aesthetic reasons. Therefore, appellant believes that Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2A Open space Policy OS 11.23 and the Land Use Element have no application in this matter. Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council grant this appeal. Attachment 5 ���a����►►IflhIIIIIINII�I OB1S ty o f san Imis a 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 October 23, 2003 American Legion Post No. 66 1661 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC'MOD 92-03: 1772 Calle Joaquin Modification to a prior ARC approval to allow an illuminated flag pole with a total height of 50 feet Dear Applicant: The Architectural Review Commission (ARC), at its meeting of October 20, 2003, denied the proposed 50-foot high, illuminated flagpole placed within the portion of the site zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS), based on the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed flagpole installation is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2 A., which restricts development on hillside locations to areas within the development limit line, which at this location would be within the O-S zoning, not in the open space area where it is proposed, and does not meet the criteria for exception, which include a structure necessary to protect public health and safety, a designated wireless telecommunication facility on the South Street Hills, or a replacement dwelling. 2. The proposed flagpole installation is inconsistent with Open Space Policy OS 11.2.3 since the flagpole is a structure that is highly visible and on top of prominent knoll, which the policy prohibits. 3. The proposed flagpole would exceed height limitations for the Conservation Open Space zone and would be illuminated, which is discouraged by hillside development policies contained in the Land Use Element. 4. The proposed flagpole would not be consistent with the limitations on development placed on the adjacent site with the Office zoning with the Special Consideration overlay currently occupied by KSBY television studios, which called for development to be visually unobtrusive, low profile and blend in with the hillside location. n The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. /_ 1111 (o ARC 92-03Attachment 5 Page 2 The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the City,Clerk's office, or on the City's website (slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100. If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, Va iLG� Pamela Ricci, AICP Senior Planner Community Development cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Robert P. Bryn 783 Clearview Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 NVG-Santa Barbara LLC, Etal C/O Edel P. Ledet 1170 Peachtree Street NE Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30309 I. 1 - Attachment 6 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO _ ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSSION MINUTES Excerpt— Item. 1 SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Greg Wilhelm, Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commissioner Ze jka Howard Staff: Associate Planner Jeff Hook ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. 1772 Calle Joaquin. ARC MOD 92-03; Review of a new 50-foot high illuminated flag pole; C/OS-10 zone; American Legion Post No. 66, applicant. Associate Planner JeffHook presented the staff report recommending approval of a 35- foot high, non-illuminated flagpole, to be placed within the developable part of the site zoned O-S (Office with a Special Considerations overlay zoning), based on findings which he outlined. He noted staff is recommending there be no nighttime lighting because of General Plan policies and ARC Guidelines that discourage lighting that might cast a glare off-site. He explained that if the Commission supported exceptions, they could grant exceptions to pole height and lighting, but not location because the ARC does not have the authority to grant exceptions to General Plan Policies. Commr. Lopes asked if pole could be moved to the KSBY-owned property that is zoned Office. Planner Hook replied yes, there appeared to be room on the developable portion of the KSBY site to accommodate the flagpole. Commr. Lopes noted that the KSBY property is under a different ownership than the applicant's proposed location, and commented that KSBY has been very diligent about minimizing the development of antennas and microwave dishes. He questioned if a flagpole is considered a project under the City's ordinance. Planner Hook explained that a flagpole does not require ARC review as long as it meets height limits and lighting requirements. He explained that the ARC does not have the ARC Minutes—Excerpt (Item 1) AttaChMent 6 September 2, 2003 Page 2 authority to allow a structure in the Conservation/Open Space zone, in conflict with the General Plan. Commr. Boudreau asked if the flagpole were on the KSBY parcel, could it be within the setback area. Planner Hook explained if it is on the portion of the property that is zoned Office, and if the flagpole were 35-feet tall, then it must be located outside the setback areas. Commr. Wilhelm questioned how the Land Use Element is being applied to flagpoles in the staff report Planner Hook replied that the Land Use Element states that development 'including buildings, driveways, fences, and graded areas shall be within development limit line. There was much discussion on Open Space Element policies and the setback required for the flagpole. Robert P. "Bob" Bryn, representing the American Legion Post and all veterans, explained they were asking for a waiver of the 35-foot height limit to allow a 50-foot pole, so they could display the American symbol of liberty, and that all who enter or leave the City of San Luis Obispo could see their American flag. He presented a letter explaining how they came to the decision of the location and a site map showing the proposed location. He respectfully requested that the Commission approve the request in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Robert E. Lee, 1665 Higuera Street, offered some information on the dimensions of the proposed site and photographs of the area on where the flagpole is proposed to be located. He mentioned they did not know the exact size of KSBY's property, but noted that KSBY has agreed to allow them to use electricity from their light standards to light the pole and would also pay for the electricity. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they have considered another location if this Commission finds that the pole cannot be located in the open space area. Mr. Lee replied they would have to consider another option if this location is not allowed. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they have considered not lighting the flag 24-hours a day. Mr. Bryn replied no, and explained that no one is going to raise it and take it down each day. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they have considered lowering the pole height to 35- feet. Mr. Bryn replied no. 6-2-1 I ARC Minutes—Excerpt (Item 1) Attachment 6 September 2, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Lee explained that flag display protocol is that the depth of a flag will be one-quarter of the height of the pole. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Tim Haley, 9511 Los Palos Road, Atascadero, did not feel this flagpole is a sign, but a symbol of freedom of what people have fought for. He commented on the plaque that dedicates the City Hall building and three wordsjumped out, which was.truth, liberty and toleration, and pleaded with the Commission to be tolerant of the request. He mentioned there would be no cost to the City and would be providing the City with an asset. Frank Roland, 248 Manetta Drive, commented that he supports flying the flag 24-hours a day so it could be an inspiration to people, making San Luis Obispo an all-American town. He mentioned that a 35-foot pole would not work out because the flag would not be visible. John Robert Griffin, 1436 Johnson Avenue, requested.the Commission not consider the flagpole a development because this characterization locks the ARC into a path that gives them no flexibility. He noted this location represents a view corridor for the American flag, and that if it comes down to where the best location for the flag is, he encouraged the ARC to go on record as supporting a change to the Land Use Element. John Wilcox, 663 Pismo Street, pointed out that there is a lot of land set aside as open space on Los Osos Valley Road by Councilwoman Mulholland, which has a post that states "don't walk on this." He mentioned in lieu of raising and lowering a flag daily, they did not intend to leave a flag up at night unlit. William Nolton, 1625 Jason Drive, felt the Commission and citizens would feel better if they saw a flag up on that hill. Margaret Cooper, SLO, expressed how sad it is for her to be at this meeting and listen to the Commission discuss this flag as if it were a building. She noted this not about a building, but the American Flag that represents our freedom. Rob Bryn, SLO, mentioned for the record that he is on Administrative leave. He pointed out that Section 15.40.170 talks about flagpoles displaying other than, National, State, or local flags shall be subject to height, area, lighting, and location standards established by this chapter. He suggested there be proper interpretation of this particular section because it is very important. He expressed as an individual that the Commission stand in support of the Marine Corps League, American Legion, and other veteran organizations in seeing that this tribute to the greatest nation is erected appropriately on the hillside. He mentioned that relative to the lighting issue of the national emblem they might be exempt and suggested that the City Attorney look into. Rob Garcia, 245 Aspen, expressed support for being able to see a symbol of Peace and Freedom while driving in and out of the city each day. (�-Zz i ARC Minutes— Excerpt (Item 1) Attachment 6 September 2, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Lee asked if the Commission could appeal to their patriotism and find a way to get this flagpole up, to be especially appreciated by the 28,000 local veterans. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Stevenson mentioned the flagpole is probably not something the ARC would normally review, but noted there are two areas they are being asked to consider, which is the issue of proper zoning category and the height limit. Commr. Smith commented that a suggestion was made that the Commission could make a recommendation, and if the recommendation were conflicting with the City law the City Council would have to validate it. Commr. Lopes commented that he supports the staff recommendation. He felt there is room on the KSBY property that could be available as another option, and felt the 35- foot height limit is appropriate. Commr. Wilhelm said he supported this project for a variety of reasons. He noted there is a respect associated with the American flag; and felt there is a message that is a symbol, which he thoroughly supports. He noted that in a forum like this, they cannot argue that issue. He commented that there isn't development around the proposed property; it is an isolated site. If the height-were lowered, from a distance the flag would look understated. He felt it was important that this flag be 50-feet high because of the nature of the distant view of this property and in order to see it, it would need to be taller. He suggested rather than lighting from the ground they should consider lighting it downward from above. Commr. Root commented that while the American flag is inarguably a wonderful symbol in which he has a tremendous amount of pride, he felt this is not an inappropriate gesture and noted there are some aesthetic considerations. He mentioned that he would like to see a photo simulation to show what size of flag is proposed. He expressed a concern that if this were granted in the Open Space zone, it would it set a precedent. He felt if there were an appropriate site to place the pole in the Office zoned property, then it should be explored. He also felt there could be a compromise on the size of the pole. He suggested focusing three lights on the flag and shield the source of the light, which would make it more appropriate. He supported lighting the flag 24-hours a day. Commr. Boudreau expressed support for the project. He noted as long as the lighting is done correctly and is optimized so it lights the flag, then he supports the nightlight. He felt if they could work out the Open Space issue with the City Council, then he doesn't have a problem with it. Commr. Smith commented that every effort should be made to accommodate this project and felt an exception to the pole height could be made to go to 50-feet and to have it lit. -z3 ARC Minutes— Excerpt (Item 1) Attachment E, September 2,2003 Page 5 Chairperson Stevenson commented that he concurs with portions of what the other Commissioners have stated. He expressed a concern with locating it in the open space area and felt if there were an exception provided for changing it to an allowable use in the Conservation/Open Space zone, or extending the zoning out that far, he would have no problem with it. He felt the easiest solution would be to move the pole back closer to the parking lot within the Office zone. He expressed support for a 40-foot pole if it were placed further up the slope. He expressed concerns with the lighting being projected upwards and felt they should explore an up-lit focused shielded lighting so it is not visible from around the surrounding area. Commr. Wilhelm moved approval for the project with the exception to allow a flagpole height of 50-feet, and the ability to light the flag with shielded up-light fixtures that would focus the light on the flag, and to recommend_that the location of the flag be allowed in the Conservation/Open Space zone. Seconded by Commr. Smith. Chairperson Stevenson referred to the findings in the staff report and suggested adjusting the findings so a use could be approved. Commr. Wilhelm modified the motion to permit the flagpole height exception to 50-feet and permit the lighting on the condition that it is shrouded and directed at the flag with an appropriate limit on footcandles and to permit the location as proposed. Commr. Smith accepted the modification. Planner Hook noted the two motions were very similar except for the recommended versus the permitted location of the flagpole. Commr. Wilhelm explained that the first motion is based on what the report stated, and the second motion is based on what he sees as the location being discretionary. Planner Hook noted that the Commission's actions need to be consistent with the General Plan. He recommended that if the Commission support locating the flagpole in the C/OS zone, a specific finding be made indicating that the installation of a flagpole for an official State, Local, or Federal flag was deemed not to be a development project for the purposes of finding consistency with the General Plan. Commr. Wilhelm recommended modifying the second motion with the verbiage that was proposed by Planner Hook . Planner Hook stated the motion should be clear that they are differentiating between a flagpole to support commercial advertising and a flagpole for an Official, National State, or Local flag. Chairperson Stevenson requested the motion maker and Seconder refer to the first finding, which states the proposed flagpole installation is consistent with the Land Use Element and suggested changing the reference number to 6.1.2, and maybe change the language a bit that states it is not within the definition of development and is not associated with a commercial project, and finding 2 that the proposed flagpole is consistent with the Land Use Element 6.2.2.H and change the language of lighting. &-�� ARC Minutes—Excerpt(Item 1) Attachment 6 September 2, 2003 Page 6 Commr. Wilhelm commented that shielding and directing the lighting towards the flag would meet these conditions. Chairperson Stevenson noted there are no conditions in the staff report and suggested offering some conditions. Commr. Wilhelm added: Conditions 1. The flagpole shall.be located in the C/OS zone outside of the required setback, subject to staff approval and specific location and that the flagpole and an American Flag shall be located within the Conservation/Open Space setback area 20-feet from the property line with specific location to the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition 2. The flagpole height shall not exceed 50-feet. Condition 3. The exterior lighting shall be allowed with focused, shielded up- lights with. footcandles and design to be approved by staff to minimize glare and nighttime light pollution. Commr. Smith agreed with the added conditions. Chairperson Stevenson suggested another finding that is specific to 6.1.2. that states the National flag and pole does not alter the land form and is minimal and not disruptive to the rural character. Commr. Lopes spoke to the motion feeling they are going in the wrong direction. He mentioned he would support a motion that would place the flag on the Office zoning of the KSBY parking lot close to the boundaries of the property within 5-feet of the property line. Chairperson Stevenson felt their concerns could be solved if they could move the flagpole closer on the KSBY property. Mr. Lee responded they could move it closer on the property, but they do not know the limit line of their leased land. Planner Hook mentioned there is a key bit of information they do not have, specifically where KSBY's property line and C/OS zone boundary are relative to where the applicant would like to install the flagpole. Chairperson Stevenson suggested they continue this item to a date certain so the question of where KSBY's property line is could be 'identified, and to determine if the pole could be moved there satisfactorily. AYES: None NOES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Smith, Root, Boudreau, Lopes, and Stevenson ABSENT: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion failed 6:0. Commr. Wilhelm moved that this item be continued to next the scheduled ARC meeting (September 15. 2003). Seconded by Commr. Boudreau. S� ARC Minutes—Excerpt (Itemi f Attachment 6 September 2,2003 Page 7 Commr.. Wilhelm modified _the motion to ask staff to comeback with additional information on the KSBY property line and UOS zone boundary, with a draft motion for approval and map showing proposed flagpole location on KSY property. Commr. Boudreau as the seconder concurred with the modified motion. AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Smith, Root, Boudreau, Lopes, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 6 a� DRAFT Attachment 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Excerpt Item 1 SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 .ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Greg Wilhelm, Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci and Associate Planner Jeff Hook ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of January 21, 2003, and February 18, 2003, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, expressed a compliment to the Architectural Review Commission thanking them for their hard work. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1772 Calle Joaquin. ARC MOD 92-03; Review of a new 50-foot high illuminated flag pole; C/OS-10 zone; American Legion Post No. 66, applicant. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending approval, based on findings, and subject to one condition. She mentioned that she has received some e- mails and phone calls regarding this request and recited those received from Bruno Giberti, Cynthia Boche, Mary Wood, Debra Pillsbury and Jodi Ramsland expressing their opinions that the flag pole location as proposed is inappropriate, each noting their individual reasons. Commr. Lopes asked what the height of`the KSBY building is. Planner Ricci replied 35-feet from the ground to the highest point of the roof. Commr. Howard noted that the 50-foot height would not be compatible with the height of the building. Planner Ricci noted that it would be taller than the building. -a7 Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 6 September 15, 2003 (Excerpt— Item 1 only) Page 2 Robert E. Lee, 1665 Higuera Street, addressed the fact that the ARC has asked for additional information about the Office zone and placing the flagpole in that zone. He explained they spoke with the General Manager of KSBY who did not want the flagpole located in the area next to the building because of the noise issue, and they also have plans for an addition to the building on that side. He mentioned they could move the flagpole back to the very edge of the rock, which would be 18-feet back from the edge of the blacktop. He explained they did not want to get too close to the boulder because of the necessity of having a substantial concrete base to support the 50-foot pole and noted somewhere within that area would be acceptable. Rob Rossi, property owner, explained that the courts separated the property in the late 1980's. He mentioned there is 23 acres that is currently zoned Conservation/Open Space, but it was zoned differently at the time. He noted that they did not participate in the rezoning of their portion of the property and probably should have, but they do plan to do some things on parts of the property in the future and they do not see the 23 acres as unusable. He explained they felt this was a very appropriate location for the flagpole because of its visibility and it does not encroach into the KSBY property. He noted they would like to see it placed in the location that they initially offered. Commr. Howard asked why a 35-foot pole is not sufficient. Mr. Lee explained that they have a committed flag that is 10 feet by 15 feet and noted that according to the protocol for flying flags the depth of a flag could only be one quarter of the height of the pole, which in this case dictates 40 feet. Commr. Howard questioned who would be responsible for the maintenance of this flag. Mr. Lee replied that the flag belongs to the American Legion and they would certainly be responsible for maintaining this flag. PUBLIC COMMENTS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, expressed support.for the proposed 50- foot flagpole, which would be illuminated. She expressed thanks to the American Legion Post 66 for proposing to display the flag in this location. Stan Gustafson, Commandant of the Marine Corp League, commented that the location would be good for the visibility and felt that it would not clutter the landscape, but would show a patriotic nature to the area. Frank Rowland, Past Commander of the American Legion Post 66, rebutted an e-mail comment about flying the flag and pointed out some of the things their Post does: every year they have $7,000 in college scholarships that they give to local students, they donate $500.00 every year to the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program, and they donate $3,000 every year to various charities such as the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. He mentioned they believe in making the Country great by doing things for the community; they are not displaying an artificial patriotism by flying the flag, but felt this flag is a symbol of our Country and all of the veterans. Draft ARC Minutes a Attachment 6 September 15, 2003 (Excerpt-Item 1 only) Page 3 Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, presented a letter to the Commission and noted this is not a hearing of whether it is good to fly the flag or whether the American Legion and other groups are doing good things. He felt that this proposal is not consistent with some very significant policies of the city, which he listed in the letter. He noted that a finding should be made that the exception is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Sign Regulations. He noted that because of the City's findings for approval do not have a factually accurate basis, and because the proposal is inconsistent with the zoning and General Plan Policies at either of the proposed locations, the City should deny the request. John Brotzman, 582 Newman, noted this is an emotional issue and felt there is an ample number of flags around San Luis Obispo. He mentioned that he is an ex-marine and was happy to hear that the flag was only 10 feet by 15 feet because he felt when there is so much red, white, and blue, it diminishes the power of the flag and desensitizes people to the flag. Mr. Rossi mentioned that the courts, without going through any subdivision process, put the line there and did a jurisdictional subdivision, which was never through any subdivision process. There were no further comments made by the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Howard requested a clarification that the project would require Sign Regulations exceptions and the location would require exceptions to land use policies. Planner Ricci explained that it is staff's position that it would be inconsistent with the General Plan to approve the flagpole in an Open Space portion of the site. Commr. Howard asked if there is an exception to the height and an exception to the lighting. Planner Ricci explained that there are exceptions available through the Sign Regulations regarding flagpoles, but there could not be an exception to General Plan Policies. Commr. Howard noted the issues that they have to deal with go beyond the visual impact, which is the ARC's charge. Planner Ricci explained it is a crossing over in terms of the height of the pole, which is regulated by the Sign Regulations. Commr. Wilhelm felt this is becoming a sign ordinance issue and he is having a hard time seeing the flag as a conventional sign; it is something more than a sign. He recounted that his recollection is that the Commission as whole was pretty comfortable with approving the proposal at its last meeting with the exception of the fact that it is located in the CO/S zone. � -a9 Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 6 September 15, 2003 (Excerpt— Item 1 only) Page 4 Chairperson Stevenson commented that he was hoping that KSBY would allow this to be moved onto their property because he cannot support this in the Conservation/Open Space zone. He mentioned that he was prepared to support this flag being 40-feet and illuminated if it were on the KSBY property. Planner Ricci noted it has not been fully explored whether or not KSBY would allow this flagpole on their property. Chairperson Stevenson expressed a concern that this is a very elevated site and is very prominent from the freeway, therefore, he did not feel that 50-feet is necessary. He felt 40-feet was appropriate. He mentioned that he shares the public's concerns that this is going to be lit 24 hours and felt it is a representation of special patriotism. Planner Ricci reiterated the General Plan Policy 6.1.2 on Open Space uses and on the Hillside Policy 6.2.2 Development Standards. She explained this is what is used to determine whether or not a flagpole is considered development that is subject to this policy, and noted it did not meet any of the criteria for exceptions that are listed there. Commr. Wilhelm asked if they would have to classify this as a development to apply that standard.. Planner Ricci replied yes. Commr. Wilhelm asked if it were possible to approve this with the condition that it be located within the Office zone. Planner Ricci replied that is what the recommendation is.. Commr. Smith felt that a flagpole is not a structure, billboard, sign, development or a major eyesore and that it is the obligation of this Commission to decide if it fits within the regulations. He noted he is not prepared to reject this on any grounds that he has heard. Commr. Root commented that the open space around San Luis Obispo is an important treasure, which is what makes this community desirable. He mentioned that he was prepared to support this flagpole at the lower height with the shielded illumination in the O-S zone as recommended by staff, but noted he could not support it in the Open Space area. Commr. Lopes commented that he supports the staff recommendation that would place the flag on the Office-zoned property with a 35-foot height limit and no illumination. He mentioned the direction he would prefer is the denial of this application with the encouragement that the Legion look for a location within the urban area that is closer to town and not at the edge of the City that is an Open Space area. He suggested working with the owners that have development and property that is more essential to the community. He did not feel that findings could be made for approving this at a height. taller than 35-feet. Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 6 September 15,2003 (Excerpt—Item 1 only) Page 5 Commr.. Lopes moved to deny the request based on the location within Conservation/ Open Space finding that the proiect is inconsistent with Land Use Policies on Open Space Uses. specifically Section 6.1.2. Seconded by Chairperson Stevenson. Chairperson Stevenson questioned if there is a possibility that this could be continued so they could explore the possibilities with the KSBY property. Planner Ricci replied yes, and commented she believes there might be some opportunities to explore this. Commr. Howard expressed concerns about setting a precedent in not being consistent with the General Plan. She mentioned that she could support an illuminated flagpole at 40-feet. Commr. Boudreau concurred with Commissioner Smith's comments that the American flag is not a development or a sign and stated that he supports the applicant's request. Commr. Lopes commented that he could support the. flag and the lighting if the flag were more appropriate to the size of the building that would fit into the context of that development and would conform to the City's height limit. Commr. Smith felt that when the General Plan was adopted, the City Council was not thinking that they would be stopping the American Legion from putting up a 50-foot flagpole, and suggested they let the Legion proceed with this on the grounds that it either complies or almost complies. Commr. Root commented that he could support a 50-foot lighted pole next to the San Luis Obispo welcome sign, which is on City property. He also mentioned he could support a larger installation at another location. Chairperson Stevenson concurred with Commissioner Root. Mr. Lee stated he did not know what the benefit would be of continuing this and mentioned that he felt KSBY was not willing to allow it along the side that the Commission is suggesting. He mentioned they could continue on the benefit of what Commissioner Root suggested, but noted this is not what they had in mind. Commr. Wilhelm asked if anyone considered talking to the owner of the station about occupying one of the parking spaces. Mr. Lee replied the only space they are willing to offer, is down at the end of the parking lot and noted a 35-foot pole would not be suitable because it would not be visible. Mr. Rossi asked if it was possible that under some of these interpretations that a flagpole could be allowed to be placed on the Office zoning, but right on the line, which is the 10-feet in between the two possible locations. Draft ARC Minutes — Attachment 6 September 15, 2003 (Excerpt—Item 1 only) Page 6 Planner Ricci replied that if it could be 5-feet from the edge of the pavement that would be consistent with any question about setbacks and zoning boundaries. Commr. Lopes questioned if an exception is needed if it is in the setback. Planer Ricci replied yes, but noted there is 10-feet and the Office zoning requires 5-feet. Mr. Lee asked if there is a possibility to get an exception to that 5-foot setback and get it adjacent to the property line. Commr. Lopes modified the motion and moved to continue the item to a date certain (October 20. 2003) to allow the applicant and staff to investigate the possibility of a site on KS_BY property either inside or outside the setback that would provide a physical location, and also add that an effort to focus design locations that would provide a visible flag at the 40400t height limit. Seconded by Commr..Root. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Root, Wilhelm, Boudreau, Howard, Smith, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. 3z DRAFT Attachment 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Excerpt- Item 1 OCTOBER 20, 2003 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Greg Wilhelm, Allen Root, Michael Boudreau, Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, David Smith, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. Chairperson Stevenson noted that Item 3 is continued to a date uncertain. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of March 3, 2003 was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1772 Calle Joaquin. ARC 92-03; Modification to a prior ARC approval to allow an illuminated flag pole with a total height of 50 feet. C/OS-10 zone; American Legion Post 66, applicant. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending denial of a 50-foot high, illuminated flagpole placed within the portion of the site zoned Conservation Open Space with a 10-acre minimum (C/OS-10), based on findings, which cite the proposal's inconsistency with the General Plan. She read several letters into the record that she had received; one from Joel Weiss asking for denial of the proposed flagpole because it would violate City regulations and set an undesirable precedent, it is out of character with its surroundings, and would detract from the existing natural beauty of the area. The second letter was from Michael Sullivan who stated he is an army veteran of the Vietnam era and who considers himself a patriotic person, but believes that the proposed flagpole should not be approved because it violates City standards. Commr. Wilhelm asked if these findings for denial are specifically directed at flagpoles or are they generic in nature for development. -33 Draft ARC Minutes - �- Attachment 6 October 20, 2003-Excerpt Item 1 Page 2 Planner Ricci explained that the findings are crafted based on the subject request, which is installation of the flagpole, but the policies relate to structures and development in open space areas. Commr. Wilhelm questioned if it were the intent of the authors of these findings to not permit flagpoles in general Open Space. Planner Ricci replied that she did not feel flagpoles were anticipated when these policies were created. She noted that she worked with the City Attorney on appropriate findings both for approval and denial, which cited specific applicable General Plan policies. Bob Bryn, 783 Clearview Lane, representative of American Legion Post 66 of SLO and Marine Corps League, expressed appreciation for being allowed the extended time allotted to investigate KSBY's position, as well as determining a more suitable location for the flagpole. He noted that KSBY corporate management will not allow the installation on their property for a variety of reasons, none of which oppose their project. He mentioned that in view of this, they have decided to move the location as close to the Office zone line as feasibly possible, which would be approximately 18-feet from the edge of the parking area and approximately 6 to 8 feet from the Office zone. He stated there is no definitive line that separates the Office zone from the Conservation/Open Space zone; therefore this location should be acceptable without further complications or hesitations. He said that he would assure the Commission that the lighting of the flag would be very subdued so as not to light up the skyline. He explained that contrary to some press reports, this is not an oversized flag of billboard proportions, but a tasteful symbol of democracy. Tim Haley, American Legion Post 66, commented that this is a challenge ethically, emotionally, and personally. He read a letter describing what the flag stands for and commented on a few points: (1) It has to be sized appropriately. He noted their flag is a 10' x 15' flag which, per flag rules and regulations, requires a 50-foot flagpole. (2) If it is flown at night, as proposed, it must be lighted per regulations. (3) This is a no cost proposition to the City; no maintenance by the City required. He read an excerpt from the California Assembly Code Resolution that states, "through the State of California, others shall not apply rules to prevent the display of the flag. and Section 434.5 of the Government Code that states, "No person, private entity, or government agencies shall adopt rules, regulations, or ordinances to enter into an agreement or covenant, which prevents any person or private entity which would otherwise have the legal right to display a flag of the U.S. on private property from exercising that right, unless it is used as or in conjunction with an advertising display." Therefore, he felt the flag or flagpole cannot be denied. Stan Gustafson, Los Osos, Commandant Marine Corps League, felt there should be possibilities of exceptions for the flagpole and referred the Commission to Title 4 of the United States Code and recited the code to the commission. He presented a picture of five Marines and one Corpsman that raised the flag at Iwo Jima, and mentioned these are the men who fought for this flag and noted the commission should tell them that it is inconsistent with the General Plan and disrupting the beauty of our country. G- .- Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 6 October 20, 2003—Excerpt Item 1 Page 3 Tom Torgerson, 6200 Yano Road, Atascadero, recited a letter from Bud Neilson, who is a retired Lieutenant Coronal from the Army; which pointed out the sacrifices that were made for the freedom in this country, and the symbol of this flag. Frank Banner, 221 Weymouth, Cambria, mentioned his experience of raising the American flag occurred at a different place and time than this meeting, and the place was Iwo Jima, the time was Second World War. He talked about his experience in WW2 and how proud the soldiers were to fight for the freedom that this flag represented. Wayne Folsom, Arroyo Grande, Marine Corps, felt the people that originally opposed this flagpole did not envision the American flag, but envisioned billboards that would disrupt the scenery. He mentioned the proposed flag is not the largest flag available and noted the largest flag available is 20' x38'. He mentioned the ARC looks at architecture and noted the American flag is not a building, billboard, or architecture and therefore felt the Commission should not be reviewing this request. Bob Lee, 1665 Higuera Street, suggested the commission go back to September 2nd, when Commissioner Wilhelm made a motion in favor of their position with a 50-foot flag lighted on their Conservation/Open Space area, and re-make that motion. Gary Fowler, Mill Street, Chairman of San Luis Obispo County Commission on Aging, expressed that his group totally and whole-heartedly endorses and supports the erection of the flag and the pole as indicated their correspondence to the ARC. Sam Blakeslee, 1163 Pismo Street, mentioned that he served as Co-chair for the Housing Task Force and has worked on Housing Elements, and parking and access issues. He noted that often times these elements contain imprecision, ambiguity, and opportunity for interpretation, because whichever body seeks to constitute the correct language often times can't foresee and anticipate every eventuality. He explained when having to use some judgment on how to interpret language that isn't explicit, it is important to use common sense and the values that he believes are common to all of us. He stated that because this is the body that is constituted to make the recommendations when there is ambiguity, and because the reasons to argue in favor for allowing this to go forward are so compelling, he asked the Commission to allow this exception. Paul Brown, 1214 Mariner's Cove, noted that his own military experience pales by comparison to the men present at this meeting. He mentioned when he was a child, the school day started off with The Pledge of Allegiance. At that time he did not understand all the words, but knew there were people in the world that were bigger and stronger and mightier than him that would make those words true. He felt this is an opportunity to pay back some of these people with a small request and noted this flag is a symbol of the living truth. Evelyn Delmartini; 2210 San Ynez, noted that she is normally a member of the silent majority and expressed disappointment that the Commission has even had to reconsider this and to make the public come out again and stand up for their country. 6-3� I f Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 6 October 20, 2003—Excerpt Item 1 Page 4 She stated that if there is any individual here who is representing the public and who has a bias against this issue, they should step down and not participate in the discussion or voting. Dan Cutter, 1245 Philips Lane, noted that it bothers him to speak in opposition to this flag, but noted that he appreciates the deaths that have been made by Americans in the past and is proud to see the flag flying over Arlington, in front of out schools, and in front of the other educational institutions, but felt it does not belong as high as is requested, illuminated 24-hours a day so that it can be seen from all over. John Muller, 1567 Cucaracha Court, noted that he is wearing his uniform, which was issued to him in 1967 and was worn by him overseas. He stated that they went in with their flags and fought under our flags from the orders of our government. He noted the flag is no signboard; it is a symbol. Keith Jones, Templeton, mentioned that he is not a veteran, but he is a patriot. He mentioned there are always black and white rulings for most people, but noted there are gray areas that fall outside the realm of the black and white when making determinations for the review on these subjects. He felt that nature is always being protected but very little is protected for human rights and patriotism. Don Reagan, Grover Beach, noted that he graduated from Kent State with his PhD and noted that one of his best friends was killed on that bluff that very day. He stated that she died because of the flag and for the flag, which he stated was not an anti-American revolution. He said that if she were alive today, she would support the flag. Margaret Cooper, SLO, asked if the ARC has the authority to supersede the City planners. Chairperson Stevenson replied that they would respond to the question during commission comment. Don Henley, Avila Beach, asked why it is so difficult to get an answer on what they have to do to erect the flagpole in that location. Chairperson Stevenson replied that they would address that in commission comments. Allen Docker, 120 Andover Lane, Cambria, noted that he served in Korea and they were the first war to fight under the U.N. flag. He stated that his Commander refused to put that flag in front of his tent because his men and he fight under the flag of the United States of America. Bill Braumby, 134 Quail Way, Avila Beach, commented that he and his wife had to move because of architectural planning of an apartment building behind their home, which would block their views. He posed the questioned to the people: Would you rather see a three-story apartment or the American flag? Draft ARC Minutes - Attachment 6 October 20, 2003-Excerpt Item 1 Page 5 MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented that people should stand up tall and respect the flag. Jim Gentilucci, 1404 14-th Street, Los Osos, expressed his support for the flag display and felt it says a great deal of who we are as citizens of the City and County. Norman Harry, Los Osos, reminded everyone what is said in the Pledge of Allegiance, and when the flag is seen up on the hill, it will stand for the republic. Annie Langement, 1245 Philips Lane, commented that she is an American by choice and has been for the last 10 years. While she does not question the patriotism, the commitment, or the service of the men and women in this room and the loss they may have experienced, she noted that the flag is synonymous with their service, it is not synonymous with their patriotism, or their commitment for their service to our Country and wondered if the time, energy, effort and the money that is going to be spent on this flag might better be spent honoring the individuals that they are collectively trying to honor. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau mentioned that he spoke with a gentleman that has a 12' x 16' flag 2- 1/2 miles off of Highway 1, on a 55-foot pole. He indicated he was replacing the flag about every 10 days because of the location on the ridge, and wondered if the Legion has anticipated that. Mr. Lee replied no, and stated they have not anticipated going through a flag every 10 days, but noted the Marine Corps League and the American Legion have vowed to maintain that flag and pole. Planner Ricci noted that she spoke to the City Attorney and that it doesn't preclude the City from enforcing its General Plan Standards in this case. Commr. Wilhelm commented he has gone over this for the last month and on a technical level he is split because one part of him wants to be honorable to the policies and.regulations, and the other part is an issue of honor, recognition and symbolism. He felt he must go on the side of the symbol and honor. He commented that he would personally support this flagpole being erected in the Conservation/Open Space zone. Commr. Root expressed an appreciation to the Legion on the dedication that it takes to bring them back to three meetings. He agreed that it is not a billboard or structure, but a special circumstance. He commented that he fully endorses being able to fly that flag, but he cannot endorse it in that location. He noted that he would endorse a 50-foot pole, the illumination without any conditions or restrictions if it were somewhere other than on that hillside. 6-37 1 Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 6 October 20, 2003—Excerpt Item 1 Page 6 Commr. Boudreau commented if the ordinance is to be followed to the letter, and go by the letter of the law, then deny the project. But if you want to respond to the sentiment of the public, and he felt there is a majority of the people that support the project, then he would have to respond to it that way and grant approval. Commr. Howard concurred with Commissioner Root's comments and felt this is very emotional. She noted when they were appointed to this position, they swore that they would uphold the laws of the State and the City, and she felt this is their way of showing patriotism by supporting and upholding these laws, which reflect the opinion of the whole community. Commr. Lopes also concurred with Commissioner Howard's comments. Commr. Smith commented that he has felt the same way since the first meeting. He also felt the Commission should make whatever exceptions are needed to permit this flag to be erected. Chairperson Stevenson expressed a concern about this particular location on a hillside in the Open Space zone, as well as the height of the pole, which he felt should be at 35- feet. He also was concerned with the illumination and felt these are issues that the commission must deal with before on other flagpole requests in the city are received. He felt this would be appropriate in a less prominent location off the hillside in the Open Space/Conservation category and felt that Commissioner Root's suggestion of locating it near the City's entry feature is an appropriate area, and a 50-foot pole in that location is appropriate. Commr. Lopes moved to deny the proposed flagpole and move staff recommendations with the findings in the staff report. Seconded by Commr. Howard. Commr. Wilhelm spoke to the motion and wondered if they had considered placing the flagpole in the parking lot. Commr. Lopes explained the reason for the motion is that the Open Space zoning doesn't allow structures, and he sees the flagpole as a structure. Commr. Smith commented that he does not share Commissioner Lopes' black and white views and felt if it were black and white, then it would be easy. Commr. Howard commented that she felt comfortable that every stone has been turned and every possibility has been looked at in finding an exception that is justifiable. Commr. Root concurred with Commissioner Smith that this is not a black and white issue, but more of a gray area, and felt the flagpole is not a structure. He stated he could not support the flagpole in this location. Draft ARC Minutes _ Attachment 6 October 20, 2003—Excerpt Item 1 Page 7 AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Howard, Root, and Chairperson Stevenson NOES: Commr. Wilhelm, Smith, and Vice-Chair Boudreau ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-3. Chairperson Stevenson noted this action could be appealed to the City Council within ten days. i — - -- 1772 cane Joaquin Attachment San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 p Phone (805)541-6666 Fax (805)597.8510 October 13,2003 Pam- This letter is to confine our recent conversation regarding the installation of a 50 foot flag pole on KSBY property. Regretfully, KSBY cannot accommodate the request due to technical and future growth concerns. We appreciate the City of San Luis Obispo's effort to facilitate this process and the devoted members of the American Legion who have worked so hard to make this project a reality. We are grateful to you all for considering KSBY as a potential site. Sincerely, Tim Perry Attachment SIGN REGULATIONS — Chapter 15.40 Article VI. Exception to Sign while allowing its basic form and character to remain. Standards C. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege or entitlement inconsistent with 15.40.190 Requests for exceptions. limitations applied to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Unusual site conditions or other design factors D. Granting the exception will not be detri- may warrant signs not otherwise permitted by mental to the public welfare or injurious to the these regulations. A sign permit application which includes a request for exceptions to stan— dards established by these regulations is subject to architectural review and shall include reasons E. The sign for which the exception is requested r for the request. Unless deemed architecturally i c eguem with the purpose and intent of the s insignificant, a separate architectural review sign regulations. application and fees are required. 15.40.200 Findings for approval of an exception. Granting an exception to the sign regulations must be based on the following or similar find- ings: A. There are exceptional or unusual circum- stances applying to the property involved which do not apply generally to properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, such as: 1. Presence of a legally nonconforming use; 2. Visual obstruction; or 3. Unusual building location on-site. B. The sign for which an exception is requested is a nonconforming sign that acts as a neighborhood landmark or focal point while not disrupting views of prominent community land- scape features. When granting an exception, the Arc hitecdural Review Commission (ARC) or the Director shall require that as many nonconform- ing elements of the sign as possible be eliminated 16 641 Attachment 8 SIGN REGULATIONS — Chapter 15.40 Article V. Sign Standards width of the sidewalk or 6 feet, whichever is less. E. Clearance - Pole signs: Where permitted, 15.40.170 General standards. pole signs must have a minimum vertical clear- ance of 8 feet. All signs shall conform to the following general standards (by sign type) in addition to standards for the zone district in which they are located, ' unless an exception is granted through the architectural review process. Note: Please also refer to the definitions, and sections describing exempt signs, prohibited signs, and signs requiring architectural review. A. Awning signs: Signs on awnings shall not cover more than 25 percent of the main area of the awning, or exceed 25 square feet in size, Figure 4-Pole Sign whichever is smaller. F. Fence signs: Signs attached to fences are B. Cabinet signs: Generally, cabinet signs permitted wherever wall signs are. permitted should have dark backgrounds and light letters providing they do not encroach into the public rather than the reverse. right-of-way or cross a common property line and are limited to a maximum area of 16 square C. Changeable copy signs: These may be used feet. in lieu of a wall or window sign, but may not exceed 6 square feet.in size(theater signs are not It G. Flags: The use of the American flag should subject to this area limit). have patriotic rather than commercial signing functions. Flag poles displaying only national, D. Clearance-Awning, projecting, marquee, state, or local flags shall be located outside of and suspended signs: Where permitted, these required setback areas and shall conform to the signs shall conform to the following require- height requirements for strictures in the site's ments: zoning district. Flag poles displaying other than national, state, or local flags shall be subject to 1. Vertical clearance. The minimum clear- height, area, lighting, and location standards ance between the lowest point of a sign and the established by this chapter for pole signs. grade immediately below shall be 8 feet. H. Height: The top of a sign attached to 2. Horizontal clearance. The minimum building shall not be higher than 25 feet or the horizontal clearance between a sign and the curb height of the building face, excluding parapets, line shall bet feet;the maximum projection over whichever is less. Signs shall not be located a public sidewalk shall be two-thirds (2/3) the above the second story. Generally, signs should 10 Attachment c Open Sp =,2 111e crena I Y � �I i II .Y I sr.�+t ate+ w ari•:Ys_ =eY�,-'l:_ -rte__ n + I I 11.2 POLICIES OS 11.2.1: Preservation of Scenic Resources C1 14.1 Scenic resources should be preserved consistent with the policies in this Element. i (p74,1A) i OS 11.2.2: Billboards and Signs C1 14.11 Billboards and obtrusive signs should be prohibited. (p74,113) CI 1412h h! OS 1L2.3: Development Practices for Protecting Scenic Resources Public or private development should be required to protect scenic resources by: II A) Prohibiting structures along ridgelines,steep slopes,or in other highly visible locations unless no practicable alternative is available, otherwise provided for in the Land Use Element, or such a location is necessary to protect public health and safety. B) Utilizing natural landforms and vegetation for screening i; structures, access roads, building foundations, and cut and fill slopes. u OS-44 ceneual.plan digest-city of san Luis owspo Attachment 9 Glossary Strike-slip fault - A fault, the actual movement of which is parallel to the strike (trend) of the fault. (AGI, 1972) Structure means anything assembled or constructed on the ground, or attached to anything with a foundation on the ground. (City Code Section 17.04.4 10) Subsidence- A local mass movement that involves principally the gradual downward settling or sinking of the solid Earth's surface with little or no horizontal motion and that does not occur along a free surface (not the result of a landslide or failure of a ' slope.) (AGI, 1972) Suburban Residential is a land-use category for not more than one dwelling per acre, where City water-and sewer services are not available. Taxa refers to any species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, invertebrate, or plant. Tectonic - Of or pertaining to the forces involved in, or the resulting structures or features of the upper part of the Earth's crust. (Mod. from AGI, 1972) Threatened species are any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game. Top of bank - See "Physical top of bank". Tourist Commercial is a land-use category for businesses which primarily serve visitors and the travelling public, such as motels, gas stations, and restaurants. Transfer of Development Credit is a program that allows a landowner (located in the City, the greenbelt, or Outer Planning Area) to transfer a property's development potential to another property located within the City, the greenbelt, or Outer Planning ( Area where development is encouraged. Such a program transfers development from a site where development is discouraged (sender site) to a site where development is encouraged (receiver site). Transportation noise source means traffic on public roadways, rail line opera- tions, and aircraft in flight. Control of noise from these sources is preempted by Federal and State regulations. However, the effects of noise from transportation sources may be controlled by regulating the location and design of land uses affected by transportation 1 noise sources. a GL-78 peneRal plan biGEst-city of san Luis oaispo 0\ 6_yf Attachment 9 Glossary Noise exposure contours are lines drawn around a noise source, indicating con- stant levels of noise exposure. Noise level reduction, abbreviated "NLR," is the arithmetic difference between the levels of sound outside and inside a building, measured in decibels. For example, if the sound level outside a house is 70 dB and the level inside a room of the house is 45 dB, the NLR is 25 dB (70-45 =25). i Noise-sensitive land use means: residential land uses; hotels, motels, bed-and- breakfast inns, or hostels; schools; libraries; churches; hospitals and nursing homes; playgrounds and parks; theaters, auditoriums, and music halls; museums; meeting halls and convention facilities; professional offices: and, similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director. E Normal fault - A fault in which the hanging wall appears to have moved downward relative to the footwall. The angle of the fault is usually 45-90 degrees.This is dip-separa- tion, but there may or may not be dip-slip. (AGI, 1972) 1 Office is a land-use category for professional and financial services, and related, sup- porting businesses. Old Town means the part of downtown which includes the residential areas around the commercial core, where most original houses were built before 1940. Open Space is land or water area which remains in a predominantly natural or unde- veloped state, and is generally free of structures. Such lands protect and preserve the community's natural and historical resources, define the urban boundary, and provide visual and physical relief from urban development. Open spaces may consist of small i portions of a parcel or large tracts of land. Such lands may include farming and grazing; creeks, marshes, watershed and floodplain; scenic resources; plant and animal habitat; historic and archaeological resources; and passive recreation areas. a Outdoor activity areas are: patios, decks, balconies, outdoor eating areas, swim- ming pool areas, yards of dwellings, and other areas commonly used for outdoor activi- ties and recreation. Outer Planning Area is the land outside the City's greenbelt but within the County's designated perimeter of the Planning Area. Park is a land-use category for publicly owned parks. Passive recreation means low-impact activities such as hiking, bird-watching, na- ture photography, trails, nature study, viewing station, interpretive areas, and similar F uses. city of san Luis oBispo - ceneizal plan Ngest GL-13 Attachment 9 SLA) General Plan Land Use Element 6.1.2 Open Space Uses Lands designated Open Space should be used for purposes which do not need urban services, major structures, or extensive landform changes. Such uses include: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant habitat; grazing; cultivated crops; and passive recreation. Buildings. lighting' paving use of vehicles and alterations to the landforms and native or trad4tinnaI landscapes on open space lands should be minimized, so rural character and resources are maintained. Buildings and paved surfaces, such as parking or roads, shall not exceed the following: where a parcel smaller than ten acres already exists, five percent of the site area; on a parcel of ten acres or more, three percent. As explained in the Open Space Element, the characteristics of an open space area may result in it being suitable for some open space uses, but not the full range. 6.1.3 Open Space Land Divisions Parcels within Open Space areas should not be further divided. 6.1.4 Interim Open Space Designation The General Plan Land Use Element Map shows desired future uses for most land within the urban reserve line. However, the City has not decided the best eventual use for some areas. Such areas are designated Interim Open Space, indicating that they will be suitable for urban development when certain conditions are satisfied. Examples of such conditions include demonstrated need for further urban development that cannot be satisfied on already urbanized land, provision of proper access and utility service, and environmentally acceptable reduction of flood hazards. The Interim Open Space designation is to be changed to an urban classification only when the conditions necessary for development can be satisfied and a certain type of development is approved. After further study, it may be found that permanent Open Space is an appropriate classification for areas initially classified as Interim Open Space. 6.1.5 Interim Open Space Uses and Parcel Sizes Uses within Interim Open Space areas should, be the same as in Open Space areas (policies 6.1.1 and 6.1.2). Interim Open Space areas should not be further subdivided until a development plan or a specific plan is approved (pursuant to policy 1.13.3), except to separate land to be dedicated in feeto the City, or other responsible public or nonprofit agency, for permanent open space. 6.1.6 Eventual Uses This element identifies intended uses for each area designated Interim Open Space. Such areas are discussed under Optional Use and Special Design Areas, and Hillside Planning. One area not discussed under those headings is: About 11 acres between Los Verdes Park and San Luis Obispo Creek, which may be used for residential development if the flood hazard is mitigated without significant harm to the creek. 65 U4l� Land Use Element SLO General Plan Attachment 9 I i A CAL POLY• CUESTA PARK •f I i •i �••• '�, r LUNETA I 'S I I B WOODLAND DRIVE i •I �..«•••'' C GOLDTREE 'MADONNA j rr•" (i y •1 1 ONERI `.�..- D '• \ '•. j ORCUTT PREFUMOt ♦•. i ••• �pf E (BILLY OA 9•• f ACRES % I MARGARrrA H IRISH NILS f , _.J •s Oy f CALLE i ; JOAQUIN t FIGURE 6 HILLSIDE PLANNING AREAS a; city Or HILLSIDE PLANNING VE SIM san Luis oBispo �•""�"""'•""� BOUNDARIES N 66 / IO`�� Attachment 9 SLA) General Plan Land Use Element 6.2 Hillside Policies 6.2.0 Introduction As discussed in the open space section, San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside areas, however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas. This section focuses on where and how some hillsides may be developed. The City establishes comprehensive standards and policies for hillside development for the following reasons: A. To protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, plant communities, rock outcroppings and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community. B. To set the limits of commercial and residential development in hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community. C. To protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, flooding and erosion. 6.2.1 Development Limits Hillsides planning areas should have carefully chosen development limit lines, and special design standards for the areas which can be developed. The location of the development limit and the standards should cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element, and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards. Also, the development limit line and the standards should help protect the City's scenic setting. (Locations of hillside planning areas are shown in Figure 6. More precise locations of the development limit line and the urban reserve line are shown on large-scale aerial photographs on file at the Community Development Department; these are part of the Land Use Element.) 6.2.2 Development Standards Development —including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas— on hillside parcels shall: A. Be entirely within the urban reserve line or development limit line, whichever is more restrictive (though parcel boundaries may extend beyond these lines when necessary to. meet minimum parcel-size standards),' unless one of the following three exceptions applies. 67 i Attachment 9 Land Use Element SLO General Plan 1. A location outside the urban reserve line or development limit line is necessary to protect public health and safety. 2. New wireless telecommunication facilities may be appropriate on South Street Hills inside the three-acre leasehold already developed with commercial and municipal radio facilities, subject to use permit approval and architectural review and approval. Applicants shall comply with all other provisions of this section, and demonstrate that (a) new facilities will not individually or additively interfere with City radio equipment necessary for emergency response coordination, and (b) will not cause on-site radio frequency radiation levels to exceed exposure standards established for the general public by the American National Standards Institute. 3. Where a legally built dwelling exists on a parcel which is entirely outside the urban reserve line or development limit line, a replacement dwelling may be constructed subject to standards B through H below. B. Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes; C. Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns; D. Minimize grading of roads; E. Minimize grading on individual lots; generally, locate houses close to the street; minimize the grading of visible driveways; F. Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and which provides a visual transition from developed to open areas; G. Use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts; H. Minimize exterior lighting. 6.2.3 Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines Before development occurs on any parcel which crosses the urban reserve or development limit lines, the part outside the lines shall be protected as permanent open space. 6.2.4 Development Credit Transfer Any residential development credit obtained from Open Space designations outside the urban reserve line or development limit line should be transferred to land inside the lines. 68 Attachment 10 3 September 2003 Architectural Review Commission CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI SPO City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. SEP 4 2003 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To the Architectural Review Commission: I was alarmed to read about the possible location.of a lighted flag placed on a space zoned for conservation and open.space. I am opposed to this idea for a couple of reasons: 1. I very much appreciate the natural beauty one sees when approaching San Luis Obispo from the south. This is what gives our area its value. 2. There is already a large American flag flying on private property at the end of South Higuera. It is my opinion that it too large and disrupts the natural beauty of this area. 3. 1 appreciate the service of our veterans but I feel flag flying should be tasteful and in the proper zoning areas, not an in-your-face proposition. Please find an appropriate location for this flag that is in an area already marked by human development and preserve our precious oopen space. Sincerely, Nancy Williso� 230 Catalina San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805)543-0325 I of 1 9/3/03 826 AM G_'�-0 - - Attachment 10 Dave Romero Mayor Slo 9.3.03 Dave I'm astonished; I only wish my vocabulary was sufficient to explain my disgust of your planning staff.............Why in the world is there a discussions going on over a simple installation of an American flag:....... . It would be interesting for the SLO citizens to know just how many staff hours have been devoted to objecting to the installation of one of Americas great patriotic symbols. ..........and it was testified that this has been going on for five years; what a disgrace..........and why do we need a general plan designation for this desolate hill top? It appears we (all taxpayers) have too many planners with nothing better to do. Dave; we simply have too much government; It's time to clean the house. I would hope you will have the courage and conviction to send the planners to the woodshed for the thrashing they richly deserve. With a great deal of sincerity; I remain a fan of yours. Wayne king 965 Airport Dr.. Slo 93401 residing in Pismo; home to the counties largest American Flag on 101 �iorvnoo u,o 01 LCIB l t0 d3SAI3,038 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SEP_2 6 2003 Chairman Arch Review Slo --------- A. t.s Vii: 4 ,E: r 9.21.03 co 5 t G bt Jf'. ch,T Attachment 10 See attached cartoon............This should be sh wn t each member of your commission........ I Attended the hearing with other veterans that you folks show no respect for. III To delay and attempt to deny the veterans fight to install our symbolic flag of freedom borders on the edg of insanity. To declare our nations flag cannot be display d in open space is outrageous; if not treasonable....... Yesl I am aware of the fact that SLO staff ma es recommendations to the committee and yes the4nnot have decided which properties should be used and those that is again the same type of decisions made in other co nmulnistic communities. i i THEY SHOULD TAKEN TO THE WOODSHED............. THEI q FIRED! from the citizens payrolllll I am a proud citizen of Pismo Beach ....... Home oft the SLO counties largest US Flag and .......Yes; I proudly display my flag daily Wayne King Eagle Land and Brokeiage 965 Airport Dr. Slo 93401 ��S Z Attachment 10 t3 F 4 Z LU } Fan � r �CK y.. ' Y V r M6 �'Ufli-Th AVon cis . aLU n Y .lu e en �- S'3 Pam Ricci From: "Kristina 6." <kristinabridget@hotmail.com> Attachment 10 To: <pdcci@slocity.org> Date: 9/8/03 11:06PM Subject: flag Dear Pam, I am a concerned citizen of San Luis Obispo County writing to voice concern about the proposed 50 foot American Legion flag. I clearly and strongly object to this flag being raised as described in the proposal I read (illuminated, 10x17, 50 feet high). My concerns are mainly that it will interfere with the natural greenbelt, block night sky vision, and possibly be a part of"branding"the community as having a specific political belief. Thank you for listening, Kristina Bennett 1311 Stoney Creek Paso Robles, CA 93446 (I work in San Luis Obispo and spend many evenings there socially) Express yourself with MSN Messenger 6.0—download now! hftp://www.msnmessenger-download.comttracking/reach_general Pam Ricci-American Legion Flag Page 1 From: David Mayfield <dmsw52 @charter.net> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/30/03 6:51 PM Subject: American Legion Flag I want to speak up and add my support to the placement of the American flag'(of any size and shape)as a symbol of our freedom and the nation we are blessed to live in. Some may say that there are decisions and actions which they do not agree with of late....but would they rather live in Brazil, China, somewhere else. I strongly urge you to advocate that the portrayal of our American freedoms and rights and blessings be displayed. To say NO to this gesture is to say NO to the country's identity that you wake up to every moming and work through each day in and go to sleep in peace every night You cannot disagree with the fact that without the sacrifices that the flag represents...you would be Irving a totally different existence to what you enjoy today,. Sincerely submitted, David Mayfield, Los Osos 26yrs County Employee � -S�S Pam Ricci - Flag --- ------- From: <CaroleKorb@aol.com> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 10/4/03 9:41 PM Subject: Flag-NO Pam Ricci, As a resident of Pismo Beach I want to express my shock that the flag as proposed by the American Legion has even been considered. This is just not in the plan for the city of LO and for good reason. Leaving any politics aside, I drive along the 101 to do all my regular business and part of the essence of living here is to be able to drive into"town"viewing the lovely hills and open spaces. That.is what.has been defined as the character of this area rather than arriving to SLO with artificial lights and anything spoiling the natural setting. Just because it is a flag (and we all believe in the flag)does not justify the city changing this vital and important characteristic which makes us so different from the other ugly cities of California. If you let this flag come to us, anything else can follow and we will be sorry for what we have lost. It is important that we do not let the fact that this is the AMERICAN Legion. make a difference. Who will it be next time? Thank you for your consideration. Carole Korb 780 Fresno St. Pismo Beach, CA 93449 if'�� ! Pae 1 From: Sycamore DAWG <dawg929@webtv.net> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 10/4/03 12:15AM Subject: THE FLAG I have lived in this county all of my life except for the 21 years that I spent in the U.S.Navy. Two(2)tours in Vietnam,Korea, and three (3)trips to Beirute Lebanon. If you don't like our Flag and what it stands for. I strongly suggest that you either Love it or Leave. If you are an a.American you have that option. T.F. Dempsey MMC USN RET. -S-7 Pam Ricci-Fw Freedom isn't Free- -��Read! LL -' _ � ' -�. Page 1 From: "Lin &Charley Penrose" <cpenrose@fix.net> Attachment 10 To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@webtv.net> Date: 7/4/03 6:08AM Subject: Fw: Freedom isn't Free Good Read! -Forwarc(ccl - ram T F, Dempsey Sorry. It came in with parts of some of the pictures missing. Cherokee Indian Prayer O Great Spirit, Help me always to speak the truth quietly, to listen with an open mind when others speak, and to remember the peace that may be found in silence. Freedom Isn't Free!!!! I watched the flag pass by one day, It fluttered in the breeze. A young Marine saluted it, And then he stood at ease. I looked at him in uniform So young, so tall, so proud, With hair cut square and eyes alert He'd stand out in any crowd. I thought how many men like him Had fallen through the years. How many died on foreign soil How many mothers'tears? How many pilots' planes shot down? How many died at sea How many foxholes were soldiers'graves? No, freedom isn't free. heard the sound of Taps one night, When everything was still, I listened to the bugler play And felt a sudden chill. I wondered just how many times That Taps had meant"Amen," _ - - -- -- ------ — _ .I Read! --- — --PaFfl Pam Ricci-Fw: Freedom isn't Free— Attachment 10 When a flag had draped a coffin. Of a brother or a fiend. I thought of all the children, Of the mothers and the wives, Of fathers, sons and husbands With interrupted lives. I thought about a graveyard At the bottom of the sea Of unmarked graves in Arlington. No, freedom isn't free. Enjoy Your Freedom &God Bless Our Troops Show Your Support Send This Page Along Today IncrediMail-Email has finally evolved-Click Here G-sy Pam Ricci-American lag — Page 1 _.— -- From: "Larry Gabrisch" <larry.gabdsch@promega.com> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/29/03 10:12AM Subject: American Flag Dear Ms. Ricci: Overt displays of patriotism, like overt displays of religious preference, are divisive. I don't believe it's in the city's best interest to advertise anything more controversial than tourist services. Sincerely, Larry Gabrisch Los Osos a G- Gb Pam Ricci-HI SENIOR PLANNER P%--RICCI: REGARDING THE ARTICLE IN TN- "LEW TIMES ENTITLED°FLAG Fll e h From: Don Moms<dmmorris@calpoly.edu> Attachment 10 To: <pncci@slocity.org> Date: 9/30/03 3:09PM Subject: HI SENIOR PLANNER PAM RICCI: REGARDING THE ARTICLE IN THE NEW TIMES ENTITLED"FLAG FLAP". IF MEN WHO GAVE MILITARY SERVICE TO THEIR COUNTRY AND BY EXTENSION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ARE WILLING TO PUT UP THEIR OWN MONEY TO BUILD A FLAG POLE AND FLY H1 SENIOR PLANNER PAM RICCI: REGARDING THE ARTICLE IN THE NEW TIMES ENTITLED"FLAG FLAP". IF MEN WHO GAVE MILITARY SERVICE TO THEIR COUNTRY AND BY EXTENSION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ARE WILLING TO PUT UP THEIR OWN MONEY TO BUILD A FLAG POLE AND FLY AN AMERICAN FLAG I SAY MORE POWER TO THEM. I'M NOT SURE WHO MAKES UP THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE"ARC" BUT THEY SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BACKGROUND OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO FLY THE AMERICAN FLAG IN SAN LUIS OBISPO. IT SEEM VERY WRONG TO ME FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO BE TRYING TO STOP THIS PATRIOTIC EFFORT. (I GUARANTEE YOU AND ALL THE CITY LEADERSHIP THAT THE L.A. TIMES AND THE NATIONAL MEDIA WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY IF THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT PASSED). I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE EFFORT TO FLY THE AMERICAN FLAG OVER THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. DR. DON MORRIS- 53 YEAR RESIDENT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND ENVIRONS CDR. US NAVY ret P.S. YOU WILL NOTE I HAVE SENT COPIES OF THIS E-MAIL TO THE SLO CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER POLITICAL LEADERS IN CASE THIS"ARC"GROUP MAKES A BAD DECISION THAT WILL NEED TO BE OVERTURNED. CC: <gyrene@aol.com>, <cfhandlerl@charter.net>, <MOBAYARMY ,AOL.COM>, <cwosmith@hotmail.com>, <usmcstan@hotmail.com>, <bdresslerl @charter.net>, <jfoldberg@aol.com>, <gorbell@msn.com>, <pasohawk@juno.com>, <mljerry@aol.com>, <SammySamson2@msn.com>, <nleon805@charter.net>, <thjcsaddleup@charter.net>, <budnielsen@hotmail.com>, <d.rendek@verizon.net>, <jlswitzosos@cs.com>, <sheddan@tcsn.net>, <dondavidsmith@msn.com>, <mcent@charter.net>, <Trtsemperfi@aol.com>, <mrhandyman54@hotmail.com>, <wjwcreate2@cs.com>, Mil John Enos Enos <jenos@prodigy.net>, MILITARY NAVY Ralph Bettman <rbettman@tcsn.net>, military jack spaulding <jspaslo@aol.com>, MILITARY FRANK ROWAN ROWAN <frowan@aol.com>, MILITARY BRIAN DARNELL DARNELL<b_c_damell@yahoo.com>, "MIL. PRES. MARINES STAN GUSTAFSON GUSTAFSON" <usmcstan@hotmail.com>, "MIL. BOB LEE LEE" <slolee2@juno.com>, <wmontgom@calpoly.edu>, MIL AMERICAN LEGION KEN MILLER <skinmill@aol.com>, MIL AMERICAN LEGION BOB BRYN <SLOBRYN@aol.com>, Robert Bryn <rbryn@ci.san-Iuis-obispo.ca.us>, "POLITICAL U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER BOXER" <senator@boxer.senate.gov>, "POLITICAL U.S. SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN FEINSTEIN" <senator@feinstein.senate.gov>, POLITICAL STEPHEN McSHANE STATE SENATOR <steve.mcshane@sen.ca.gov>, political senator brace.McPherson <senator.mcpherson@sen.ca.gov>, "POLITICAL PRES. GEORGE BUSH BUSH" <president@whitehouse.gov>, POLITICAL ABLE MALDONADO ASSEMBLY<assemblymember.maldonado@assembly.ca.gov>, "political Abel Maldonado (Abel.Maldonado@asm.ca.gov)" <Abel.Maldonado@asm.ca.gov>, "political U.S. representitive bill thomas"<bill.thomas@mail.house.gov>, POLITCIAL TERESA MARTINEZ SENATOR McPHERSON OFFICE <teresa.martinez@sen.ca.gov>, <thecorps2@aol.com> - ' Attachment 10 3 September 2003 Architectural Review Commission CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. SEP 42003 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To the Architectural Review Commission: I was alarmed to read about the possible location of a lighted flag placed on a space zoned for conservation and open space. I am opposed to this idea for a couple of reasons: 1. I very much appreciate the natural beauty one sees when approaching San Luis Obispo from the south. This is what gives our area its value. 2. There is already a large American flag flying on private property at the end of South Higuera. It is my opinion that it is too large and disrupts the natural beauty of this area. 3. 1 appreciate the service of our veterans but I feel flag flying should be tasteful and in the proper zoning areas, not an in-your-face proposition. Please find an appropriate location for this flag that is in an area already marked by human development and preserve our precious oopen space. Sincerely, Nancy Williso� 230 Catalina Ban Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805)543-0325 1 of 1 9/3//03 8//26 AM 6 —� Z Attachment 10 Dave Romero Mayor Slo 9.3.03 Dave I'm astonished; I only wish my vocabulary was sufficient to explain my disgust of your planning staff.............Why in the world is there a discussions going on over a simple installation of an American flag:....... . It would be interesting for the SLO citizens to know just how many staff hours have been devoted to objecting to the installation of one of Americas great patriotic symbols. ..........and it was testified that this has been going on for five years; what a disgrace..........and why do we need a general plan designation for this desolate hill top? It appears we (all taxpayers) have too many planners with nothing better to do. Dave; we simply have too much government; It's time to clean the house. I would hope you will have the courage and conviction to send the planners to the woodshed for the thrashing they richly deserve. With a great deal of sincerity; I remain a fan of yours. Wayne king 965 Airport Dr.. Slo 93401 residing in Pismo; home to the counties largest American Flag on 101 113Nnoo ulo 01S LCOOI fi 0 d3S C�Ai302d ITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO i SEP 2 6 2003 Chairman Arch Review Slo -------- 9.21.03 COQ;? !, ! i C_GtL), fti ���J Attachment 10 See attached cartoon.............This should be sh wn t each member of your commission........ I Attended the hearing with other veterans that y u folks show no respect for. To delay and attempt to deny the veterans right to install our symbolic flag of freedom borders on the edge of nsanity. To declare our nations flag cannot be displayed in open space is outrageous; if not treasonable....... Yesl I am aware of the fact that SLO staff ma es recommendations to the committee andy es the have decided which properties should be used and those that nnot is again the same type of decisions made in other co muhistic communities. i THEY SHOULD TAKEN TO THE WOODSHED............a THE1 q FIRED! from the citizens payrolllll I am a proud citizen of Pismo Beach ....... Home oft the SLO counties largest US Flag and .......Yes; I proudly di splay my flag daily Wayne King Eagle Land and Brokerage 965 Airport Dr. Slo 93401 I Attachment 10 N LU La a . .� g }O f• 2 f IOU, ��ui V � 07 '• ,C�'n� r' p r: a LU2 &' LU Pam Ricci-flag From: "Kristina B."<kristinabridget@hotmail.com> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/8/03 11:06PM Subject: flag Dear Pam, I am a concerned citizen of San Luis Obispo County writing to voice concern about the proposed 50 foot American Legion flag. I clearly and strongly object to this flag being raised as described in the proposal I read (illuminated, 10x17, 50 feet high). My concerns are mainly that it will interfere with the natural greenbelt, block night sky vision, and possibly be a part of"branding"the community as having a specific political belief. Thank you for listening, Kristina Bennett 1311 Stoney Creek Paso Robles, CA 93446 (I work in San Luis Obispo and spend many evenings there socially) Express yourself with MSN Messenger 6.0—download now! hftp://www.msnmessenger-download.cor,rVtracking/reach_general - 100 (Pam Ricci-American Legion Flag .. _ - ., Page 1 From: David Mayfield <dmsw52@charter.net> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/30/03 6:51 PM Subject: American Legion Flag I want to speak up and add my support to the placement of the American flag `(of any size and shape)as a symbol of our freedom and the nation we are blessed to live in. Some may say that there are decisions and actions which they do not agree with of late....but would they rather live in Brazil, China, somewhere else. strongly urge you to advocate that the.portrayal of our American freedoms and rights and blessings be displayed. To say NO to this gesture is to say NO to the country's identity that you wake up to every morning and work through each day in and go to sleep in peace every night. You cannot disagree with the fact that without the sacrifices that the flag represents...you would be living a totally different existence to what you enjoy today,. Sincerely submitted, David Mayfield, Los Osos 26yrs County Employee G-G7 Pam Ricci-Flag-NO From: <CaroleKorb@aol.com> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 10/4/03 9:41 PM Subject: Flag-NO Pam Ricci, As a resident of Pismo Beach I want to express my shock that the flag as proposed by the American Legion has even been considered.This is just not in the plan for the city of LO and for good reason. Leaving any politics aside, I drive along the 101 to do all my regular business and part of the essence of living here is to be able to drive into"town"viewing the lovely hills and open spaces. That is what has been defined as the character of this area rather than arriving to SLO with artificial lights and anything spoiling the natural setting. Just because it is a flag (and we all believe in the flag) does not justify the city changing this vital and important characteristic which makes us so different from the other ugly cities of California. If you let this flag come to us, anything else can follow and we will be song for what we have lost. It is important that we do not let the fact that this is the AMERICAN Legion make a difference. Who will it be next time? Thank you for your consideration. Carole Korb 780 Fresno St. Pismo Beach, CA 93449 (D" �a Pam Ricci-THE FLAG From: Sycamore DAWG<dawg929@webtv.net> Attachment 10 To: <pdcci@slocity.org> Date: 10/4/03 12:15AM Subject: THE FLAG I have lived in this county all of my life except for the 21 years that I spent in the U.S.Navy.Two(2)tours in Vietnam,Korea, and three (3)trips to Beirute Lebanon. If you don't like our Flag and what it stands for. I strongly suggest that you either Love it or Leave. If you are an a American you have that option. T.F. Dempsey MMC USN RET. - - - {Pam-Ricci-Fw:-Freedom isn t-Free-- Read i � __ _ . _` __ _._.__. ._ . .___ „__.,� � Page 1 ` From: "Lin &Charley Penrose" <cpenrose@fix.netb Attachment 10 To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@webtv.net> Date: 7/4/03 6:08AM Subject: Fw: Freedom isn't Free--Good Read! --arwarrlecl - rdm I •� F Dernpzey Sorry. It came in with parts of some of the pictures missing. Cherokee Indian Prayer O Great Spirit, Help me always to speak the truth quietly, to listen with an open mind when others speak, and to remember the peace that may found in silence. Freedom Isn't Free!!!! I watched the flag pass by one day, It fluttered in the breeze. A young Marine saluted it, And then he stood at ease. I looked at him in uniform So young, so tall, so proud, With hair out square and eyes alert He'd stand out in any crowd. I thought how many men like him Had fallen through the years. How many died on foreign soil How many mothers'tears? How many pilots' planes shot down? How many died at sea How many foxholes were soldiers' graves? No, freedom isn't free. I heard the sound of Taps one night, When everything was still, I listened to the bugler play And felt a sudden chill. I wondered just how many times That Taps had meant"Amen," b-7� Pam Ricci- Fw: Freedom isn't Free- " --.I-Re-ad!-'-- " Attachment 10 When a flag had draped a coffin. Of a brother or a friend. I thought of all the children, Of the mothers and the wives, Of fathers, sons and husbands With interrupted lives. I thought about a graveyard At the bottom of the sea Of unmarked graves in Arlington. No, freedom isn't free. Enjoy Your Freedom &God Bless Our Troops Show Your Support Send This Page Along Today IncrediMail-Email has finally evolved -Click Here 6 -71 Pam Ricci-American Flag From: "Lary Gabrisch" <larry.gabrisch@promega.com> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/29/03 10:12AM Subject: American Flag Dear Ms. Ricci: Overt displays of patriotism, like overt displays of religious preference, are divisive. I don't believe it's in the city's best interest to advertise anything more controversial than tourist services. Sincerely, Larry Gabrisch Los Osos • Pam Ricci- SENIOR PLANNER.PP" zTCCI:REGARDING THE ARTICLE IN fH�m"iEW TIMES ENTITLED"FLAG FIBS 11 From: Don Morris<dmmorris@calpoly.edu> Attachment 10 To: <pdcci@slocity.org> Date: 9/30/03 3:09PM Subject: HI SENIOR PLANNER PAM RICCI: REGARDING THE ARTICLE IN THE NEW TIMES ENTITLED"FLAG FLAP". IF'MEN WHO GAVE MILITARY SERVICE TO THEIR COUNTRY AND BY EXTENSION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ARE WILLING TO PUT UP THEIR OWN MONEY TO BUILD A FLAG POLE AND FLY HI SENIOR PLANNER PAM RICCI: REGARDING THE ARTICLE IN THE NEW TIMES ENTITLED"FLAG FLAP". IF MEN WHO GAVE MILITARY SERVICE TO THEIR COUNTRY AND BY EXTENSION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,ARE WILLING TO PUT UP THEIR OWN MONEY TO BUILD A FLAG POLE AND FLY AN AMERICAN FLAG I SAY MORE POWER TO THEM. I'M NOT SURE WHO MAKES UP THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE"ARC" BUT THEY SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BACKGROUND OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO FLY THE AMERICAN FLAG IN SAN LUIS OBISPO. IT SEEM VERY WRONG TO ME FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO BE TRYING TO STOP THIS PATRIOTIC EFFORT. (I GUARANTEE YOU AND ALL THE CITY LEADERSHIP THAT THE L.A. TIMES AND THE NATIONAL MEDIA WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY IF THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT PASSED). I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE EFFORT TO FLY THE AMERICAN FLAG OVER THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. DR. DON MORRIS- 53 YEAR RESIDENT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND ENVIRONS CDR. US NAVY ret P.S. YOU WILL NOTE I HAVE SENT COPIES OF THIS E-MAIL TO THE SLO CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER POLITICAL LEADERS IN CASE THIS"ARC"GROUP MAKES A BAD DECISION THAT WILL NEED TO BE OVERTURNED. CC: <gyrene@aol.com>, <cfhandlerl@charter.net>, <MOBAYARMY@a,40L.COM>, <cwosmith@hotmail.com>, <usmcstan@hotmail.com>, <bdresslerl@charter.net>, <jfoldberg@aol.com>, <gorbell@msn.com>, <pasohawk@juno.com>, <mljerry@aol.com>, <SammySamson2@msn.com>, <nleon805@charter.net>, <thjcsaddleup@charter.net>, <budnielsen@hotmail.com>, <d.rendek@verizon.net>, <jlswitzosos@cs.com>, <sheddan@tcsn.net>, <dondavidsmith@msn.com>, <mcent@charter.net>,<Trtsemperfi@aol.com>, <mrhandyman54@hotmail.com>, <wjwcreate2@cs.com>, Mil John Enos Enos <jenos@prodigy.net>, MILITARY NAVY Ralph Bettman <rbettman@tcsn.net>, military jack spaulding <jspaslo@aol.com>, MILITARY FRANK ROWAN ROWAN <frowan@aol.com>, MILITARY BRIAN DARNELL DARNELL<b_c_damell@yahoo.com>, "MIL. PRES. MARINES STAN GUSTAFSON GUSTAFSON" <usmcstan@hotmail.com>,."MIL. BOB LEE LEE" <slolee2@juno.com>, <wmontgom@calpoly.edu>, MIL AMERICAN LEGION KEN MILLER <skinmill@aol.com>, MIL AMERICAN LEGION BOB BRYN <SLOBRYN@aol.com>, Robert Bryn <rbryn@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "POLITICAL U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER BOXER" <senator@boxer.senate.gov>, "POLITICAL U.S. SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN FEINSTEIN" <senator(gfeinstein.senate.gov>, POLITICAL STEPHEN McSHANE STATE SENATOR <steve.mcshane@sen.ca.gov>, political senator bruce McPherson <senator.mcpherson@sen.ca.gov>, "POLITICAL PRES. GEORGE BUSH BUSH"<president@whitehouse.gov>, POLITICAL ABLE MALDONADO ASSEMBLY<assemblymember.maldonado@assembly.ca.gov>, "political Abel Maldonado (Abel.Maldonado@asm.ca.gov)" <Abel.Maldonado@asm.ca.gov>, "political U.S. representitive bill thomas"<bill.thomas@mail.house.gov>, POLITCIAL TERESA MARTINEZ SENATOR McPHERSON OFFICE<teresa.martinez@sen.ca.gov>, <thecorps2@aol.com> 1�-73 s"Pam Ricci-Fw: Price of Freedom� ---. Page 1 From: "Clyde and Mottee Smith" <clymot@plantationcable.net> Attachment 10 To: "Special" <clymot@plantationcable.net> Date: 7/3/03 5:45PM Subject: Fw: Price of Freedom Subject: Price of Freedom I watched the flag pass by one day, It fluttered in the breeze. A young Marine saluted it, And then he stood at ease. I looked at him in uniform So young, so tall, so proud, With hair cut square and eyes alert. He'd stand out in any crowd. I thought how many men like him Had fallen through the years. How many died on foreign soil How many mothers'tears? How many pilots' planes shot down? How many died at sea How many foxholes were soldiers'graves? No, freedom isn't.free. I heard the sound of Taps one night, When everything was still, I listened to the bugler play And felt a sudden chill. I wondered just how many times That Taps had meant"Amen," Pam Ricci -Fw— Price of Freedom -- .*N When a flag had draped a coffin. Attachment 10 Of a brother ora friend. I thought of all the children, Of the mothers and the wives, Of fathers, sons and husbands With interrupted lives. I thought about a graveyard At the bottom of the sea Of unmarked graves in Arlington. No,freedom isn't free. Enjoy Your Freedom&God Bless Our Troops Show Your Support Send This Page Along Today Pam Ricci-Flag!! --•. - -� _- --age From: "Naomi" <omih@charter.net> Attachment 10 To: <pdcci@slocity.org> Date: 10/1/03 9:31AM Subject: Flag!! I hope that the people of S.L.O. take the time to express themselves about putting such a monstrosity on the hill above our city. It hardly needs to be said that such a flagrant display will neither induce more patriotism nor demonstrate the extent of our pride in our country. The more appropriate and helpful approach would be to participate more fully and intelligently in our democratic process, rather than shouting so loudly from a hill! Naomi C. Hoffman -20 Buena Vista Ave S.L.O. 93405 (Pam Rica-proposed flag and flagpole — �� Page 1 From:. 'Timothy" <thjcsaddleup@charter.net> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/28/03 11:05AM Subject: proposed flag and flagpole Dear Ms. Ricci: Please allow this to serve as a letter of support for the installation of the proposed flagpole on Calle Joaquin Near KSBY. It is my contention that the flag and flagpole are not and will not be an .,eyesore". Never have I ever heard it referred tows such because our national colore are not an"eyesore". This will be a landmark of and for the city. Installed and maintained at no cost to the city. To many of the 30,000 veterans that reside in San Luis Obispo county the flag is a symbol of home. And seeing this flag flying high will mean they are home. Protocal dictates the flag and flagstaff(pole) be proportional and illuminated at night as mandated by congress. Therefore the flagpole must be 50 feet tall and lit from dusk to dawn. Compared to the lights recently installed in the new park on broad near tank farm this one pole and lighting is no imposition at all.If you want to see the night sky lit up check out the lighting in the new park. This flag and flagpole are not just being installed on a whim.They are to be dedicated to all who have served their country and especially dedicated to those who died for their country from the revolutionary war to present day.. In closing I would urge you and other members of the.ARC to support this project as set forth by the proposal made by the American Legion. sincerely Tim Haley a t0- / / Attachment 10 Message to the ARC received via telephone to Diane Stuart: September 25, 2003 CITY OF SAIi LUIS OBISPO [SEP 2 52003 To: ARC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: John Morrison 1034 Lily Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5 -49 - 102 There is already a large lighted flag on the old Periera Ranch, across from the hexagon bam, and across the 101 from KSBY. How many flags are really needed? 9 -a5 -0 3 fb�ri c ia. Fan.K - oppcGiPd. fa 419 p61� . Sh I o k Tra.4a- y) - o F>posece to n.sf.11at-i°cn of -la� Pole . 9 - �6 --Q3 D aha a.n vary -� ceo esnIf are W"i'4-h +h,e- fl 8 0l e be F a G�vve 8-P rl ay) open space are q-�30 - 03 Ilan. Vel ler ba ca- se OP +s s iz'e l oca.- r on . to -3 - D3 Nancy Willison - opposed -�o X05+ 11 '� FIa Pole on open Space Iand - WO Ick ( � e In LD's k-u ra. I ch a ra&er rnain-hat n ed . Pam Ricci-Towering patriots —Page 1 From: "Dan Cutter'<cuesta_dan@hotmail.com> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/26/03 11:50AM Subject: Towering patriots Hello Ms. Ricci, this brief missive is to throw in my two cents asking you to please NOT allow the American Legion flagpole. Please do not allow a few patriotic (albeit passionate)zealots to force their symbols onto the landscape of the central coast. I respect Old Glory and cherish her presence before city buildings, educational facilities, and on my own porch. She need not fly in our faces as we come and go from town. Thank you for your time, Dan S. Cutter 801-9110 594-1517 Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer— sign up now! http://join.msn.conV?page=depttdialup _ [Pam Ricci-Nag From: Anne Bussone<ab@rademakerdesign.com> Attachment 10 To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/25/03 2:57PM Subject: flag i just want to voice my opinion about the flag issue south of town... this is everyone's town, not just the american legion's...there are many residents here who are not happy with our country, and seeing all the redneck, flag-waving people with their flag-stickered cars is bad enough, but to ruin the landscape of the surrounding area is, in my opinion, completely arrogant... Anne Bussone (�-'0 U From Michael Sullivan to C. ;an Luis Obispo-Arch Review Comm - 2003 p. I of 2 15 Sep.2003 Attachment 10 To: City of San Luis Obispo,Attention: Architectural Review Commission From: Michael C.Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St.,San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Concerning: Airhitectmal Review Commission,Agenda Item 1 for Monday 15 Sep. 2003-File number ARC 92-03. Address: 1772 Calle Joaquin. Proposed flagpole and illuminated flag in an open space area SUMMARY: The City's findings for approval do not make sense. The requested flagpole use is inconsistent with the intent of the conservationtopen space(C/OS-10)zoning and the officelspecial consideration(OS)zoning,and is inconsistent with the underlying general plan policies for such zones. The City must make appropriate findings under Sign Regulations section 15.40.200 to allow a height exception from 35 feet to 50 feet,but such frndin have not been made and the factual basis for such findings does not exist (1) The proposed flagpole installation is not oonsistem with Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2A,which allows development on hillside location when the improvement is proposed within the development limit line,which at this location would be within the O-S(Office/Spacial Consideration)zoning. This policy(6.2.2A)applies mainly to buildings,driveways,fences and graded yard areas. The proposed flagpole use(with an exception to permit 501 height rather than 351 height)conflicts with policy 6.2.1 which requires that"the development limit line and the standards should help protect the City's scenic setting." The proposed flagpole use constitutes an eyesore which spoils the city's scenic setting. Also,policy 6.1.2 states that in the lands designated Open Space,"buildings,lighting,paving, use of vehicles,and alterations to the landforms and native or traditional landscapes on open space lands should be so rural character an resources are maintained" Furthermore,the purpose of the special overlay zoning (Office/Special consideration)at the KSBY site was to minimize visual blight with structures that are"low profile and blend in with the hillside location"(See letter of 24 Feb 1998 from City of SLO(Ronald Whisenrand,Development Review Manager)to Applicant,KSBY TV/6-This letter is contained in ARC staff report of 15 Sep.2003.) (2) As conditioned,the proposed flagpole is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.2.211,because its illumination is meant to maximize the nighttime visual impacts as seen from Highway 101 and other surrounding areas. In addition,Policy 6.2.211 applies only to a situation where a replacement dwelling is proposed; it does not apply in the case of a flagpole. (3) As conditioned,the proposed flagpole is not consistent with Section 7.2 E of the City's Community Design Guidelines that lighting shall be minimized and prevents any glare visible to neighbors so that no exterior light interferes with views of the night sky and hillside. The very large illuminated flag will be a major distraction and an annoyance to drivers on US 101,at daytime and especially at nighttime. (4) An exception to the sign regulations to allow a 50-foot flagpole where a maximum height of 35 feet would normally be allowed is not atmrooriate here,nor is it consistent with the intent of the sign regulations,because its height and location and lighting are visually incompatible with the existing building with surrounding nding development,and because the required findings of Sign Regulations section 15.40.200 cannot be factually made. Sign regulations section 15.40.200 require 5 findings(or similar findings)to gram an exception. The city cannot present true facts to justify the findings: "A. There are exceptional or unusual circumstances applying to the property involved which do not apply generany to properties in the vicinity with the same zoning,such as 1. Presence of a legally nonconforming use; 2. Visual obstruction; or 3. Unusual building location on-site." This is false The properly does not have e>ccepional or unusual chuunstanoes. From Michael Sullivan to C i~,an Lis Obispo-Arch.Review Comm. `;003 p. 2 of 2 Attachment 10 "B. The sign for which an exception is requested is a non-conforming sign that acts as a neighborhood landmark or focal pout while not disruption views of prominent community landscape features. When granting an exception,the Architectural Review commission(ARC)or the Directorshall require that as marry nonconforming elements of the sign as possible be eliminated while allowing its basic form and character to remain. This does t apply. There is no"sign"(large 50 fi:flagpole with large flagj roa dstbW as a "non-conforming use"at either of the proposed sites. T. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege or entitlement with limitations applied to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning:" This fording cannot be made The aha q*m would indeed cont We a grant of specialPnvilege "D. Charting the exception win not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity." This furling carrot be made The proposedJlagpole and la geJlag at this location Cothe open space Lone or in the offic 6pecial consideration zone)would present a major eyesore visible fano highway VS 101 and other areas, which is inconsistent with land use policy 6.1.2(apex apace uses)and which is inconsistent with the qjUkelspecial consideration zoningfor the MT property which was meant to keep the structures at a lowprofde blending wadi the hillside "E. The sign for which the exception is requested is consistent with the purpose and intern of the sign regulations." T9iis fmdmg cannot be made The hand and purpose of the sign regulations(salon 15.40.020)urcludepurposes such as: (A)avoid visual blight,(M protect land uses from signs which are too lenge or too many,(P)ermsinme +++meccuwy doucaow mWeb mWjeo1 Pedesftm or vehicular trnfftc safety, (M implement ane avmmm W goalt and poGeies in the SenffdpIa;4 l81 ensure that the loeaidon,sire and design of sr is visually compa dble with the arddteelure of affected structures and the character of surrinindEv derdopmen4(L)maintain and enhance the quality of the a ty's appearance The proposed oversWjkgpole and flag with glumina don defeats all of these purposes of the sign emulations Because the city's findings for approval do not have a factually accurate basis and because the proposal is inconsistent with the zoning and general plan policies at the proposed location(s),this proposal should be denied Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 805-545-9614 Pam Ricci-AmericanLegion flagpole , - Page 1 Attachment 10 From: Bruno Giberti <bgiberti@calpoly.edu> To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/9/03 4:05PM Subject: American Legion flagpole Pm very concerned about the American Legion imposing its particular brand of patriotism on the rest of the community. Giant flags are an imposition on the landscape and the people of this city, and if the planning standards re lighting and open space mean anything they also apply to this situation. I plan to be at the next meeting of the ARC to protest. Bruno Giberti, Ph.D. Associate Professor Architecture Department California Polytechnic State University One Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo CA 93407 805 756 2036 phone 805 756 1500 fax 11'�� rr , Attachment 10 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Oct 10, 2003 OCT I A 2003 COf�r ,%Ife!TY Architectural Review Commission —— San Luis Obispo City Hall 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA Commissioners: Charles Stevenson Michael Boudreau Allen Root Zelika Howard Jim Lopes David Smith Greg Wilhelm Dear Commissioners, I am writing to urge you NOT to approve the huge flagpole on Calle Joaquin. It is inappropriate and obtrusive, and there are already two large flags visible from the highway. The natural beauty of that area is monument enough to America. Sincerely, M. A. Riley 1426 Broad St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment 10 October 13, 2003 Hi! Jeff, It is my opinion that it will be a"sad dayindeed if laws and rules and regulations can be changed in order to placate some people, no matter how good they think their cause is. I love my country and flag tremendously, but being forced to look at a flag as I enter San Luis Obispo City is to my mind, eye polution! It would also be a visual distraction to visitors (foreign and others) to what should be a pleasant first unobstructed vision of our beautiful city. To me a flag is akin to a sign. Even though I like certain products, I do not want them advertised at the entrance to my City. Please do not let this happen. Feel free to share this letter with the ARC. Thank You, Naoma affright n� TRK I CiiY Oi `rO F a4L�I�'I >+� heAmeriCaII .TDt .�� 'F -Ji •: Ii iat ta v641OII:"C i a Y `—_� at the e0ban ° U TY D fid? COM' EVE' M ENT two years o�w 9y'have rthe ' g,• e , have a1been o taral Review Commission meetu►g m. . the mon madC a tion r sting the ft.After in�dis V Cussiog;a mode 8adaJ9t.be~' ._�oond4d to !�B fy: Avote was never as moti was dhange0y,altlheawprdsJnithing P'3 . t)pbmen the.AR6i n.=0 Mt'jef k from ttie afypbm)ng s '# ' :.i vedp obl�is:thatthe'site3s�ta n qdedgnated oiJert4aaMwtAb -.1fttabled adteaudii is eh", I ;lfotrdiscUssion�otsffiO.�» •S�rr��3t5 -, i i1he one thing,mat ted us as o ®ation was that ouF�agseas;siill theA.. •,atter Sept 11 to comfort us as prbd&�•u' ;AmerlcanS•-..A,'1?-al c�4hat a saa daydt is vghen>tbeiArr&1,!! Wthu'al Review Gomt Pion hn4le" ,Voyw to pro0 t;the symbol of-adnm z .=Untr�to fly$ th�.+damt*ftw It buriwi;;. r4Iri'j'r Z!I 3''' 4 6n Uu D t SCSI+;y!'IIth'Orb+jp l' iF t J+;i{.it t1 `_"; r,:r•gt r_•ui:;K,���C Pam Ricci-flag at ARC -___._,____ _ _- -- �.---.--.__ Page 1 Attachment 10 From: Cynthia Boche<cynthia@baileymed.com> To: Pam Ricci<pricci@slocity.org> Date: 9/15/03 2:25PM Subject: flag at ARC Hi Pam- Please forward my comments to the Architectural Review Commission for their meeting this evening: Ever more ostentatious displays of the American flag will no more demonstrate or induce true patriotism than those products touted in all the spam email will really 'increase your manhood'. I think true patriotism means supporting the values&ideals that this country was founded upon. It entails being well-informed about the issues of the day and exercising your right to vote. It means being aware of what your govemment.is doing and speaking out when it is wrong. You demonstrate your patriotism by doing your part to make the world a better place, whether by serving in the military or sitting on the ARC or coaching your kids'soccer team or working to save endangered species. Any bozo can plaster the world with flags. There is an existing, very large, privately-owned flag flying directly across the freeway from the proposed location of the new one. 6Do we really need TWO gigantic flags in that area? . If the Legion MUST put up a flag, couldn't they do it in a more appropriate urban setting? Perhaps they could arrange a deal with the City to put a flagpole in one of the public parks IN town instead? Please do not allow the American Legion to clutter up our rural fringe with what is, essentially, a billboard for a product that many of us are not very happy with lately. Thanks, Cynthia Boche 972 Buchon Street San Luis Obispo 25m--Ricci-T e F ag _ Page 1 Attachment 10 From: "greg notiey" <gnotley@thomaelec.com> To: <pricci@slocity.org> Dater 10/16/03 4:02PM Subject: The Flag The proper treatment and prominent display of our nation's flag is a great source of pride to the vast majority of us. The creation of open space ordinances is an important victory and also a source of pride for those of us who feel that protection of, and an intimate connection to, the natural world is essential to the quality of our lives. This particular situation is not about deciding if we want to see our beautiful flag flying atop this most prominent space. The issue is: is preserving an unfettered view of natural creation a form of reverence and respect that transcends even the symbol of our national pride? Given the dwindling opportunities for preservation, and in light of the many other options for flag siting in existing developed areas, I ask that the applicants select another site. One that displays our flag with pride while minimizing further obstruction of the beautiful nature that is all around us. CC: <Mtbdesign@aol.com> Attachment 10 7005 Lon itas Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422 October 19,2003 County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors Room 370 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Gentlemen: I regret being unable to attend the Oct. 20 meeting of the Architectural Review Commission as it considers the request from the American Legion for a waiver of adopted city policies designed to protect the natural beauty of the community. Thus I address your group with strong objections to the American Legion request and with high hopes that you will honor the existing rules about such matters and disallow their request. To Permit a variance in this case will, as the saying goes, "open up a can of worms"with similar requests,each of course with its own rationale and argument as to why the rules should be broken. One can envision your task when the local Ministerial Association will request a variance in order to place a 50 foot tall Christian cross on the hill to let visitors to the community know how religious is the populace of San Luis Obispo. Please! Stick by the rules! ald F. Hughes CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISFO OCT 2 4 2003 COMN11UNITY DEVELUPf;?Eidi Diane Stuart-Contact Us Form _-_-- _ _—_--. - , ___-- -- ?age Attachment 10 From: slo-city-website@slocity.org To: <dst u art @ s loc ity.o rg> CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I Date: 10/22/03 10:5 8 P M Subject: Contact Us Form OCT 2 3 20W, ♦•z+w+♦i�f���M��:twit:t•Mta����e�trirW��•♦t�tt�i:♦xtee�:we�v�+v��+�����:»rrvWy .__—_.__.J Name: Donald Hirt Address: 918 Spyglass Court COh11,lUf�11Y uEVi UFIvEi i City: Paso Robles State: CA Zip: 93446 Phone: 805 239-8567 Fax: na email from: dhirt9@charter.net Message: Raymond Angus'Oct. 22 letter in The Tribune explaining his support of the San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission's decision to deny the application by the American Legion and the Marine Corps League to erect a flagpole and fly an American flag on the hillside near the KSBY-TV studio neatly defines the mind set of many of today's liberals. Angus said in part, "It's quite a conundrum: Support the tall, lighted pole and demonstrate your obligatory support for America with this flag statement, or be branded unpatriotic because you regard our community environment with equal importance." First, if the feeling you get when viewing an American flag flying is one of"obligatory support" rather than unabashed pride,your patriotism should be questioned. Second, one has to question the patriotism of anyone who places his support of a set of community environmental rules on a equal footing with his support of his country. And, finally,Angus'anti-Bush sentiments expressed in his last paragraph reveal the real motivation for his ridiculous rationale supporting his position on this issue. Some liberals just can't put the 2000 presidential election results behind them and they wear their hatred for President Bush and everthying about his administration on their sleeves. The Architectural Review Commission should reverse its decision and grant the application to install the flagpole. Surely,the minimal impact on the environment at that location would be more than offset by the benefit of prominently displaying the symbol of America especially while the country is at war. Attachment 10 WEDNESDAY, OC'TOB'ER 22, 2003 ...._..................................._-....................................._.................... _.... LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Anti-American decision Flagpole is obnoxious C hame on the city of San The proposed erection of an a lois Obispo's Architectur- illuminated,50-foot-tall flagpole al Review Commission. flying the stars and stripes 24 They have denied the appli- hours a day from a highly visi- cation trade by the American ble promontory along High- Legion and the Marine Corps Way 101 at the southern gate- League to install a flagpole on way to San Luis Obispo has the hillside near the KSBY TV created quitea stir. studios. On one side,we have the How can this possibly be? emotional and irrational flag Denying a flag to be flown . patriots,who presumably ex- dedicated to those who have pect everyone to demonstrate died for their country? their level of unilateral support Just who are these people? for our government and love I personally think this issue of our country by flying Ameri- goes beyond any city ordi- ca s icon of democracy so nance and shows the true prominently. colors of those on the com- On the other,we have those mission. who choose,to express their They are merely anti-flag. sense of patriotism less dra- And one could therefore con- matically and more personally, clude anti-American. while still respecting our long One commission member established community stan- stated that he spent many dards governing development sleepless nights deciding on of open space,preservation of this proposal. Well. I should significant viewsheds and hope so,and I am sure those maintenance of our rural am- buried in our national ceme- biance along San Luis Obis- teries collectively rolled over po's fringes. in their gralres When this It's quite a conundrum:Sup- commission made its deci- port the tall,lighted pole and sion. demonstrate your obligatory Frankly, I don't see how support for America with this yone can deny this applica- flag statement,or be branded ti and get any sleep at all, unpatriotic because you re Have the people of the com- gard our community environ- Tssion forgotten the Pledge ment with equal importance. Allegiance? Keep in mind,though,that We will appeal this outra- given the Bush administra- geous decision. tion's political direction,the "We have not yet begun to flag will likely fly at half-mast fight" most of the time and,there- Tun gale, fore,will be only mildly obnox- U.S.M.C; Viet-Nam ions. 1967-68 Raymond Angus San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo am Rice Fag Placement - . =age Attachment 10 From: "Joel Weiss"<joelweiss@msn.com> To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 10%20/03 9:04AM Subject: Flag Placement Ms. Ricci- Please do NOT allow the proposed placement of an illuminated flag on a 50' flagpole near KSBY because: 1) it will violate city regulations, and set a bad precedent for making exceptions 2) it is completely out of character for the location and will detract from the existing natural beauty of the area 3) members of the American Legion don't want me to decide how they should show their patriotism; I don't want members of the American Legion to decide how I should show mine A much smaller flagpole located at the KSBY studios would be a good compromise. Thank you. Joel Weiss San Luis Obispo Pam Ricci-City of S O-Arc Review` miss. 20 Oct 2003-Public comments - �Page 1 Attachment 10 From: Michael Sullivan <mcsgday@yahoo.com> To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 10/20/03 4:32PM Subject: City of SLO-Arch Review Commiss. 20 Oct 2003-Public comments 20 Oct 2003 To: City of San Luis Obispo Go Pam Ricci (Planning Dept.) pricci@slocity.org From: Michael C. Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-545-9614 RE: Agenda item 1 – 1772 Calle Joaquin. ARC 92-03 (hearing of Mon. 10/20/2003) I am an Army veteran of the Vietnam era. During that time I served for three years as a military intelligence specialist in Germany. I also had friends who died in Vietnam, a brother who was wounded in Vietnam, and a father who served in the Army in World War II. 1 consider myself a patriotic person. However, the proposed flagpole proposal should not be approved, because it violates city standards, as explained below. 1. General plan consistency: The proposed flagpole is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. There is no substantial evidence that could support a proposed finding that a flagpole structure should be exempted from land use policies(e.g. Land use element policy 6.2.2) because it(the flagpole)does not fit any of the exemption criteria. 2. There are several practicable alternative available for the location of the proposed flagpole. For example, in the previous hearing on this issue, commissioners suggested a flagpole along a highway such as US 101 at the city's entrance; others suggested some other sites within the city, such as public parks. 3. The height exception should not be granted because the required findings (Section 14.40.200 of city's zoning code)cannot be made. Approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege, in violation of state and local law. Michael Sullivan 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-545-9614 Attachment 10 Stan Gustafson From: "Bud Nielsen" <budnielsen@hotmail.com> To: <usmcstan@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:04 AM Subject: Letter for this evening To the members of the Architectural Committee. I am a member of the generation of Americans who sacrificed so you could be where you are today. You have the right to approve of disapprove the proposal before you. Its one of the freedoms we enjoy. In 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor my generation went to war to preserve the freedoms we enjoy today. Our-Navy for the most part was destroyed, we were not prepared to go to war, soldiers were training using wooden guns as real one were not available. Had the Japanese continued there advance and landed on Hawaii, the Pacific would have been theirs to control and shipping to the United States on the west coast would have ceased. My generation of Americans sacrificed to save this country and our way of life. Rosy became a riveter, gas was rationed, vacations were non existent, cars were put up on blocks as there were no tires available. Auto manufacturing ceased and factors switched to weapons of war. Work was 7 days a week 24 hours a day. 16,000,000 men and women joined the armed forces. 300,000 died, millions were wounded. Today they are dying at a rate of 1500 per day. The sacrifices by this generation of Americans preserved your right to be were you are today. Had they not succeeded the flag you see flying would have been the "Rising sun" of the Empire of Japan. These freedoms we take for granted all are symbolized by the Stars and Stripes. Don't deny my generation or any generation the right to fly this flag as a symbol not only of our country but of the sacrifices that were made to protect and preserve it. I would ask for an unanimous vote in favor of allowing this symbol of our country to fly and be seen by all. Bud Nielsen Former United States Marine 10/20/2003 (v- F3 � Attachment 10 MONDAY , NovEMBER 3 , 2003 Choose space over flags The Tribune editors have come out today with their sup- port of a large lighted flag at the "entrance"to San Luis Obispo.Their argument that anybody should be able to do what they want with their front yard is not a valid argument in today's interdependent, close- community world, especially when the establishment of the flag is intended to speak for the whole community, by its vert, placement at the entrance. Considering the conflicts of opinion over the war and over the current foreign,policy of empire, and recognizing the worry of many that this coun- try is drifting toward fascism, placing another big, lighted flag at the entrance to our city seems to be an "in your face" action. Not all f bgwwavmgPOsy. is tive. Nationagsm.has been+#he cau- ,of the.deaths of millions o :,• t people. We . `e enough fags wav Mg.What we need is open space. Open space in land and open space in our letting peo- ple.be eo- plebe who they are without branding them. I support the decision of the Architectural Review Board to not allow the placement of the flag and hope that it stands. Adrienne Dickinson San Luis Obispo Attachment 11 Draft Resolution A RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC'S)ACTION, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE ARC'S DECISION TO DENY INSTALLATION OF A 50-FOOT HIGH, ILLUMINATED FLAGPOLE IN THE CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE ZONE (C/OS-10) AT 1772 CALLE JOAQUIN (ARC MOD 92-03) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission discussed the project at public hearings held on September 2, 2003, September 15, 2003, and October 20, 2003, and at the last hearing on October 20, 2003, denied the project, based on findings; and WHEREAS, Bob Bryn, 783 Clearview Lane, representing American Legion Post 66, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on October 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 18, 2003, and considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the Architectural Review Commission's discussion of the project including the action of October 20, 2003, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project (ARC MOD 92-03), the appellant's statements, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed flagpole installation is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2 A., which restricts development on hillside locations to areas within the development limit line, which at this location would be within the O-S zoning, not in the open space area where it is proposed, and does not meet the criteria for exception, which include a structure necessary to protect public health and safety, a designated wireless telecommunication facility on the South Street Hills, or a replacement dwelling. 2. The proposed flagpole installation is inconsistent with Open Space Policy OS 11.2.3 since the flagpole is a structure that is highly visible and on top of prominent knoll, and the policy prohibits the siting of a structure in a highly visible location. yS/ Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 3. The proposed flagpole would exceed height limitations for the Conservation Open Space zone and would be illuminated, which is discouraged by hillside development policies contained in the Land Use Element. 4. The proposed flagpole would not be consistent with the limitations on development placed on the adjacent site currently occupied by KSBY TV studios and subject to the Office zoning with the Special Consideration overlay, which calls for development to be visually unobtrusive, low profile and blend in with the hillside location. SECTION 2. Action - Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is hereby denied. Therefore, the Commission's action to deny the project is upheld. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18"' day of November, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED: City Attorney Jonathan P. Lowell ResWRC 92-03(Ragpole-deny appeal) Attachment 11 Draft Resolution B RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC'S) ACTION,THEREBY OVERTURNING THE ARC'S DECISION TO DENY THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A 50-FOOT HIGH, ILLUMINATED FLAGPOLE IN THE CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE ZONE (C/OS-10) AND APPROVING ITS INSTALLATION AT 1772 CALLE JOAQUIN (ARC MOD 92-03) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission discussed the project at public hearings held on September 2, 2003, September 15, 2003, and October 20, 2003, and at the last hearing on October 20, 2003, denied the project, based on findings; and WHEREAS, Bob Bryn, 783 Clearview Lane, representing American Legion Post 66, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on October 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 18, 2003, and considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the Architectural Review Commission's discussion of the project including the action of October 20, 2003, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project (ARC MOD 92-03), the appellants' statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2, the proposed flagpole structure is necessary to protect public health and safety, in that in these times of uncertainty, of American soldiers sacrificing their lives overseas, and of terrorist attacks on domestic soil, the pubic health and safety are bolstered and strengthened by the display of a prominent symbol of our common values and the liberties granted to us under our form of governance. 2. Consistent with Open Space Policy OS 11.2.3, there is no practicable alternative to the proposed location of the flagpole structure given the factors of: a. a landowner willing to permit the installation; G ��J7 - Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 b. interference with KSBY's operations if the flag were located adjacent to the existing building on KSBY's parcel; c. close proximity to an existing building, freeway and billboard sign in an open space area not conducive to passive recreation; and d. the fact that the site also meets the criteria of the American Legion in terms of its prominence and visibility at a major entrance to the City. 3. There is a strong public policy, as evidenced by Government Code Section 435.5, in favor of allowing the flag of the United States to be displayed. SECTION 2. Action - Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is hereby upheld. Therefore, the project is approved, subject to the following condition: 1. The proposed flagpole shall be reduced in height to not exceed 35 feet. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18`s day of November, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED: Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 City Attorney Jonathan P. Lowell ResWRC 92-03(Flagpole-uphold appeal-B) Y �� 1 Attachment 11 Draft Resolution C RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC'S) ACTION,THEREBY OVERTURNING THE ARC'S DECISION TO DENY THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A 50-FOOT HIGH, ILLUMINATED FLAGPOLE IN THE CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE ZONE (C/OS-10)AND APPROVING ITS INSTALLATION AT 1772 CALLE JOAQUIN (ARC MOD 92-03) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission discussed the project at public hearings held on September 2, 2003, September 15, 2003,.and October 20, 2003, and at the last hearing on October 20, 2003, denied the project, based on findings; and WHEREAS, Bob Bryn, 783 Clearview Lane, representing American Legion Post 66, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on October 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 18, 2003, and considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the Architectural Review Commission's discussion of the project including the action of October 20, 2003, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project (ARC MOD 92-03), the appellants' statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2, the proposed flagpole structure is necessary to protect public health and safety, in that in these times of uncertainty, of American soldiers sacrificing their lives overseas, and of terrorist attacks on domestic soil, the pubic health and safety are bolstered and strengthened by the display of a prominent symbol of our common values and the liberties granted to us under our form of governance. 2. Consistent with Open Space Policy OS 11.2.3, there is no practicable alternative to the proposed location of the flagpole structure given the factors of: a. a landowner willing to permit the installation; Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 b. interference with KSBY's operations if the flag were located adjacent to the existing building on KSBY's parcel; c. close proximity to an existing building, freeway and billboard sign in an open space area not conducive to passive recreation; and d. the fact that the site also meets the criteria of the American Legion in terms of its prominence and visibility at a major entrance to the City. 3. There is a strong public policy, as evidenced by Government Code Section 435.5, in favor of allowing the flag of the United States to be displayed. 4. There are exceptional or unusual circumstances applying to the property involved which do not apply generally to properties in the vicinity with the same zoning such as its prominent, visible location, which lends itself to allowing a 50-foot high flagpole where a 35-foot high structure would normally be allowed, to create an area focal point or landmark 5. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege or entitlement inconsistent with limitations applied to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, for the particular unique circumstances referenced in the above findings. 6. Granting the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements within the vicinity because the proposed 50-foot high flagpole will not disrupt views of community landscape features as the site is adjacent to an existing building, freeway and billboard sign in an open space area not conducive to passive recreation. 7. The flagpole as proposed is consistent with the purpose of the sign regulations and sign evaluation criteria, which allows for exceptions to standards when appropriate findings of special circumstances can be documented. SECTION 2. Action - Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is hereby upheld. Therefore, the project is approved. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18`s day of November, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED: City Attorney Jonathan P. Lowell ResWRC 92-03(Flagpole-uphold appeal-Q FROM :COPY5POT&MORE FAX NO. :8055283138 Nov. 14 2003 01:02PM P1 l - + + y _ ;. V BSc ' ni .1 a RD FIL RECEIVED ME I G AGENDA NOV 14 ®A ..I I ITEM #, e / *o� SLO CITY CLERK • ,..7k . .••:*'••*•:`• ' * :-to * *' *• *' •: • ak d Y�.vy /Pine d ti •. old ,*-•' .,.sem�i®o .t..: � '. •, * T�/p ; ,✓mak T go 0 • / A vvG - ' .mac . :,ciL �c c r-- c✓2 . J7.lCnU 2,FWDIA JaACAO ,2 FIRE C F s� � �� � !'t"r � •• ,aATTORNEY RW-�R -%��R/` ��` ,_C /J���r/s�y * •• $CLERK/ORIQ $POHF �� � e O DEPT HEADS 1�'pEC QI S� 4:0/� '' $ O •` - 0 WALTER G WEu ` • • 6 � •. 1340 LOS 011'tT0.S A'hE am IM 0805.CA'93402-3300 RECEIVED NOV 1 i 2003 November 14, 2003 SLC) CITY CLERK Dear Mayor Ramero and Members of the City Council, What the folks who want to change laws, rules and regulations do not seem to understand when their are demanding a 50 foot high lighted American flag on designated- open space is that this could set a precedent for every other passionate group to want to erect 50 foot high crosses, Stars of David, signs of Muhammad, etc. Are we to say that one groups passion is more legitimate than others? I would hope not because I do not believe that that is the American way. I love my Country and I love my Flag but I can not agree with the:'_ :. installation of a 50 foot high illuminated flagpole on the South side of the KSBY Studios in aconservation open space zone. Sincerely, Naoma Wright 400 Foothill Blvd, San Luis Obispo CA. 93405 Phone: 543-5232 COUNCIL %- CDD DIR RED FILE IRCA0 2 FIN DIR MEETING AGENDA 9eACAO fe FIRE CHIEF DAT �I ATTORNEY PW DIR E ITEM'# CLERKlORIG L,RECDIACHF Dt�Do j Z UTIL DIR ,_� 0'HR DIR RECEIVED NOV 1 2003 November 17, 2003 SLO CITY CLERK Mayor Dave Romero City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Romero, This letter is to ask you to please deny the appeal to place a giant flagpole near Calle Joaquin. It would be obtrusive and distracting, and there are already two large flags visible from that stretch of highway. The beautiful view of rolling hills and open space that we have preserved is a more fitting monument to America. Sincerely, Mary Riley 1426 Broad St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1000NCIL QrCDD DIR [ICAO lIN DIR J�ACt;O SIRE CHIEF` R® FILE )arATTCR, My Z' W DIR CLERK C";3 �'POUCECHF ME iNG AGENDA ❑ DEPT n=.�, STEM # l�le �REC DIR DATE-( + 'z- - U71L DIR =j�1��_,- ./SIR DIR ---- T� .__.___ - — ---- ;Allen Settle- Flag Pole Issue � ��-��� Page 1 From: "Pat Mayeda" <pmayeda@tcsn.net> To: <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <cm ulhol land@ s locity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org> Date: Tue, Nov 18, 2003 9:07 AM Subject: Flag Pole Issue Hello, I would just like to say that I am against the proposed 50 foot lighted flag pole that apparently violates San Luis Obispo's open space policy. My main concern is that it'll be lighted at night. It seems to me that if the flag is important enough for them to fly,then it should also be important enough for them to figure out a plan to get it taken down every night. I love San Luis Obispo's open space and the policy that created it, does that make me less patriotic? I remember as a kid the flag was flown only on special occasions. Seeing it then evoked a huge sense of pride in me. Now the flag is so prevalent that seeing it isn't nearly as special. Too much of a good thing is not necessarily a good thing. Besides, isn't it much like preaching to the choir? Yes, we are all proud to live in the USA, if not, wouldn't we be gone by now? Thank you for taking the time to read this note, Jane McGuire 1712 Chorro St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RECEIVED NOV 18 2003 SLO CITY CLERK rEe COLNCiLGDD DIR RED FILE CAO FIN DIR ME ,IN"G AGENDA $ACAO --IRE CHIEF E~u/IQryrrh ITEM ATTORNEY ,e PW DIR DAT CLERK10RIG _ DUCE CHF [O D ZTJT DIR �, O'CJTIL DIR (a'FiR DIR