Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/20/1989, 2 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE PLAN REVISIONS TO
MEETING DATE: ''���► �IVN111�I� ����IU city of san tuts omspo 6-2.0-89 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBEfi: FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; Prepared By: Jeff Hoo SUBJECT: Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's decision to conditionally approve plan revisions to the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center, ARC 89-59. CAO RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ARC's action. DISCUSSION At its May 15th meeting, the commission approved the appellant's request to remove an existing postal kiosk subject to the condition that an equivalent public facility be provided elsewhere in the center. The shopping center's owner objects to that condition, and has appealed the ARC's decision. Removal of the postal kiosk requires ARC approval because it is a change to approved ARC and building permit plans. The center's owner wants to remove the postal kiosk because: 1) the adjacent merchant (SLO Baked) complains of poor storefront visibility, and of having to make change for kiosk patrons; and 2) a prospective tenant offering postal services is concerned about possible competition from the existing kiosk. At the owner's request, the Postal Service began demolishing the kiosk; however work has been stopped, pending the ARC's decision on the matter. The commission granted final approval to a major remodel of the Foothill Plaza in 1984. During ARC review, the center's previous owner asked to delete the kiosk. The kiosk was originally located on the shopping center's Broad Street frontage, however its location conflicted with the proposed parking design. Commissioners felt the kiosk was an important public facility, and asked the owner to retain it on-site. Commissioners granted final approval, with the parking lot design and details to be submitted for staff approval. In January 1985, staff approved the parking lot plan and details, including the postal kiosk which was shown relocated to its present location. In May 1985, the building division approved plans also showing the kiosk, and a construction permit was issued for the shopping center remodel. After the remodel was completed, the kiosk was in operation until this April, when postal service representatives began demolishing it. Staff has received 'two citizen letters opposing the kiosk's removal (attached). SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The proposed kiosk removal will have no significant environmental or fiscal impacts. CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION This is the only such facility serving residents and students in the north half of the city. Its removal is likely to inconvcnience neighbors and shopping center customers who depend on the services it has provided for over 15 years. Without the public postal facility, most Foothill area residents will be required to go to the downtown or Madonna Road post offices (Cal Poly students can use a similar on-campus facility). The net effect may be to increase vehicle traffic in these areas, and decrease customer convenience at one of the city's most heavily used neighborhood-commercial centers. / I ,111Q11$JU I1J city of san Luis owpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPOFT Staff Report Page 2 DATA SUMMARY Applicant: Ed Gringrich, Channel Lumber Company Representative: Paul Ready Zoning: C-N General Plan: Neighborhood-Commercial Environmental Determination: Categorically Exempt (CEQA Section 15301) EVALUATION The postal kiosk is a small, wood structure covering about 100 square feet. It provides convenience mail service to the Foothill Blvd./Cal Poly neighborhoods, including stamp sales, mail drop, change machine, and postal information. Jim Rivas, San Luis Obispo Postmaster, has stated that the kiosk is heavily used, and that the Postal Service would prefer to keep the kiosk in its present location (letter attached). According to the owner, the adjacent bakery tenant has been inconvenienced by kiosk patrons needing change for the stamp machine. The Postmaster indicates that if the kiosk remains, the Postal Service is willing to provide stepped-up maintenance to improve kiosk service and appearance. It is not clear whether this approach is acceptable to the owner -- a letter suggesting this solution got no response (staff letter attached). In addition, the owner notes that a prospective tenant, Mailbox U.S.A., would "provide mail services to this portion of the community," and that the Postal Service does not and has never had a lease for the space occupied by the kiosk. i Commission Action On May 15th, the ARC voted 4-3 (Jones, Morris, Starr dissenting) to approve the apellant's request to demolish the kiosk subject to the condition that an "an equivalent public postal facility be provided elsewhere on the site." All commissioners supported retention of the kiosk service; however some questioned the commission's purview (minutes attached). Basis for the Appeal The appellant cites three reasons for the appeal: 1. That the staff report was potentially misleading, and that its recommendations and the commission's action did not follow city ordinances regarding demolitions. After the ARC granted final approval to the center's remodel, the applicant revised plans to include the kiosk at the commission's request. Staff subsequently planchecked and approved building plans showing the kiosk in its present location. To change the approved architectural plans, either "minor or incidental" Director's approval or commission approval is required. The Community Development Director did not consider this a "minor" change, and the appellant was advised that ARC approval would be required to delete the kiosk. �,►�� i�hlllll�l ill city of san Luis oBispo Ilia; COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT Staff Report Page 3 This is not a demolition request in the conventional sense, and no special findings of cultural, historical, or architectural significance need be made. The original purpose of the demolition ordinance was to allow the city to review the significance of older structures before they were removed, such as Victorian-style buildings, or structures linked to historic figures and important historic or cultural events-- usually structures which predated the existence of the ARC. For these, no other formal review process existed until the demolition provisions were added. 2. The ARC staff report attachments are misleading, and the file record does not . show any ARC consideration of the kiosk. The ARC staff report included a partial site plan showing the staff-approved location of the kiosk in the center. It was incorrectly labelled "final ARC approved, March 19, 1984," and should have been labelled "staff approved, January 10, 1985." The appellant correctly notes that final ARC plans did not show the kiosk. It was because of this omission that the commission asked the applicant and staff to see that it was included in building plans. Original files have since been transferred to microfiche, and the file record does not clearly address the kiosk issue. However the direction to staff was clear at the time -- so clear, in fact, that notes dictated to the architect by the center's owner after the t meeting include the handwritten reminder"integrate postal in new plan" (architect's letter and notes attached). One former ARC commissioner, Dale Sutliff, recalls that preservation of the kiosk. was a commission concern. 3. The appellant questions the basis for staff opposition to the kiosk's removal, and for the "administrative abuse" received by the center's owner. San Luis Obispo's municipal code establishes the purpose and jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission. One of its main purposes is: "To promote and protect the safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare of the citizens by: 1. Preserving and enhancing the natural beauties of the land and of the man-made environment, and the enjoyment thereof; 2. Maintaining and imnroving the aualities of. and relationships between. individual buildings. structures. and ohvsical developments in such manner as to best contribute to the amenities (emphasis ours) and attractiveness of the city; 3. Protecting and insuring the adequacy and usefulness of public and private developments as they relate to each other and to the neighborhood or area. In considering this request, staff and the commission have weighed the owner's and citizen's interests. In balance, staff believes the kiosk is of considerable importance to the community, and should not be removed without some comparable public facility being provided. It is not clear whether the proposed tenant, Mailbox U.S.A., would provided equivalent services, or for how long. e ����� ►1111@�li ill city of san tins ompo COUNCIL_ AGENDA► REPORT Staff eport Page 4 As a change to approved plans, the kiosk removal is within the commission's purview. Under "Duties of the Commission" (SLOMC Section 2.48.150), the code provides that "The Commission shall review and approve plans for all structures and physical improvements and for any relocation, addition, or extension to or exterior change of or to existing buildings, structures and physical improvements...", with the exception of single family homes. Based on the ordinance wording and City Attorney opinions, the city has normally required architectural review for changes to projects which originally received architectural approval.. Staff and the commission's actions were consistent with this policy. City policies encourage neighborhood shopping centers to provide convenient stores and facilities, thereby reducing vehicle trips and air pollution. This center is near the city's largest concentration of student housing, and also serves surrounding low-density residential neighborhoods. As a significant neighborhood convenience, the kiosk's removal is inconsistent with city policies and seems contrary to the community's interests. Parking,,landscaping, seating areas and other site amenities are normally required by the commission in new commercial centers. The kiosk provides a similar,,perhaps even more important, community benefit that is an appropriate ARC requirement. Moreover, this center received a use permit in to allow mixed-use parking and, in effect, got 20% more floor area than would normally be allowed (Use Permit A 142-83). Hence, the requirement to maintain the kiosk as a public benefit was considered reasonable given the project's - size and added development potential. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt resolution to deny the appeal, and uphold the commission's action. This approach would allow the appellant to remove the kiosk, but require an equivalent public postal facility elsewhere on site, Exhibit "A". 2. Adopt resolution to deny the appeal, and deny the request to remove the kiosk. This would require the kiosk to remain in its current location, where it would be repaired and maintained by the Postal Service, Exhibit "B". 3. Adopt resolution to uphold the appeal, and allow the kiosk to be removed without providing equivalent facilties, Exhibit "C". In this case, the kiosk would be removed and the nearest public postal facility would then be located downtown. 4. Continue the item for additional information or discussion.. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action, Exhibit "A." 111,1411111 j 8 city Of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 5 ATTACHMENTS -Draft Resolutions -Vicinity map -Appeal -Correspondence -Staff-approved site plan -ARC minutes jh2/cc8959 I C ) EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF A U.S. POSTAL KIOSK AT 773 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 89-59) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the City Council have held public hearings on this request for removal of a U.S. Postal Servicekiosk, in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, this commission's action to approve the kiosk's removal subject to the condition that an equivalent public postal facility be provided elsewhere on the site has been appealed by the property owner; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the appeal and supporting information,• l the staff report, commission minutes, appellant and public testimony, and project plans; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves to deny the a appeal and uphold the Architectural Review Commission's action on May 15, 1989, approving the appellant's request to amend approved ARC plans by removing a U.S. Postal Service kiosk (ARC 89-59), based on the following findings and on one condition: Findings 1. The postal kiosk is a significant public amenity, and provides an essential service to residents in the north half of the City. 2. The proposed kiosk removal is inconsistent with City policies encouraging neighborhood shopping centers to provide convenient stores and facilities serving nearby residents. 3. The proposed kiosk removal will adversely affect the welfare of persons working, shopping at the site or living in the vicinity unless equivalent postal facilities are provided. Condition 1. Property owner shall provide an equivalent public postal facility on the site. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call voter Resolution No. (1989 Series) Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this - day of. 1989. . Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City dministrative Officer City Attor y Community Development Director jh2/cc8959 EXHIBIT B C RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF A U.S. POSTAL KIOSK AT 773 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 89-59) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the City Council have held public hearings on this request for removal of a U.S. Postal Service kiosk, in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, this commission's action to approve the kiosk's removal subject to the condition that an equivalent public postal facility be provided elsewhere on the site has been appealed by the property owner; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the appeal and supporting information, the staff report, commission minutes, appellant and public testimony, and project plans; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the U.S. Postal Kiosk is appropriately located within the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center, and that it poses no public health or safety problems and should be repaired and maintained in its current location. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves to deny the a appeal and amend the Architectural Review Commission's action on May 15, 1989, to require that the postal kiosk be maintained and repaired in its current location (ARC 89-59), based on the following findings and condition: Findings 1. The postal kiosk is a significant public amenity, and provides an essential service to residents in the north half of the City. 2. The proposed kiosk removal is inconsistent with City policies encouraging neighborhood shopping centers to provide convenient stores and facilities serving ^. nearby residents. � . 3. The proposed kiosk removal will adversely affect the welfare of persons working, shopping at the site or living in the vicinity unless equivalent postal facilities are provided. Resolution No. (1989 Series) `J Page 2 4. The postal facility is appropriately located, and poses no public health or safety concerns in its present location. Condition 1. Property owner shall allow the kiosk to remain its present location.. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1989. Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City A ministrative Officer City Attorne Community Development Director jh2/cc8959 ` s EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN- LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF A U.S. POSTAL KIOSK AT 773 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 89-59) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the City Council have held public hearings on this request for removal of a U.S. Postal Service kiosk, in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, this commission's action to approve the kiosk's removal subject to the condition that an equivalent public postal facility be provided elsewhere on the site has been appealed by the property owner; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the appeal and supporting information, the staff report, commission minutes, appellant and public testimony, and project plans; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves to uphold the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on May 15, 1989, and approve the appellant's request to amend approved ARC plans by removing a U.S. Postal Service kiosk (ARC 89-59), based on the following findings and condition:. Findings 1. The postal kiosk is not a significant public amenity, since equivalent mail services are provided at Cal Poly, downtown, and on Madonna Road. 2. The proposed kiosk removal will not adversely affect the welfare of persons working, shopping at the site or living in the vicinity. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No. (1989 Series) j Page 2 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of. 1989. Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: --� i City dministrative Officer City Attor Community Development Director jh2/ccres2 Vu ux0 �� vl ° '� O O :� C > 10 0 . 010 0 12 t , O OL16 O m JIb�M NO1N�8 O O 0 ; 0 ; 0 .10 . 0 O 10 O O , e0I O Z O O Z I O x OIIXOy Y � 0 0 010 O 0101010i0110 O �0 O ' iasa.LS ovoras Ji O ;f e-- nu 4 ` CL Ll Ll a � W ' fo•ia. ti � � ��.M�J•r N'y •' •YC CY OOYW 114]M LW(C Y<• O 1 O 1 • RO J I Z � .I f trim. Fl 1 Li LJl' N I • O• • i II � N i •� � � � 'y: }lis`"%c' E r � C A�f By _' i • �/�� ..(` •: al�'M.'i..' :,':. : r:.^ ,%;o .;of s ''� .I{' ..L'. � .. .. ',�• , � .� .�I .. � .. :Lig Mal iy'}TISMr �.. ._..:.- ..t.• � .-�>-��.:N':, ter' :�' v=J 31ir•1f/./'./' 1:A��w,'ILI •l_t > n.Y'�'".. {:'`{ ..jr +•. .o _, , f .Y'. I � ; ;x� r - .. .�...,ew�,- „_, ,/t - +¢�',;?> � -�.`,r�,♦ rte»' >•._ r }t !"i�1 n. a V ✓ _ ,�.Yf ./'>v'"c F� �.\�, a "y n. -r a•- 44,•`;� 1'yYxS � �•g, �.�"cv9..�.�.� ....I }$�y(�.��iyjn jAKgP�'+���'� y 4 - ♦ 4fy'.yl ric y�, �` i .r;• ,aZ�._ Y .7iiP 3A31m�2i9n ..e��7_iS �'e:: , A � +,t arc.._. s• r r" ?F' �-- _ 7zf vtri. Y Y j Yl ..c�� -t�. • lY .-�,�,� � lliC.�Jt�p'vo�l.fMl:+�'♦ tl mit n '4' ; t af',xrY +�6 .• i. YJ.'vY O� T'T y�,/F1�,' 'b t1 N:y b-+ Y "•+i� f .�4 v�'Y i I��'N"Je 'C i ��''}�'•. t �h �4;J ? 3 � ti..J n'_ j ..it • !'.. 1 � u: yam. i�`•,.b�,5���Y �. *-Y :.' �k-� � .1- /�/ s. 0 u1s , JB1S NI��IIIIII�I�uIII� I�I� cityO SaP llPoSt Office Box 8,00 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 �0 Palm Streei r. APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL appeals procedure as authorized by Title I , Chapter In accordance with the app ned hereby appeals 1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the un ersig scion rendered from the decision Of TSE Architectural view Ccn which decision consisted of the following (i .e. 5/15/89 O11 rounds for submitting this appeal- set forth factual situation and the 9 Use additional sheets as needed) : See Attachment marked #1 RECEIVED MAY 2 21989 C,TYCLERK eing appealed from with: The undersigned discussed the decision b on 5/18/89 Sanville itv Developnlen Department j -�� Appellant*.. /� for 1 Paul F< Ready, A me Name/Title Channel ISS Company Representative 1254 Marsh Street Address San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ) Phone (805 541-1626 Original for City Clerk / Copy to City Attorney Copy t0 City Administrative Officer 0 4 o the following department(s) : Calertdared for: Copy 7` �1 J r � i Cite Clerk ' 1 1 I 1 Ii 1 I DECISION APPEALED: �. 2 Appellant , Channel Lumber Company , applied for a 3 '' demolition permit to remove a wooden structure from the Foothill 4 ` Plaza which formerly housed U.S. Postal services. The U. S . Postal 5 service had removed its equipment from the structure, and was in 6 process of demolishing the same when it was posted with a stop 7 notice . The ARC reviewed the application of Channel Lumber 8 i Company for the demolition permit. ARC ruled that the demolition 9 I was approved, but required an equivalent public postal service I 10 I facility elsewhere on the site, to staff or commission approval . i' 11 jI GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 12 lI Channel Lumber Company alleges the following grounds for l 13 appealing the decision of the ARC: Ii 14 I, 1 . The Staff Report presented to the. ARC , and 15 i� recommendations contained therein were potentially misleading and 16 not based upon City Ordinances. 17 II The Staff Report, provided to the members of the ARC, was i 18 I absolutely opposed to the issuance of a demolition permit , 19 I however this opposition was not based upon consideration of the 20 local ordinances or upon the records of the city regarding the 21 1 shopping center. No where in the staff report is mention of City 22 I Ordinance 15. 36. 150 regarding the standards of review for the ARC 23 I when considering demolition permits (see 15._36. 150 (C) ( 1) . i 24I There were no findings or recommendations in the report 25 I regarding the determination by the ARC of any historic, 26 11 architectural or aesthetic significance . . . 11of the structure to 27 li be demolished. Although reminded by appellant of these bases for 28 decision , the ARC specifically made no finding of any such I� II -1- 1 it significance , and therefore the demolition permit should be 2 I unconditionally issued in accordance with the ordinance. .i 3 li The Staff Report further utilized what were purported to 4 be official city maps, emphasizing the kiosk structure location, 5 ! in support of Staff's tenuous position that the structure sought 6 jto be demolished was of pivotal importance in the City approval I 7 !! for the shopping center remodeling in 1984 . The maps attached to 8 the staff report are not the official existing city maps, the 9 i'l zoning map utilized by staff reflects a shaded kiosk prominently I I 10 I marked postal kiosk. The offical city zoning map does not reflect I 11 it the kiosk at all . The map marked "Final Approved" dated 3/19/84 12 I attached to the Staff Report has been materially altered with the 13 notations " approved kiosk location" and the location of the 14 kiosk has been highlighted with a dark black outline . 15 Finally, the Staff Report generated the misconception that the ( 16 �I parking reduction allowed the center , as a result of its I 17 multi-user status, was somehow based upon the location and 18 maintenance of the structure sought to be demolished . This i 19 I argument like the others presented by staff , has no basis in 20 fact. 21 The city . records have yet to reveal any indication that 22 the postal kiosk was ever a consideration in allowing the I 23 shopping center remodel. The altered maps presented to the ARC by 24 staff, as well as the complete failure by staff to even mention I � 25 applicable ordinance to the ARC, resulted in a decision by the l 26 . 11 ARC beyond the scope of their authority. I 27 jl 2 . The contingency requiring substitute Public Postal �f li 28 i' Services was based upon speculation, not fact, irrelevant, and I, -2- I 1 may be properly vacated. C) 2 ; The Staff Report , and the letters attached thereto , I 3 infer massive traffic congestion and community prejudice 4 II resulting from the demolition of the wooden structure. The Staff i. 5 I Report ignores the location of a postal kiosk on the Cal Poly I I I g ij campus , the location of a public mail box approximately nine i 7 j steps away from the wooden structure, and the fact that the II g it Owner has obtained a tenant, Mailbox U. S .A. , to provide mail 9 services to this portion of the community. Despite these facts, 10 the report, and the. ARC, speculated without any factual basis, 11 that these. services are insufficient to meet the needs of the 12 II community . Appellant respectfully suggests that these II 13 considerations are irrelevant to the limited inquiry provided by 14 I ordinance as to the whether a demolition permit is appropriate. 15 I In any event, the speculative nature of the analysis of Staff and 16 li the ARC , is inappropriate for a ruling which has such a I 17 I substantial effect on the rights of a property owner. Appellant 18 requests that the contingency of the ARC be vacated. 19 I 3 . A final question for the consideration of Council , I 20 involves the determination of any basis whatsoever for the 21 ( adamant objection of staff to the approval of the demolition of I 22 Ij the small wooden structure in question. 23 i Admittedly, the owner of the shopping center is not. a 24 1 resident of the city of San Luis Obispo, but the administrative 11l 25 1i abuse reaped upon this absentee owner is uncalled for an 26 I irresponsible. The ARC is a commission which must necessarily 27 consider the Staff Report as a "guiding light" . The ARC is not 28 II necessarily charged with knowledge of city ordinances, and the I� ii -3- 1 !; staff should provide this information. The ARC members cannot be 2 1,1 expected to review the official city records, this information 3 should also be accurately provided them .by staff . The ARC file 4 indicates that Staff went so far as to solicit a letter from the 5 U.S . Postmaster in their unbridled and inexplicable efforts to 6 block issuance of the sought after permit (see exhibit 7 The costs of securing the demolition permit occasioned by 8 ;' these actions deserves more than an adequate explanation by 9 11 staff , and appellant respectfully requests that the same be 10 i demanded. I 11 II 12 �I 13 14 ! 15 I 16 17 18 19 20 21 II I� 22 i 23 24 25 26 27 28 I! 14 I All ------------- K05- KAKO,.,, L A LeIM&z 6zom co f- 7,D_A `J 1PaEs POSL�. -- W RECEN ED 2 e n � LLLIYR T MAY 11 1989 bISPO United Skates om u !y ev opmen �lbL �71i�1�7 "ommur.�y 0eveicpmen, Postal Service May 10, 1989 Jeff Hook City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93403-8100 Dear Mr. Hook: This is to inform you of the US Postal Service's position regarding the Self-Service Postal Facility located at the Foothill Plaza. It is our desire to re-install and maintain this facility as we feel it provides a convenient outlet for residents on the north side of town to transact their postal business. We intend to cooperate and assist as needed to meet the needs of our cus- tomers, the city, as well as the owners of the property. Should you need further information, please give me a call at 543-1881. I'm looking for- ward to an equitable and favorable decision. Sincerely, NYW� es Rivas P stmaster an Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-9998 r ALD C PICKEN ARCHITECT AIA 19319 VANOWEN STREET. RESEDA. CALIFORNIA 91335 (818) 996-8286 v CI JCL- 4 Jun 89 JUN 81989 �74Y C:::;in Lu5 UrnSQr. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm St- P.O. Box 8100- San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 (805) 549-7176 Attn: Jeffrey W Hook- Community Development Department of Planning. Refc: FOOTHILL PLAZA- "Postal Kiosk" Jeffrey: In response to your telephone question, this letter is to document that the inclusion of the postal kiosk into the contract documents for the rehabilitation of the existing buildings &/or the construction of the new buildings as above -- was a''"ARC" (Architectural Review Committee) requested con- dition of approval passed on to me through Mr. Jerry Arnold of Foothill Plaza Associates ( The then owner of the property) . If I can be of additional assistance regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call at any time. Res tfully: DONALD C PICKEN, Architect, AIA Copy:retn'd DCP:DCP C-5545. ' r i - FOO MILL BLVD. ` -'z All G/.LiF r, v SoUr14,Ee.LY' L/NE OLO 50 .E'C7A0 9 00"30 G�-E / Oo, PLAA/TE.F TiR4ff/c ', . . :�. ••,_ .' .,tl`�9�.3dG�E X29 � - � ;�� 't � GA; I\n 4 . ._1,u6;,PESS N /dr F_ASEMEN /C76/Of'393 5.0 1 I _ __J •:if f' 1 f0•Ve- A'E%Ai.L:'AJG ✓ALL w.'A' ,r4L.reArEc� i 787 � — —.; �I 0 ' r I 460/79/ � h ' Iff U,U,PECORDED AER/AL 7,63 1 789EASEMENT ! ,0.7 J 790 J;7- r� • K/OSK 77 2e0_ _�7 \_7_ -- - -=- �I /O j'.S. EASEME,UTI -- - - - -- - - - --- - - 0/ 19) 0AIR ,r : z � l PE.e !0357 O.� /7/ Q ok I Q Q h, lI Q Qc Ivo r PG 2� -to p vss ll«n zm/" haf- b LLAO. 0- s fo Ccrsf ��'Upc'sed --hag ►,�„ s. Gtar. If, 17eo on lwrcatr on in l� aet :0 �7 @ �rrmp Min. Yjalalndt to -u7,u 4-�m �0l41ds O'v /s 2l('It fr r r�zct ' olet . 11 �u-td¢ of 760 164 6t, qiwi j la&vn . lFiio io Gzacls ¢, P&err'ed io pb ql" plan . , 2 ix 1vdwlcn, D f^S�2f�5 / / � „� Ii11�� ::-� ■i■�I> Al r t U MI Imm mmi� llN i142 tart+' N.II4 w mm tib l ll;ll till tib � �i il'll fit• till l it Il mm m(i l• Epp” =I.I= mm Iwo i Wh IS KOH RA m� ml WI Ell i � ��i �! [:71I ��� •®� Qi it�ll�■���tii�Mn'llliu��■' '` r�°,,�' 'III"111111�1111111 :�11"I�IIii -101 - ..i I nit �1� -. .. .• � r^�{n �;�:Lm�-�.itcr.I�sl tn.�IULLt :u.I,c� iii.ii:r�,;ina F;:.ti j�� _��t�t• 1-M MIMI LAI�� C, Arnold - Pacific Properties, Inc. October 19, 1984 Mr. Mike Park Don Picken, A.I.A. 19319 Vanowen Reseda, California 91335 iRe: Foothill Plaza U.S. Postal Self Service Unit ` San Luis Obispo, California Dear Mike: Please find attached a set of plans and specifications for the above referenced. our proposal to them is to relocate or better yet reconstruct their existing unit at the other side of the center. --( Please review the attached and provide us with a cost estimate ( and design program to submit for their approval. s Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Siancerely, n I. Marraccino P rty Manager cc: Kimberly Horovitz David H. Paynter cl dft Arnold- Pacific Prooefties 13522 Newport Ave Suite 100,Tustin,CA 92680 (714)730-1225 ' �(d Arnold - Pacific Properties, Inc. *MT"klia; —T r 0000 2 r I • Ar n1A_ PO,44%. P.nv%P,44 a Tq-S22 Nem Tt Ave Su1ty 100_Tuatim CA 02fM (71 411 740-1225 /� • :1 j_•�.. � � t•`fir.^,.'',;r.' o t��:i: a 'Zy..•? r:'�. M 1•a'I+•J�d(�Fy 'Ax��� i. - tr' .'•1:%a . . .•T, •j�.f%;?�,.A.kM1',: :"'F::.�l�'a�,.�'7'`. 'r`S�:.t{�•*•�{•:'�f�'J.',• , �' ..�i.�.J: '^ �'>;. [I^�•• t�•.•u,l.f � tr'���`�!�'� �y�St '• I��ii� 1.' .�''•y,1i cid\A-.�'.4.1 .' !.�' .)}�Q•}q {1'' ^t(p• \;; .1,•��tiy,F_f i" 1 44 9 �,NI J' • \ tiT., � � ;S'-�1(l1a=�E =i� �' �«l��vfr ,-! J •�..ttx '1 e''a i'S'.�/ tb� ,5.N1 r. .Ir r ' '�.,1� •l! r I1yI�ihry ��� ty �•xt��„�'a' •i t ..�.. '.�.. rY R�� s '` '��<•' atilt i }l+ll ;.Wry b� '1 L t}, j}lI KI .1� i a 'i •s y r IH 1 �r.� .•.�.I +,t •"1 •f� t:�.:}ltttt;'♦t/y i:it�• 1..3 +"� :.�" C F.I lcsl. 1 d f' �• Fel ' �,�yr_ P ��rs F i �t ty 1y. t •R. • „ Mc •.:;, , '`Sr, s ',y-iv /`�. f•er tf v.�.• S•1411b'L� I� � � . ; ,.. : Y`,.,. .• y: qty 1 ,. i. �� •. ��11 .�(((1 ga{ j 1111 oilor so •r^ r �k''i�y} .� }.l '. 'Ce�f►;: } '1.'. i �„jEIJ ,� 1� >,i w �♦tilt. •Lr' .Hv .. i+ �! .•.{.fir^ �;. ,.Y I � 7-II •f��,.���'.�= 1•t'` f��'s•�•y\jj�'y ar+F.ii i .=Y:r`�r'la,`JI/1 �'+��!t�,}.�'^�{:^,�; ••I�" �. it :. 4 . M, 14 L y. ' ^. Ort:'� .n:h • • • t_g. ��. i� �� jf �•., �.! �.►.„ cry` ,,.. ? f'. T•. i4.it ! -•�, J � OUT 1F� G . DU uMao L(D —=- 00 ��- h _ � 9 - o A z..... 0ILW I ©l L=EL - - c� 0 - � w pie '� EAE city of sAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 Ed Gringrich Channel Lumber Company, Inc. 100 W. Cutting Blvd. Richmond, CA 94804 Subject: Postal Kiosk in Foothill Plaza Shopping Center Dear Mr. Gringrich: I understand that one of your tenants has requested removal of the postal kiosk located in front of SLO Baked, at 763 A Foothill Boulevard. At your request, Postal Service staff began demolishing the kiosk last week without the necessary city permits. Since the kiosk was part of the approved remodel plans for the shopping center, its removal requires Architectural Review Commission approval, and also requires a construction permit. A stop work order has been issued by the Building Department pending resolution of the above issues. As we discussed last week, city staff has already received citizen complaints about the removal of the kiosk. According to Jim Rivas, the Postmaster, this convenience mail kiosk is heavily used. The center is close to Cal Poly University and the city's largest concentration of student housing, and it is the only postal service facility in the north half of the City. Mr. Rivas said that the Postal Service would like to see it stay, and is willing to improve its appearance and upkeep so that it is a good "neighbor" for the center's tenants. Apparently it's viewed by many as a significant neighborhood convenience. We agree. During the ARC's hearings on the shopping center remodel, staff and commissioners strongly supported keeping the kiosk on-site. It was moved from the Broad Street frontage to its current location during the remodel. The location was suggested by the previous owner and designer -- not the City. Staff is open to other locations; however we would oppose any effort to remove or scale back the kiosk mail service. I would like to work with you and the Postal Service to help make the kiosk an attractive, viable part of the center once again. SiAe,,Associatc erely, Planner cc: -Jim Rivas, Postmaster; San Luis Obispo, CA93401-9998 -John Rosetti; 1303 Garden Street, Suite 213, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 112 Broad Street C; San Luis Obispo CALIFORNIA 93401 April 15, 1989 Mike Multari Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo Dear Mike : I went to the Postal Service kiosk on Foothill at Broad today , and discovered it partially demolished and a city stop order posted . Neighborhood gossip has it that the shopping center owner has decided he' d rather not have the kiosk , and forced its removal . I do not know if that is true . My recollection is that the remodeling use permit for the Foothill Center included the kiosk , and if that is the case , I hope you will use your discretionary power to require formal hearings into the use permit change required for its removal . Removal of this facility is not a minor public issue , and should not be left to the whim of an absentee owner . � i Losing this important installation will leave a large kart of the city without basic postal services , and will force much commuting into downtown , which is in contravention of the city' s basic planning principles. If removal does proceed , 1 hope that you will actively initiate seeking an alternative location in the immediate area. The Ferrini center seems like a possibility given the tir ' s Probable desire to attract potential customer= premises . Sincerely , Richard Schmidt RECEIVED 112 Broad Street MAY 91989 San Luis Obispo CALIFORNIA 93401 City of San Lu:5 ooisoo May 9, 1989 'nmmumtyDevelopmero Regarding Postal Kiosk , Foothill Shopping Center Architectural Review Commission City of San Luis Obipso Dear ARC: I. urge you to deny permission to demolish and remove the postal kiosk . This is an important public facility, and simply allowing removal at the whim of the property owner , who previously used its presence as a mitigation to seek ARC approval for a very poor and overly dense site plan, is poor public policy. A basic tenent of San Luis Obispo's planning policies is to attempt to limit cross—town driving wherever possible . The Kiosk plays an important role in that policy inasmuch as it provides an essential service to a high population area. Without it , 1 know I personally have to make several trips a week to the downtown post office, and others in the area are probably now having similar unmet needs. Conservatively, we can measure its trip generation impact in the thousands per week , if not per day. I am confident that you can establish design criteria for the kiosk which will make its continued presence a visual asset to the center . Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Attachment : Letter to Mike Multari , April 15, 1989 R F.C F.I V ro W 636 Questa Drive San' is Obispo, Ca 93401 JUN 6 6 June, 1989 543-4485 San Luis Obispo City Councj�YCLSK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Subject: Channel lumber Company appeal of Architectural RW & .15 Aay ,l( g�p111. , ;, b�, 10 k"A I ,.w....C.o,mmi,ss,;,on d i f )89/06u. 'rlr 7L ky �r9 09 Dear Request you support the Architectural Review Commission decision requiring the relocation of the postal kiosk to ( its former) Broad Street location, still on Foothill Plaza, as a proviso to tearing down the existing structure. Someone , or some agency, paid for the extensive concrete found- ation with electrical and telephone wires, separators and steel rail- ings at the current site, with little doubt of some arrangement or agreement as a PERMANENT 24 hour fully automated public service for thousands of north San Luis ,Obispo residents. Since Channel Lumber closed the facility 1 April, all of us must travel.. to the downtown post office for stamps and to weigh and mail parcel. post, and the onus should be on them to re-establish the kiosk. Of, alternatively to find and pay for the relocation to some even more accessible nearby location. NOTE: Channel Lumber claims the private company, MAILBOXES USA, is considering rental next to Thrifty' s. However, ac most other small businesses at this location, they must charge exhorbitant prices to meet rental and other business expenses, and after a few months find they must discontinue. Again, this would leave north area residents without postal services. A postal kiosk in the Foothill Shopping area takes a lot of pressure off the downtown facility, saves thousands of residents time and transportation costs, and reduces auto exhaust pollutants. Many residents can' t afford to purchase $20 worth of stamps at one time, so more frequent trips are required. hncerely, H old Sch chardt RL ,EIVE ® 636 Cuesta Drive MAY 1 599 San Luis Obispo, Ca 91,401 Gn.CUW Monday 15 '".ay, 1939 smu"C-;aeonCA (805) 543-4485 �} Architectural Review Commission Reference : Application for Demolishment of U . S. Mail Kiosk at Foothill Plaza - sleeting 5PM, 15 play ,adies and Gentlemen, my views, in the event I cannot make it to the meeting: 1. I have just returned from vacation and saw the notice on the KIUSK. Hopefully, there were other notices or you may not have much community representation. None of those I spoke to at church yesterday were aware of the meeting, but all concerned. 2. Forth side residents aren' t concerned specifically whether or not the KIOSK remain at current location that seems optimum for users. The only traffic conflict there might be is on mornings when the adjacent bakery provides breakfasts. . All other times I've never seen a lack of parking space to use the kiosk nor have I ever witnessed driver misuse or blocking of vehicles. J 3. The kiosk is a high use facility. There have always been others using the scale, rate-scale charts, stamp dispensers and drop- box when I stopped. Sometimes 3 or 4 others. 4. Since the 7 April kiosk closure, all north end residents have had to compete with downtown traffic to purchase stamps or use othe of its facilities, as well as lost time, cost of travel and more toxic automobile emmissions for San Luis Obispo . 5 . Actions now are way overdue and should have been accomplished when the postmaster first became aware of the threat to oust the facility. And, postal authorities are remiss in not immediately seeking out an -alternative location in some nearby shopping center not so hostile to patrons. I'm sure a space could be found where merchants would welcome additional business traffic. Almost never do residents make a trip to use a kisok for mailing without other retail pure ses. Harold F. uLchardt ARC Minutes May 15, 1989 Page 3 Commrs. Morris, Jones, and open returned to the meeting. 1. ARC 89-59: 773 Foothill Boulevard; demolish' U.S. mail kiosk; C-N zone. Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending denial of the demolition request and requiring that the postal kiosk be restored and maintained in its current location. Paul Ready, attorney for the applicant, responded to the staff report. He noted that the mail kiosk had become a nuisance to maintain and was concerned about the appearance of the partly-demolished. kiosk-. He felt there was a lack of basis for denying he demolition and noted he had failed to find evidence in the file supporting its retention. He noted there had been no agreement with the postal service to provide this service, and the same or similar services would be available elsewhere on the site. Harold Schucardt indicated the mail kiosk got a high volume of use and he has heard -- of many complaints from former users. He noted that the nearby drop box was installed after partial demolition of the,kiosk. He felt the existing area was not a good location for the kiosk but it does provide a needed service. Commr. Bradford noted that if the kiosk was part of the original project, then the commission would retain jurisdiction. She felt equivalent services were not available elsewhere on the site. Commr. Chatham shared the concern for the need for service, however, he _questioned the commission's jurisdiction. He asked if there was a specific condition requiring the kiosk and suspected it was a city requirement that it be installed. He could support demolition but felt the services should be provided somewhere else on the property. Commr. Jones supported the demolition and noted that providing private postal services was a desirable use in the C-N zone. He thought that Foothill Center may be a good area for a replacement kiosk to be built. Commr. Starr also questioned the commission's purview but supported the service the kiosk provided. Commr. Morris felt the case was beyond the commission's purview and suggested referring the request. to the Planning Commission to consider whether the use should remain on the site. Commr. Bradford moved to approve the demolition but require an equivalent public postal service facility on the site. Commr. Gates seconded the motion. e-P -3� ARC Minutes May 15, 1989 Page 4 -- a VOTING: AYES: Bradford, Gates, Chatham, Cooper NOES: Jones, Morris, Starr ABSENT: None The motion pass Chairperson Cooper no(nthe t ARC 86-102 (1951 Monterey Street) had been inadvertently included agenda, however, no request for revisions had been received. Therefore, an was required by the commission. 3. ARC 88-97: 31731 Broad Str ew mixed-use (commercial, office & residential) center; C-S-PD zone; final revie Greg Smith, Associate Planner, present the staff report recommending final approval. John Mitchell, applicant, respond to the staff report and indicated the trellis would consist of stucco over wo or something of a similar appearance. Pierre Rademaker, designer, ' dicated the sculpture would be 12 to 15 feet in length, bedded into the ber nd responding to the trellis modules. The sculpture would be painted dark red a have a smooth surface, purposely kept back from the street to enhance its visibility. a also noted that the entry sign would be externally lit. David Foote, landscape architect, note at wisteria or trumpet vines would be used on the trellis. Commr. Jones had no problems with the oject and supported final approval. He felt more signage may be needed at the fro age. Commr. Starr liked the project's si ge and colors but wanted to see the trellis detail. Commr. Morris liked the improvements that have been made including the signage. He suggesting using a large-scale vine on the trellis. He questioned the appropriateness of the sculpture. Commr. Gates liked the progress that has been made. She wanted to see a model of the sculpture and felt an on-site model may be appropriate. Commr. Bradford objected to site grading, tree removal, and the three-story configuration. She felt the art may be more appropriate in a more-urban setting. Commr. Chatham had no problems with the project. j ARC Minutes March 19, 1984 Page 2 Commr. Simons moved for al approval on the condition that the applicant submit revised plans for staff roval which include trash enclosure details, irriga tion plan, signing plan, lighting and addressing, wall between Units 4 and S, and London Plane street tree . Commr. Crotser seconded the motion. mom AYE ns, Cr enden a st, Sutliff, Dettmer, NOES: None ABSENT: None C_4 (Project) . ARC 84-27: 765-789 Foothill Boulevard; addition and remodel of Foothill Boulevard Plaza Shopping Center; C-N zone Commr. Crotser was concerned about the following landscape issues: 1. The three foot planter strip between the parking spaces and the front of Thrifty's would probably be damaged by pedestrian traffic and would be better if paved in a different walking surface or eliminated altogether. 2. The Melaleuca trees under the arcade at the southern-most building might be too large requiring extensive trimming which would detract from the, intended form. Jerry Tracy of Oasis Landscaping responded to Commr. Crotser's comments. Commr. Sutliff concurred with Commr. Crotser's comments. He recommended raised planters for landscaped areas east of Building D and north of Building A. Commr. Dettmer opened the meeting for public comments. Frances Herrington, a resident of the local area, expressed concern about parking lot circulation, traffic safety and signage. Her primary concern was for the through traffic in the lot from Ramona to Foothill Boulevard.. Patricia Nichols, also a local resident, shared Mrs. Herrinton's concerns.. Commr. Dettmer noted that many problems noted in public comment would be resolved by the parking lot renovation, and suggested Mrs. Herrinton meet with Mr. Hook to clarify project plans and identify potential problems. Commr. Simons felt issues raised at this meeting might merit further review and that final approval might be premature. Commr. Crotser moved for final approval subject to parking lot details, trash en- closure location and design, landscape plan to include planters to the east of Building D and north of Building A and irrigation details, pedestrian walkway and wall details, and sign and lighting details to be approved by staff. _1— �� ARC Minutes March 19, 1984 Page 3 Commr. Sutliff seconded the motion.. AYES: Commrs. Crotser, Sutliff, Mendenhall, Priest, Simons, Dettmer NOES: None ABSENT: None PROJECTS: 1. ARC 84-14: 860 Walnut Stre ew office building; 0 zone. Jeff Hook presented the staff report ommending approval of revisions to the land- scape plan. Roger Longden, representative, responde o staff comments. Commr. Priest moved for approval on the ndition that a revised landscape plan be submitted which accurately shows existi planting on the site. Commr. Simons seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Priest, Simon rotser, Mendenhall, Sutliff, Dettmer NOES: None ABSENT: None Commr. Sutliff stepped down to avoi ny possible conflict of interest. 2. ARC 84-23: 195 Higuera Street; remod service station for Sunshine Donut Shop; C-S zone. Commr. Sutliff stepped down to avoid a ossible conflict of interest. Jeff Hook presented the staff report r mmending final approval. Don Cutter, Mike Taylor and Robert Bro representatives, presented the project and responded to the staff report. Commr. Priest felt parking might be inadequate considering the rush hour traffic at this intersection. He recommended the outdoor eating area be screened from street traffic with fencing or high shrubbery. He supported trash enclosure location on the neighboring property and suggested the applicant consider in- scalling a trash compactor to reduce trash enclosure requirements. Commr. Simons had no problems with the building but said he could not support the project without further study of the traffic flow at the South/Higuera .Street intersection. He opposed any access to and from the lot by left turns_ on Higuera, and also said the flower stand should be. eliminated from the corner. _ K 7 __ ------- FETING__ ..._-----AGENbA - DATE 4AZE-If ITEM # OBISPO 0 Sa►1'1 UIS 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 June 20, 1989 TO: City Council FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director VIA: John Dunn, CAO SUBJECT: Item #2 on the June 20th council agenda - Postal kiosk appeal. Staff recommends that.the council take public testimony on this item and then continue it to the council's July 5th hearing. Additional time is needed to allow the Postal Service to comment on mail service alternatives in the shopping center, and to allow additional staff study. Cl; RECEIVED JUN 2p CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 4:.WP MEETING _.jENDA DATE ce�- ITEM # SV NE to) LqR t Q.o L; N e t L_ M 9 rig m s S X019 O;t1 Pb 3`Pol� Q PrL- tF CITYCLERK De-pr� GO L1 N Cl L_ 3crz.$ SANLLucnaleenCA oN MAY !Sf Ttt(-- AgCHtT-r-e—i vvz AL_ lQEvc�! L'0111 t-t 155 i o IJ —I Ft£ dZE L` c �- oN -T H15 f-06TAILL sHbfPi?jG �Z E-f,�Tz-:-R 0 t3-0EVS—iTr*"o rtN A-f ISA 5st0rs 's SjcC S 1001 ymS Btc-GFIL) P PP8-) .. , <� p�Z-T pU LL Y R s k `S N-a4'T ND E A51 vti a F 71tt= Coti"1r"ttSSi��: C� �% U1� �12) L S Ni OflE�N ib M 4�1-t"1 C, f .S-E �e tx I Janotes action]LeadP i U 5,0V lT � `9-e'/spond by,�rCouncilOAO I:1(c�ty.ntN�i Clerk-oris. t D S { 31989 CITYCLERK SANWrZmm-eon CP r ; S�AEETit�t r% E r` ITEM # 7jKCA0 acsion by Lead Person y: Ci i --ttv Am,. Rate Hike Needed in 1991 to Pay ; for Automation, Says U.S. Postmaster I i From United Press International i CHICAGO—U.S. Postmaster General Anthony M. Frank said i Monday that postage rates will have to increase in early 1991 to cover the costs of mail delivery and automation, which will be essential by the year 2000. Frank refused to speculate how much first-class rates might go e I up, but he promised that the increases will allow the postal service to improve efficiency by expanding automated operations and i establishing more postal facilities. Frank told a t i "We need some sort of mail facilit in ever mall, I news con erence. ran said postal union ears t at jobs would be J lost because of the post office's agreement with Sears, Roebuck & 1 Co., which allows Sears employees to work in postal facilities inside Sears stores, were unfounded. 1 1 t RECEW ® JUN 1 9 C1Ty CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA