HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/1989, 2 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE PLAN REVISIONS TO MEEnNG OATS
A -
city of San Luis OBlspo 9-19-89
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT "E"Nt'MElm:
FROM: Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director; Prepared By: Jeff ook
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 ARC approved demolition of the 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; 2) a new tenant, Mail Boxes Etc. USA, offers postal services, and is concerned
about possible competition from the kiosk, and 3) he feels the kiosk is poorly located
and causes parking conflicts. 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 shown in 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 the postal service began demolishing it. Staff has received several 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 inconvenience neighbors and shopping center customers who
depend on the 24-hour 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. /
j� � city of San pais OBIspo
MIGn COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
DATA SUMMARY
Applicant: Ed Gringrich, Property Manager, 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. The Postal Service's position
is clear: the kiosk was heavily used, and they support keeping the kiosk or providing
some other facility with equivalent postal services. (letter attached). The Postmaster,
Mr. Jim Rivas has stated that they will follow the City's direction on the preferred type
of postal service -- they are prepared to restore the kiosk, go out to bid for a mail
sub-station in the center, or some other agreeable alternative provided that the public
service continues.
According to the property manager, the adjacent bakery tenant has been inconvenienced by
kiosk patrons needing change for the stamp machine. The Postmaster indicates that if the —1
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 new tenant, Mail Boxes Etc. USA, 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.
Recent Actions
Council continued this item at its June 20th and July 5th meetings to allow the Postal
Service to explore alternatives to the kiosk, including a manned postal service
substation within one of the center's businesses. The item was to return on August 15th
based on the Postmaster's expectation of getting responses back on their request for
proposals for mail services. However the item was not scheduled since it appeared that
the matter might resolve itself without further council review. The appellant does not
believe the item can be resolved with staff and the Postal Service, and the item has been
rescheduled at the request of the appellant's representative
Since the ARC's action, Mail Boxes Etc. USA opened for business in the shopping center.
It offers mailing services and supplies, and is selling postage stamps at face value. It
also offers some of the same services available at the post office, like certified letter
processing and personal mail boxes. A complication is that postal services are not
listed as allowed uses in the C-N zone, although it seems reasonable that they be
allowed. The kiosk predates the current zoning limitations on postal services.
Moreover, since the Postal Service is a quasi-Federal agency, the kiosk is probably not j
bound by City land use regulations. The owner of Mail Boxes Etc. is aware of the
problem, and at our last discussion, said he would apply for a zoning text amendment to
allow the use. As of this writing, staff has not received an application for a text
amendment.
I��n�����►►VNlll�llp� ►�I�D� city of san tins oBispo
1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
Staff recently received a citizen's letter favoring the kiosk over the postal store on
the basis of lower cost and greater convenience (letter attached). Staff believes that
the kiosk, or something like it, should stay in the center and that the ARC's decision
should be upheld. The 24-hour automated facility is convenient and meets a different
kind of postal need than the private, limited-hours postal store. The kiosk was designed
into the center's parking lot and its placement and design poses no significant safety
hazards or circulation conflicts. All things considered, staff sees no compelling reason
to remove such a heavily used public facility.
Commission Action
On May 15th, the ARC voted 4-3 (Jones, Morris, Starr dissenting) to approve the
appellant'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 i
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.
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.
-3
i
= city o� saniuis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
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
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 improving the dualities of and relationships between
individual buildings structures and physical developments in such manner
as to best contribute to the amenities (emphasis ours) and attractiveness of 1
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 Mail Boxes Etc. USA, can provide equivalent
services, or for how long.
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 I
removal is inconsistent with city policies and seems contrary to the community's
interests.
city of san tins osispo
Efto COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
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 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 facilities, 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."
ATTACHMENTS
-Draft Resolutions
-Vicinity'map
-Appeal
-Correspondence
-Staff-approved site plan
-ARC minutes
jh2/cc8959
I
` 1
I
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 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 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 vote:
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 Attorn
Community Development Director
jh2/cc8959
G
EXHIBIT B
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.
C� 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.
�'V
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
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:
/s/ John Dunn
City Administrative Officer
CityIlAtto_rn/e/
/C�'��GL2�G�G
Community Development Director
jh2/cc8959
EST C
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 rernoval 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:
C NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of. 1989.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
i �
/s/ John Dunn
City Administrative Officer
City Attorney
Community Development Director
jh2/ccres2
0 LAM!
O o •,t i0 O :W O O O O
a•
O '� O I O �z ,• JI�dM .•,. • NTo
01N�8
`+ <o
o O m
4 - O
010 , 00O o " 10
Oi O
n O w : O
O
Z T e
. '
0 0 010 O A n 0 0 O O OIO O O O
IL it 26 1i J} SL is Y. I ,'h 4
is�ais OVOas
LI'ii =� •s< I ::ens �
L
F C e
W
tv..9r •
Ap
' }• Lu.t•r�r t
I , r
� \'}}• 9pv�� ' J tj O ail
:t � p f .rte � i • � __��'
BYO �a I
I
` L
+� O
IIs I I �'a IA \~/
i
--..ea�aeJ •
r, t
yti I .
as _ rpm-
NMI
jA.
I Y'T
• �� 'Y,'S yt , w ,. � ,�at.�i, Y
L ,�Yj1% iYl�.. L x if�rF.. p 'n \'� �LLr•
3 �
J _ - Rk��-i J+b. •r o >.t > � �� F• ,r �y' ��yt� Iqs _'
4• yl i � y�y �L t of � �* G ! t � Y i
g \
Ile } r
'FYf:
v _
a ♦ t
�t
�µ��.�► ►�. �-.k���'�'� lid �.,, : .
NOW
ilk) ME
a. � ,.,. „p�.�, ��.r.w�t.......:.�:•�:__:sir..,..t -
•.1 • 5 7 s«„y t .. ; is f y^7 ^s.. y �"•.:_Y'^-� 1 �,
If
f
+,{� tZ ✓ ,. -er"� L , r tan, �.F� �,�+•4�4"(A''S^' w ....G-..F
•. , A L N � ,.Y `]G� t- 1 r L-.11 f .'S3 kf5. >
�.✓ �� ._..t. >..._s,.r i t r 'F .,, , _ ��4 4 ti� r C t is,,.y ytif���� � `' ;�!
4• "� Gv'C::Y= ^•F K'C" Ti ... . w ^�'•N7i7�/hMd1 � �Y� 3
A 5f YEc.rt' > -iikli �.tu- r ,p'...'t Y s-rf,• ?:1Tf1
UIS O
�IIIVI�lllbh IOf S�
IIIIIIIII�IIII��� ����I CI
990 Palm StreetIPOst otflCe Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 ^\
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I . Chapter
Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
1 .20 of the,San
ohitettural Review C�
from the decision of
ssion rendered
on 5/15/89 which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
nd the grounds for submitting this
set forth factual situation apeal:
ap
Use additional sheets as needed):
See Attachment marked #1
RECEIVFD
MAY 2 21989
_ C;;YCLERK
5AN 1.11'c
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Sanville
on 5/18/89
Act' a Head,
Cotmtuiiity Development Department
Appellant:,
Paul Fri Ready, A rneV for
Name/Title
Channel Lamtber Carpany
Representative
1254 Marsh Street
Address
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) Phone
541-1626
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Copy to City Administrative Officer
Cale[sdared for: Copy to the following department(s) :
/�
City Clerk
i
\ - X,
i
1 DECISION APPEALED:
U' 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 I! 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
l
8 ;� Company for the demolition permit. ARC ruled that the demolition
g was approved, but required an equivalent public postal service
10Ali facility elsewhere on the site, to staff or commission approval .
I�
11 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
12 j Channel Lumber Company alleges the following grounds for
It
13 it appealing the decision of the ARC:
U
14 1 . The Staff Report presented to the .ARC , and
15 II recommendations contained therein were potentially misleading and
!i
16 i', not based upon City Ordinances.
ided to the members of the ARC, was
17 j! The Staff Report, prov
I!
18 absolutely opposed to the issuance of a demolition permit ,
I!
19 ;1 however this opposition was not based uponconsideration of the
20 local ordinances or upon the records of the city regarding the
21 I shopping center. No where, in the staff report is mention of City
22 Ordinance 15. 36. 150 regarding the standards of review for the ARC
see 15. 3.6. 150 C
23 II when considering demolition permits ( � ) ( 1)-
24
�
i
i
24 There were no findings or recommendations in the report
25 regarding the determination by the ARC of any " historic,
26 j' architectural or aesthetic significance . . . " of the structure to
27 Ij be demolished. Although reminded by appellant of these bases for
CJ 28 �! decision , the ARC specifically made no finding of any such
1 l significance , and. therefore the demolition permit should be
2 unconditionally issued. in accordance with the ordinance.
3 The Staff Report further utilized what were purported to
4 be official city maps, emphasizing the kiosk structure location,
I
i
5 in support of Staff's tenuous position that the structure sought
6 to be demolished was of pivotal importance in the City approval
'i
eling in 1984 . The maps attached to
7 for the shopping center remod
8 the staff report are not the official existing city maps, the
9 zoning map utilized by staff reflects a shaded kiosk prominently
.j
10 marked postal kiosk. The offical city zoning map does not reflect
it
11 the kiosk at. all . The map marked "Final Approved" dated 3/19/84
i
12 attached to the Staff Report has been materially altered with the
13 !I notations 11 approved kiosk location" and the location of the
14 li kiosk has been highlighted with a dark black outline .
15 Finally, the Staff Report generated the misconception that the
!
16 1I parking reduction allowed the center, as a result of its
i
17 f multi-user status, was somehow based upon the location and
I
18 li maintenance of the structure sought to be demolished . This
19 1 argument like the others presented by staff, has no basis in
20 fact..
21 I The city records have yet to reveal any indication that
I!
22 i' the postal kiosk was ever a consideration in allowing the
23 i shopping center remodel. The altered maps presented to the ARC by
24 I staff, as well as the complete failure by staff to even mention
1
25 applicable ordinance to the ARC, resulted in a decision by the
i
26 ARC beyond the scope of their authority.
a
27 2 . The contingency requiring substitute Public Postal
i• I
28it Services was based upon speculation, not fact, irrelevant, and
f
I I
-2-
I ^�
may be properly vacated.
I
�J 2
The Staff Report , and , the letters attached thereto ,
infer massive traffic congestion and community prejudice
q ! resulting from the demolition of the wooden structure. The Staff
I' location of a postal kiosk on the Cal Poly
5 II Report ignores the
i' location of a. public mail box approximately nine
g �, campus ,
the
and . the fact that the
7 �I steps away from the wooden structure,
8 ii Owner has obtained a tenant, Mailbox U . S . A. , to provide mail
g Il services to this portion of the community. Despite these facts
11 rt, and the ARC, speculated without any factual basis,
10 �I the repo
11 that these services are insufficient to meet the needs of the
12 community . Appellant respectfully suggests that these
13
II considerations are irrelevant to the limited .inquiry provided by
ordinance as to the whether a demolition permit is appropriate.
14 �i
;; the speculative nature of the analysis of Staff and
15 In any event,
16 II the ARC , is inappropriate for a ruling which has such a
17
II substantial effect on the rights of a property owner. Appellant
18 requests that the contingency of the ARC be vacated.
19 3 . A final question for the consideration of Council ,
20 i! involves the determination of any basis whatsoever for the
li of staff to the approval of the demolition of
21 adamant objection
II
22 the small wooden structure in question.
I
Admittedly, the owner of the shopping center is not a
23 li I
2q resident of the city of San Luis Obispo, but the administrative
25 abuse reaped up
on this absentee owner is uncalled for and
I commission which must necessarily
26 irresponsible. The ARC is a
IIider the Staff Report as a "guiding light" . The ARC is not
27 Icons
2g II necessarily charged with knowledge of city ordinances, and the
!I -3-
II
1 staff should provide this information. The ARC members cannot be
2 expected to review the official city records, this information
3 should also be accurately provided them by staff. The ARC file
I
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 "a") .
7 The costs of securing the demolition permit occasioned by
8 these actions deserves more than an adequate explanation by
g staff, and appellant respectfully requests that the same be
10 demanded.
i!
11 jl
it
12
13
14
15 �I 1
i
16
u
17
I;
18
1s
I�
20 �!
21
i'
i
22
li
23
l
24
i
25
26
27
I�
28
it
�'/
--------------
Le�t
NATES Po57.�.
° RECENEJ
W y
H
0 T
MAY 11 1989
United
States 1)m of Sar. ev oomoo
\/ �lG1J �71Q1�i.7 'ommuc:ry Devewomen
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,
•4040
es Rivas
P stmaster
an Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-9998
636 --siesta Drive
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
7 August, 1989
� i
(805) 543-4485
U. S. Post Office
Attn: fvis 'nary Frink
Director, k-iarketing and Communications
Santa Barbara, Ca 93102
Dear Ms Frink,
I appreciate your 19 July letter in response to my efforts
to re-establish a 24. hour available fully automated postal kio.sk
for north side San Luis Obispo residents, including CAL-POLY
students and senior citizens.
Yes, 250 stamps are available from a machine just inside
the doorway of Mail Boxes, Etc, Inc at 750 for two or at regular
prices at the cash register when they are open 8:30 - 6PM M-F,
and 9-2 on Saturdays. That' s a far cry from 24 hour availability
to weigh envei0J28 and oacka;ES, purchase any s.ta::. ps and depOs.it
on the way to school or ',work, students enroute to or fro:q =
time classes and all of our numerous night-shift service residents.
While :?ailboxes, ?etc, .Inc provides some very useful services,
that certainly isn' t within the Postmaster General ' s goals of
fully automated service within !-"alis or Sho-pping Centers.
?_opefully, we can all hear of some POSITIVE plans at the
scheduled 15 August City Council meeting.
Sincerely,
H lr:�to`ld c u ardt
Cy to: . SLC Postmaster
All City Council
!embers
:x Denotes action by Lead Pe:scn
R nd b
Fity
nci
i
O
4r, EIVED
Atty.
AUG 7
CIT'%CLERK
RK
_. C-A.'.I 1 1.915 onli: •..•i r.�A
.pTES Posrl _
C � N
W T
� a
e
••i f♦•f
July 19 , 1989 United States
Postal Service
Harold Schuchardt
636 Cuesta Drive
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Dear Mr . Schuchardt:
I am responding to your letter to Postmaster General Anthony
Frank concerning the postal kiosk in San Luis Obispo.
I am happy to inform you that stamps can be purchased at Mail.
Boxes , Etc. in the same shopping center that housed the kiosk.
I apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced by the
interruption in service. I also apologize for the problems you _
had on April 17th. I will discuss this situation with the post-
master and make sure that it does not recur next year.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Mary Frink
Director , Marketing & Communications
cc: Postmaster , San Luis Obispo
Van Nuys Consumer Affairs
112 Broad Street
San Luis Obis. p o
CALIFORNIA '15401
April 15 , 1 ?857'
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
di =_•covered i t par +. i .al 1 y demol i shed and .a c i t'r steP order, posted .
Neighborhood gossip has it that the shopping center owner has
decided he' d rather not have the kiosk , and forced its remo al . I
do not know if that 'is true . .
My recollection is that the remodeling usepermit 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 rot a minor public issue , and should
not be left to the whim of an absentee owner-
Los i nq
wnerLosing this important installation will Ieave a large part of the
city without basic postal sery i ces,. and. imil1 farce much commuting
into downtown , which is in contravention of the cit.y' s ba=sic
planning principles .
If removal does proceed , I hope t.hat you will actively initiate
seeking an alternative location in the immediate area . The
Ferrini center seems like a possibility given the owner' s probable
desire to attract potential customer._ onto the premises .
Sincerely ,
Pichar d. SCrmidt
�J
RECEIVED
112 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo MAY 91989
CALIFORNIA 93401 CavotSan wlsoceao 1
May 9, 1989 '`1mmunitvDeveiopmen• J
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 , I 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
��o"J
n G-0%Lf L_. I V Is W 636 ("'e9ta Drive
is Obispo, da 93401
JUN 6 6, --ane, 1989
San Luis Obispo City Counc��ryCLERK 543-4485
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Subject: Channel Lumber OBISPO,
Company appeal of Architectural
R 'PW,7CoMM;
1", 8
T W f. �5 May ,1989/0'
09
Dear
(12r
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 PERMANERT 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; r.�, alternatively
to find and pay for the relocation to some even more accessible
nearby location.
ONOTE: Channel Lumber claims the private company, MAILBOXES USA,
is considering rental next to Thrifty' s. However, aF most other small
businesses at this location, they must charge exhorbitant prices to
meet rental and other business expenses, and after a few rnonths 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 costal and reduces auto exhaust pollutantS.
Many residents can' t afford to pur'chase $20 worth of stamps at one
tine, BO morefrequent trips are required,
Sincerely,
H old Sch chardt
R,�Z E i v E o
636\ Cue sta Drive
MAY 1510 San Luis Obispo , Ca 97,401
OTYCLMK Monday 15 "ay, 1989
iM�rK^ DOC% (8C5) 543_4dR5 l
Architectural Review Commission J
Reference : application for Demolishment of U . S. fail Kiosk
at Foothill Plaza - Meetin. 52M, 15 May
ladies and Gentlemen,
views, in thes event I cannot make it to the meeting:
1. 1 have just returned from vacation and saw the notice on the
KIOSK. hopefully, therewere 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. Eorth side residents aren' t concerned specifically whether or
not the KIOSK remain at current location that seems o-otimum
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.
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.
a. 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 Gbispo .
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 purc ses.
Darold Z. 3-6iuchardt
DONALD C PICKEN ARCHITECT AIA 19319 VANOWEN STREET. RESEDA. CALIFORNIA 91335 fete) 996.6294
CL
4 Jun 89 JUN $ 1989
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 documentthat 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 mot hesitate to call. at any time.
Res tfully:
DONALD C PICKEN, Architect, AIA
Copy:retn'd DCP:DCP C-5545.
�J
�o'U
t
. 1 I
FOOTHILL BLVD. i
5MN :T '
-- -- — - -- - – - f'L Av L/.a/C-
SOUTHE I- ZMAE OGD 50"eo,4D
0O'30'00"E / oo' PLAAJrE•P 7,4gff/C
of GA.
/324 C.2 738 0 M h I _ IA16WESS-E17 G
f'/.AUTER� IN Fdr -- FA.SFMEI/r iC?6/C)F'393 T `Z
I
I I I I
� ' I .-f0•UC .E'£%�/�(:,'AJG �YALL wi19ETAL fEtiY'Egaj , ' ' I �
787 .» UA ,�c• �� i
JN I i
f\ \ I � i?7.T-
`l Y /_'jam' 1.i���7�'i•YAaf
?'!0
785
ti
/(7G'
FOrOMAT-z�5.7<F.a) –
e1x1,QECORDED AERP/AL
7,63 : 781&
ELECTP/C EASEME(/T
781
7-79780
'
I
`-] U.S POSTAL �
• K/OSK ,
----- - - - --- ------- eo, 17 77
- - ----- - ---- - ---- -- - - --- - - -
7- 1
- - -- - - - ---- -- - --- -
PE.e 6035 O.Q /7/ I '�• )< �1
V a: LV
I I �
li
i
¢ l/tJ��,cl�- Gf'cccss Q�o� pr�estrram urz�.l�,��,ys hof-
b mvt o /efCtr l sf��s
In G- cf sf Crxs>{ nrr�cs�d
�7'rG7vf 6F rrA6
e2a_ �
8 Min. Yuarao 9 =u �vh�.Qstop �s
a
t2 c
.:.. lW prk::Y I:.l:I'u:Cll l/I I'I'I f, l"I IIIIS III IS 11'.Illtft I:11'fl �u LLMAR,
■
--------------
I6
7 I
I
I
!moi
ei , v1 1 :A111111111111`'111!�
a����s`i�11111111�h�i;:�" ,��' ✓r Iv-' €,�� .liis
ON
^I��IiI101
SCH KOM Eli lft�a�
�� ii [::�I �III�I 11(::3!1 ►.
fill VNE
oil
�Iq ♦\i �
- _
tr
n
Arnold m Pacific Properties, Inc.
�I
October 19, 1984
I
Mr. Mike Park
Don Picken, A.I.A.
19319 Vanowen
i
Reseda, California 91335
Re: Foothill Plaza
U.S. Postal. Self Service Unit
San Luis Obispo, California
I
Dear Mike:
I
Please find attached a set of plans and specifications for the
I 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.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
i
A �L�C.lc' /l
CCVC
_ Ca n I. Marraccino_
P rty Manager
I
cc: Kimberly Horovifz •
David H. Paynter
I
i
cl
(i
I
. �
w
I
Arnold. Pacific Properties 13522 Newport Ave Suite 100,Tustin,CA 92680 (714) 730-1225 n ��
Arnold = pacific Properties, Inc.
Tag
I / 7
000
` ` I
Arnold- Pacific Properties I3522 Newport Ave. Suite 100,Tustin,CA 92680 (714) 730-1225
' ' 1 ` 7f �•�. ;..: '•.M^,. ,CNS .•'.'•1'�•�. V 11.�!.��}.. ��,,�,
. _ v r•✓, -.fi F< 7 �+tY:j;.,.''e.'b�`�(is[�'�s> h.3xt:'�''e•�i•d�r
'i t• !t 1r. .,uF 1 •:'•'1d1'S:'{j.'y:,�.g„( ���•11.::•4 ,� 4.rl
,�• r.j.� �{til. �
�J ii is,3:Di /i.�ir.. E�,-�'4us.�c.i,{' .1v1 ..•�^ f�is'-� l
y;- ::V'i��k.�� i2�' -Yi 1 r ,.2"�w' '6:• '..4'�-,i Cr� M1` t.��,.
�. - , Il!.( e+ +C1:" •�' q'39]•i ifI C.11.•�fi�� .:'"'!f•. ;f� :f,'.^s.. .`�+..
`. � l� i.��i 1�1 it 1i•,l 1.a-4..'1:..;. .� r.• ,y�',y�•
P X19 !.} � >t��, 1ti� � } �` •.,k `�:*,�. , ` � Y I „"• .
I ,•�!!S;=/; ;3l�sT is C��,2•,t • .,j r'L� •,�Ri LI+ 7 .j e`, 1''i
•1 ; F j .
}�. ��!'wi��ttl�7'��.!`!i^s`'� 4ri'M'� �•t t }-a ' ' S a�A a Mt it ra,.
k-t : 6 \ U �r: �r,yY>a(1'L•,1
j :��Fi1�iI1�dF''�i��=3ef���'�� c. ,. �4'� rata°r(��rr•►'�N '��:
� liraa j�j i �-3 .i!°�l t- >»T i7 y . - T tliw jt�p yilbNv�•,
7��it = �7� '• ''a >y� •� �n �{='1�1 � i w`8�•aIV "(.C. �1!1 '�L
{ 1 :' . 1:.' ;,`3��5.; ,��.,•t . \. �i d-);y� " 1
N.
At
1 {L > a
J 1 .E �l � i•• r���!7 , • i r}�t;`,ti�ly'1. I:r�� ,rr, � �'�''�t,i> :1Ni(
All
" i����Fj�f'�� ��'F . � 'HtiA', yr�" u ::'-. •sem s if4,�.y, , �,u•
II` �'}' 4� •� }{}}- !'�_ oe •�'�,# j}t}. 11 � .•�"'w ', �j r1^'�,%� {Y"'��'�.'� .
F .7 F7 'i i C• '• i. "`.,'• fyY�
I, rj _iillai,ll��• � �i'2 � � an�iilAi�� �"D"1,
� . iis 611 •4, � ..1 h, I a �tRa, r t •'.'•9.1, w',(�'.�\
ti11F� �•i�j� Z @ ,._"' +4 = y( �F 55
'� ll� ••t *` ' �' •, ..1.1t^. ',iS�3^.a 5 .. +\ f'M' t. 'Al
yI.I ����Y1 ;�•�, i�.;. 'I ••�+,'.'�*�.. - .r 3- yt f�. j.•r�"y . '�}Jt�MtA,
GF >�--fff
• �
E '� 3 t ._ Ltii� •��1�♦M�C� ` j'Y �.�"� 1 .'�3tY ( ,tt l..l„� ( I'Vf T
Ib
;1 N$Yrir•i�t![ 1• �..n .Ft }' JF . l J>`,r 7y�r• * 1�Y^_=•��.fi .
a'.� .. -:Yoi.>� rD
IF •� 1' A J '. 7f77ii i r� ..••C� '(Cj,
� ; 7��, •"7. �s ,. _` •i 1 'i7' ,.14'4;:�i'i'6j�. 1 b '� •��g.f -^r-'; '
.t • i.4+ •^. t,�tlG_ S �i �V' r}1 ( A i,-ip; 5; :,/ } I
'c31�j ; c � �*'c kvb e•.
� c• � .�P1 Y,�R l�Qw � " w,.
I I m1111
• I a Y
,� H►S: .3 , .A t
on P6 ;
. G.
Chu
p� In
-, AAAA
I
r -
-- — iyiiiisi
�• /i i'MM
u.n.o
' uu�
lllj��Iilljj 11
- --
_ O
O
1
n
��J�ieele���e
Cl OALsAn 1� 1
1
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.
Sincerely,
, Associate Planncr
(8 -7176
cc: -Jim Rivas, Postmaster; San Luis Obispo, CA93401-9998
-John Rosetti; 1303 Garden Street, Suite 2B, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ARC Minutes
May 15, 1989
Page 3
Commrs. Morris, Jones, andoper 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
v 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 cominission'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.
-32
i
ARC Minutes
May 15, 1989
Page 4
r
VOTING: AYES: Bradford, Gates, Chatham, Cooper
NOES: Jones, Morris, Starr
ABSENT: None
The motion passe
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, ni 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 e 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 sand felt an on-site model may be app:•3priate.
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.
� -3 r
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 5,
and London Plane street tree .
Commr. Crotser seconded the motion. _
AYE ns, 'Crs enders 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.
,Terry 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
C� 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.
J -y°
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 Streelrew office building; Ozone.
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 doom to avoid. a ossible conflict of interest.
Jeff Hook presented the staff report" 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-
stalling 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.
IMEETINIP AGENDA. 636 i ue sta Drive
DATE JTW #'`'' San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
19 September, 1989
San Luis Obispo City Council
SUBJ: Postal kiosk, Foothill Shopping
.� Center
I strongly urge ,our DISAPPROVAL of tae appeal to the Architect-
ural Review Commission decision.
However, to demonstrate and encourage cooperation, I suggest a
provision:
IF THE KICSK IS REL•CCATED TO ITS FORMER BROAD STREET LOCATIONS
A SIGN ANIiOUNCING "ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AT MAIL BOXES,
ETC USA" RE PROI'•IINENTLY LOCATED NEAR OR CY THE KIOSK.
The presence of the kiosk can EKHAINICE the private enterprise.
THERE IS NEED ��'OR BOTH FACITILITES IN TINS DENSELY PCPLTLATED AREA.
There is a lot of night-tire and early morning activity in this
area with going to school and work, when MAIL BOXES, ETC USA cannot
economically stay open. Their hours are 8: 30-6PM daily and 9-2PM
on Saturday. The fully automated kiosk provides stamp, mail and
package weighing and cost data at all tires, especially advantageous
when [TAIL. BCXES :t SA is closed. Poth facilities contribute to the
reduction of driving trios t0 to'wn.
"OTE: T?-ere are 11 park _n�: maces where tL_e kiosk was for�erly
located on the opdosite side of the shopping center adjacent to
Broad Street. These are seldom over half-occupied and always
others nearby vacant on the lot. In addition there are 3-4 spaces
usually open across on Broad Street. There is good safe turn-in
and turn-out for tra-ffic here. Why it was ever moved is a good
question.
Also, the postal drop box on Foothill Boulevard is not in
the :;est position for patrons to stop and deposit Nail, as it
blocks the bicycle lane and is so close to fast traffic.
I hope to be able to read this at tonight' s City Council Meeting.
Since ely,
Denotes action by Lead Person' Ha r6l Schuchardt
'nesoo7%d by!
Yl;ouncil
.%_.SAO
Atty. RECEIVE ®
11;��
Clerk- n9.
Z�_ / SEP 1 9 1989
W r.
J!;-If.57PA(
CITY CLERK -
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Denotes action by Lead Person
Res by:�' y
� � I �fiiNG GIVDA
SATE L ITEM
Fell
RECE01/Ep ..
SEP -r -9
_. CITV CLERK _ . . _....._.... _.. ,.
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
. _VQYt�SSGL 1 CiJeS (fir. 5 LO
jYl el rn�9 S - Szaflcx Asa__eUr:5,s A
05`0 .144
0. Femu K 9,
j8Va-. -- (k�,,J
FARMER & READY WONG /J p AGENDA
A LAW CORPORATION DATE 'I7'O 'TI # ..•��
1254 MARSH STREET
P.O. BOX 1443
DAVID Y. FARMER SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406
SANDRA KPAULF. . AUGHINBAUGH Telephone(805)541-1626 RECEIVED
FAX Number(805)541-0769
September 81 1989 SEP 1 5
CIN CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Denotes action by lead Person
Honorable Ron Dunin Re wjd by:
City Council Members �ou0ncil
Community Development Department �/ZyAtty.
City of San Luis Obispo, le�.-e�
990 Palm Street SSS/
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 9340:1
Gentlepeople:
Pursuant to the request of Council, the following best.
represents the chronology of the pending appeal before the
Council regarding the efforts of Channel Lumber to obtain a
demolition permit for the removal of the wooden structure
formerly housing the U.S. Postal Services on Foothill Blvd.
1 . April of 1989 : U . S . Postal Service removes all.
equipment from Postal Kiosk in Foothill Shopping Center, and
commences demolition of the Kiosk. Building Department issues
stop work order and work ceases.
2. In May of 1989, this .law firm applied, on behalf of the
Channel Lumber Company, for a demolition permit to allow for the
removal of the kiosk. Applicant referred to the provisions of
Local Ordinance 15. 36.150 (C) .
3 . May 15 , 1989 : Based upon staff recommendation ARC
issues approval of conditional demolition permit. Condition
requires relocation of " . . . equivalent public postal service
facility elsewhere on the site, to staff of commission approval. "
(NOTE: Staff report makes no mention of the above
quoted local ordinance to the ARC. )
4. May 22 ,_ 1989: Appeal of ARC decision filed by this firm
on behalf of the Channel Lumber Company. Hearing set by City
Clerk for June 20, 1989.
5. June 20. 1989: City Council first, considers appeal.
Following presentation of appellant's position, staff requests
continuance to hearing of July 5th, 1989 "to allow additional
study of alternatives" . To further quote the staff memo to
council members. . . . .
City Council Members
Community Development Department
Page Two
September 8, 1989
"The U.S. Postal Service has distributed requests for
proposals to merchants in the Foothill Plaza, hoping to provide a
manned postal center within one of the businesses in the shopping
center. It's a return to an old-fashioned but effective approach
to providing neighborhood mail services, and staff believes this
could provide an excellent alternative to the kiosk. " emphasis
supplied
6. July 5. 1989.: At City Council meeting staff asks that
the appeal be taken off calender. This scrivner requests that the
matter be continued to August 15 as was indicated by staff prior
to hearing. Council approves continuance to August 15, 1989.
7. August 15, 1989: Prior to hearing, this scrivner
receives call from city attorney advising that matter has been
unilaterally, and without notice, continued until September 5,
1989. Reasons stated by counsel: "New Buyer" of premises wants
the kiosk. I informed counsel, following discussion with client,
that this is not the case, and that Channel Lumber wanted its
hearing.
8. August 31, 1989: This scrivner informed by counsel for
city that September 5, 1989 hearing will be once again cancelled
without any future date set, once again "New Buyer" described.
9. September 5. 1989: On behalf of Channel Lumber, request
made to City Council to hear this appeal . Council sets
hearing for September 19, 1989, and directs City Staff to provide
chronological report regarding all direct contact with Channel
Lumber since appeal commenced, as well as explanation of
staff's position against private postal provider now on premises
(Mailbox USA) . Channel Lumber directed to prepare this
memorandum.
spect lly Submitted,
PAUL F. READY
0"r-ETIN AGENDA
�EGIIY,9p �S� ForrrHILHTLITEM # c;Z
SEP 19 1989 Sc'yA��O� tau is a-s s P-n C 3 `E cj 3 CA'--1�r--
C''
FM 1 Isa 'G am' t 1 1 i c5 #Denotes adios by lead Person
E IQ 4+C)NO(EAF- 1,E M q.,yojto,, -1:<o N� J A--ND R nd by:.
MEMe5r'Yes OF "TSI-E (Z T� C�U1� C 1 o
Atty.
LZ
t ,, 0'CW*,QqgOw
� A t�G H-�.t ►.l Cr "' )�5�'t— S�'�2aliG� �i p S �'�l L�
FOo'TF�tLL `�LgzA-
A-rPerp� A-P-CA4 I-EC-rUW P-L. red 1 C--W CoM t-tf SSlo)J
e-P A- rrt1 � rl"}1'E c i ry coti Ai -se ,
AM -r N'E7'ZS-FCt2 c w r'z z-T-r N G- -\/o L) -r--(t s L-E77Z-r�
1<N o LJ -rH-AT- -� N-� cs� s, -70 S-rAA-
511 C% K I O SSG t rS Fool{+ L L ISL z/� j S
T�'L-A zR AS rr 'tom P-0 V-t,
z 14- sC�n Ti c t n sty r Nt,�+-ry
t.� rel 44-A-V e -r' STA--?,J' i tJ 1.401U G L 1 N
"1�!-f >✓ `SCOW 1�1 rtv uJ TJ U(2-� I�'t14�DO�Al+ PL POST
C) I c C r -t'!�L- A� UT(�" w,-�� l o s l< Fnn v I
Sz,.�► a vtzs A -e 4-Y %s YS �4 Yc7ffyZ- I
YL) C) ��- L►�
-'r�'G ja-(ZGN'lBTU 12�'l� ke-VIE'w C-&Mfi"1t sstot j -DE-7QASLa>-
*Denotes action by Lead Person FARMER & READY
�ew
b,: A LAW CORPORATION MEMNG AGENDA
( I 1254 MARSH STREET p C/
AVID Y. FARM AO P.O. BOX 1443 CATE 1� ITEM #
U Ally* SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406
PAUL F. READYTelephone(805)541-1626
SANDRA K. AUG FAX Number(805)541-0769
lY t l
(=1 I e.'
September 8, 1989
RECEIVE®
SEP 1 81989
Honorable Ron Dunin
City Council Members CITY CLERK
Community Development Department SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
City of San Luis Obispo,
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Gentlepeople:
Pursuant to the request of Council, the following best
represents the chronology of the pending appeal before the
Council regarding the efforts of Channel Lumber to obtain a
demolition permit for the removal of the wooden structure
formerly housing the U.S. Postal Services on Foothill Blvd.
1 . April of 1989 : U . S . Postal Service removes all
equipment from Postal Kiosk in Foothill Shopping Center, and
commences demolition of the Kiosk. Building Department issues.
stop, work order and work ceases.
2 . In .May of 1989, this law firm applied, on behalf of the
Channel Lumber Company, for a demolition permit to allow for the
removal of the kiosk. Applicant referred to the provisions of
Local Ordinance 15.36. 150 (0) .
3 . May 15 , 1989 : Based upon staff recommendation ARC
issues approval of conditional demolition permit . Condition
requires relocation of " . . . equivalent public postal service
facility elsewhere on the site, to staff of commission approval. "
(NOTE: Staff report makes no mention of the above
quoted local ordinance to the ARC. )
4 . May 22 , 1989: Appeal of ARC decision filed by this firm
on behalf of the Channel Lumber Company. Hearing set by City
Clerk for June 20, 1989.
5. . June 20, -1989: City Council first considers appeal.
Following presentation of appellant's position, staff requests
continuance to hearing of July 5th, 1989 "to allow additional
study of alternatives" . To further quote the staff memo to
council members. . . . .
1
City Council Members
Community Development Department
Page Two
September 8 , 1989
"The U.S. Postal Service has distributed requests for
proposals to merchants in the Foothill Plaza, hoping to provide a
manned postal center within one of the businesses in the shopping
center. It's a return to an old-fashioned but effective approach
to providing neighborhood mail services, and staff believes this
could provide an excellent alternative to the kiosk. " emphasis
supplied
6. July 5, 1989 : At City Council meeting staff asks that
the appeal be taken off calender.. This .scrivner requests that the
matter be continued to August 15 as was indicated by staff prior
to hearing. Council approves continuance to August 15, 1989 .
7. August 15, 1989 : Prior to hearing, this scrivner
receives call from city attorney advising that matter has been
unilaterally, and without notice, continued until September 5,
1989 . Reasons stated by counsel: "New Buyer" of premises wants
the kiosk. I informed counsel, following discussion with client,
that this is not the case, and that Channel Lumber wanted its
hearing.
8. August 31 , 1989: This scrivner informed by counsel for
city that September 5, 1989 hearing will be once again cancelled
without any future date set, once again "New Buyer" described.
9 . September 5 , 1989 : On behalf of Channel Lumber, request
made to City Council to hear this appeal . Council sets
hearing for September 19, 1989, 'and directs City Staff to provide
chronological report regarding all direct contact with Channel
Lumber since appeal commenced , as well as explanation of
staff's position against private postal provider now on premises
(Mailbox USA) . Channel Lumber directed to prepare this
memorandum.
Respect ully Submitted,
PAUL F. READY