Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/1997, 3 - ARC 133-97: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING AN EIGHT-INCH HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR AN EXISTING SIGN, AT A MOTEL ON OLIVE STREET, ADJACENT TO THE FREEWAY. If j acenba nepont C ITY O F SAN L U I S O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director Prepared By: Judith Lautner,Associate Planner SUBJECT: . ARC 133-97: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's action approving an eight-inch height exception for an existing sign,at a motel on Olive Street,adjacent to the freeway. CAO RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal,thereby upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action approving the height exception. DISCUSSION Backeround The applicant asked for approval of exceptions to the size, height, and brightness limits for an existing sign for a motel.The Architectural Review Commission(ARC)granted a height exception, allowing the sign to be eight inches taller than normally allowed, but did not approve size or brightness exceptions.A nearby motel manager has appealed the height exception.Appeals of ARC actions are heard by the City Council. Data Summary Address: 1001 Olive Street Applicant: Coachman Inn Representative: Jim Cravens Appellant: Rajni Desai Property owner. Rue Liang et ux Zoning: Tourist Commercial (C-T) General Plan: Tourist Environmental status: Categorically exempt: Class 11, section 15311: construction or replacement of accessory structures,including on-premise signs. Project action deadline: None; action has been taken. Appeals must be heard no later than 45 days after filing(December 8, 1997). Action on an appeal may be continued; no state or City law specifies when action on an appeal must be taken. Site description The site is a trapezoidal-shaped flat lot developed with a motel built in the shape of a T. The site is adjacent to the Olive Street freeway exit and entrance, one block from Santa Rosa Street. The motel is next to Round Table Pizza and across the street from the Olive Tree Inn, the Heritage Inn,and a Travelodge. Jam/ Council Agenda Report- 1001 Olive Street ARC 133-97 Page 2 Project description The project is the appeal of an approval of a height exception for an existing pole sign. The sign is two-faced, 17.5' tall, and 95 square feet in area The upper portion (name) is interior- illuminated and has a plastic face set in an aluminum cabinet. The lower portion of the sign, which indicates the price of rooms, is not illuminated. The sign is perpendicular to Olive Street, immediately opposite the Olive Tree Inn. The ARC's action was to approve a height exception of eight inches (ten inches shorter than the current height)but not to approve a size or illumination exception. Therefore, the sign is required to be modified to meet these requirements. Evaluation 1. The sign history of the site is extensive. The attached ARC report outlines the major points in the history of this particular sign. The current sign is a replacement of a sign that was damaged. That sign consisted of three parts: the upper identification sign, which conformed to the previous sign regulations, and the two lower signs, which did not. The July 1997 regulations reduced the height limit in this zone from 24' to 16' for pole signs and included illumination standards. Therefore, the replacement sign, which included a replacement of the two lower signs with one long sign, does not comply with current regulations (see attached ARC report for more specific information on conformity) because it is too large (including the price sign), too tall (17'-6" where 16' is now allowed), and too bright(presumed to be over the 10 candlepower now allowed). 2. Findings are needed to grant exceptions. The Sign Regulations say that exceptions to the regulations may be granted if"the following or similar findings"can be made: A. There are exceptional or unusual circumstances applying to the property involved which do not apply generally to properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, such as: 1. Presence of a legally nonconforming use; 2. Visual obstruction; or 3. Unusual building location on-site. B. The sign for which an exception is requested is a nonconforming sign that acts as a neighborhood landmark or focal point while not disrupting views of prominent community landscape features. When granting an exception, the architectural review commission (ARC) or the director shall require that as many nonconforming elements of the sign as possible be eliminated while allowing its basic form and character to remain. C. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege or entitlement inconsistent with limitations applied to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. D. Granting the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Council Agenda Report- 100 1 Olive Street ARC 133-97 Page 3 E. The sign for which the exception is requested is consistent with the purpose and intent of the sign regulations. 3. The Commission granted one exception. Because the lettering of the current sign is bordered by two unlighted bands, top and bottom, each one-foot wide, and because the applicant replaced an existing sign "with no ill intent", the Commission felt the intent of the regulations would be met if the sign were lowered the width of that top panel. In other words, if the top panel were removed and the sign face made to conform to illumination and size standards, the sign would be acceptable. 4. The appellant says the sign is too tall and too large. The letter of appeal says that"I do not agree with ARC staff allowing sign above City sign height and also sign is too big." The appellant also contends that the previous sign was not damaged and that the applicant replaced the sign with a larger sign, in violation of City standards. The primary sign on this pole was determined to be in conformance with the previous sign regulations. Normally, changes to the sign face only of a conforming sign do not require a permit Apparently, the applicant was relying on this provision of the sign regulations, not realizing that the two lower signs were not in conformance and had been required to be removed several years ago, and not realizing that the recently-adopted regulations lowered the allowable height Because of these factors, the ARC felt that it was reasonable to grant a minor height exception. The sign will be required to meet the size standards (72 square feet in area). The applicant may choose to remove the price sign, may reduce the overall area of both portions of the sign, or may revise the design of the sign altogether. It will also be required to meet illumination standards,which may require a change to the sign face. 5. The copy is not an issue. Some public testimony at the ARC meeting focused on the inclusion of the motel room price on the sign. Copy on signs is a free speech issue. The City cannot regulate the copy, only the appearance. CONCURRENCES No other departments have concerns with signs of this nature. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of denial of the appeal will have no effect on the City's finances. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may approve the appeal, thereby denying the height exception approved by the Architectural Review Commission. The applicant would then be required to modify the height of the sign so that it is eight inches lower than approved by the ARC,or 18"lower than it is currently. 33 Council Agenda Report- 1001 Olive Street ARC 133-97 Page 4 The Council may continue consideration, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant and appellant. The Council may deny the appeal and grant greater exceptions than were approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Findings would need to be made that exceptional circumstances exist,justifying additional exceptions. Attachments 1. draft resolutions 2. vicinity map 3. original sign proposal 4. minutes of ARC October 20 meeting 5. letter of appeal 6. Architectural Review Commission report for Oct.20,with attachments 3'y RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING AN EIGHT-INCH HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR A SIGN AT 1001 OLIVE STREET. (ARC 133-97) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on October 20, 1997 and approved ARC 133-97 with conditions; and WHEREAS,Rajni Desai filed an appeal of that action; and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 18, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearing and action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15311,Class 11,of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act,because it is the construction or replacement of an accessory structure,specifically a sign; BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council,after consideration of the Architectural Review application ARC 133-97 and the Architectural Review Commission's action, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding: 1. A minor exception to the height limit, allowing a 16'-8" sign where a 16' sign is normally allowed,is justified because the sign,as conditioned,will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the sign regulations. SECTION 2. Appeal denial. The request for approval of an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action approving the sign exception with conditions is hereby denied, and therefore the Architectural Review Commission's action is upheld. SECTION 3. Conditions.The approval is subject to the following condition: 1. The sign must meet city requirements for size and illumination. Resolution no 1997 Series) ARC 133-97 1001 Olive Street Page 2 On motion of secondedby and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this 18" day of November 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: L- vg'x,z�, - rney a orge en 3-� RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURALREVIEW COMNHSSION'SACTION, THEREBY DENYING AN EIGHT-INCH HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR A SIGN AT 1001 OLIVE STREET. (ARC 133-97) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on October 20, 1997, and approved an eight-inch exception to the height limit for signs (ARC 133- 97),with a condition; and WHEREAS,Rajni Desai filed an appeal of that action; and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 18, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission Hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15311,Class 11,of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act,because it is the construction or replacement of an accessory structure,specifically a sign; BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findines. That this Council,after consideration of the Architectural Review Commission's action, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof,makes the following findings: (COUNCIL STATE FINDINGS.) SECTION 2. Project denial. The appeal is approved and the eight-inch height exception is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: �r, Resolution no 1997 Series) ARC 133=97 1001 Olive Street. Page 2 the foregoing resolution was adopted'this of— - 1997.. Mayor Allen.Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf = - — — — APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attomey Jeffrey Jorgensen :fir" 1 `.,' �� �,' • ' 1 _ 1 1 - , 1 I J.. • attt Jaatalw xaataraa\ daaatwaaat, /I atattlttaaa a. Jl�aaa■ctaaatta► ■�Iaaataptaaata6 NEEattttt\ttttttt, ec.u"aauavaaaau. • n�� .�uytaouvtauu • ttrs.�aaouuua%aoataua. nuc::,..'■uuau��aw��tanewu. • \aaaa�aaaaaaala tflfa!-�GWU�Ot► �aaaalaataa:aa/16Yt q.111�Ilaar/ ■ttatatatitttl7t■a■t!•t/t Baa■ ■laaataa\ataaaaatla.\tlalata \tttttttt\aata■►1aaalatttaaa \aaaaaaaa\aaanaataaaaaaaat0 aaaaaataa\t9aataataaaataaat ataaatat\'Iataaataaaaaaaaaa■ \a taaaattaaataaaaaataaataa� \taattatttattttttaaaaattr vutataatuauuuur / as aaaaaaaaaataaaaaar 1 taatattaaaaaaa MEW aaataattaata . attaaaaaaaaal' • ■atataaaaata• utaattaatc- '., ■atttaaa' Vaaaat' vus- \aaI nw AS iiiiiiiiiiini ' � I 1 R-:4 . ILLJ ee� � [ �§ Cy k§ 2 z 2� §§ !k /kU. 5: §]_� )/ �«_dc �LUkC { IMU @ 0 §§ 9§aa oLUzIU km§j }d ■ 20 w .. ]©� $c- � § )§§ j 2 § mt2 � §_ 7 &JE e Id I § ( § K 2 § ¥ a ! w ; ■ !_ ¥ ! LU 1-.. lu j/ O ![ ■- • /� . / �0 0 8§�k -�� �� U LU— �`` § . : © 7o >-=« `!2 ;-- . < . t © « . . 3 : , ��- : an� •a a MWO«z- a « . lu .oc_ �_a ^ 2§� -•k2§ ■o«§moo � §F< ■ CW ul§ G anRr § � §7 0 ■�..�!■| . |■■|,| �§■ mi /\| f ^( � `amu moa AREA /.8 � ni A+k-4chm.e,n7 3 -/� PNU� ILUzc! Zuco LU , oh Z w . P _. < ZZ ....c.:-..::::.:.:....... ...... ..... +� !Mi N Ulu ... W Z= m rz OCZU)Z OF• Iy J W •JjZMas <yJj VZ -ADO oC� az oW J m W W W __........ SE < WG W 101EWAY. p ........ .... . r... ....... zo Z N �O : O z so C3U. z N z� i i � WLLI , z 1 O i 0 0 Lij i2 NLL , LUZ J U � oz p o az oz m W 0 0 � V-� F�J F j :' ..._'' V US W TSL LL. W .O LL G o: O � �::�' oLL z J Q , 'o ocZ �3� W <, zoo; W J Z' < Y v LL N W l Z N K! —WI L<:;.,._............ �._.. :::::. FG�.w..: _000 O O O Z ... .. .. ...... .... O , OLIVE 5T 1 MD < Inn ''nn Cz m'e�idi�m �O V gms mu _Z zzeva,SK V yi e Z o38o��W�u 2 E< Jeq 3€ 0 V R O • ayALL�I<V�� ARC Minutes October 20, 1997 Page 4 staff. He said he liked the lighting up of the palm trees and thought the courtyard lighting was tastefully done. Commr. Aiken agreed with Commr. Joines-Novotny on the parking and Commr. Regier on the lighting. He felt parking stall number one was okay. He would like to see the pink color toned down and return to staff like signage and trash enclosures. Commr. Illingworth moved to approve the design of the residential care facility with the following conditions: 1. Redesign the building interior for 40 studios if a density bonus is not pursued. The Commission was supportive however of 44 units within the building envelope. 2. Provide a total of twelve parking spaces, not including parking space#I noted on project plans. 3. Provide the required 5%landscaping within the project parking lot. 4. Secure an open space easement on the neighboring property for use by the project residents as indicated on plans submitted to the Commission on 10/20/97. 5. Submit a design detail of the proposed breezeway for staff review and approval. 6. Submit a lighting plan for staff review and approval. The lighting plan should be residential in character and meet City requirements. 7. Submit a revised color board for review and approval by City staff. The revised colors should be softer than those shown on the project elevation and more like those shown on the trash enclosure detail. Commr. Regier seconded the motion. AYES: Illingworth, Regier,Aiken, Day,Joines-Novotny NOES: None ABSENT: ' Combrink The motion passed. ------------- 3• ARC 133-97. 1001 Olive Street: Review of the replacement of an existing non- conforming sign in exception to the current height and area limits; C-T zone; Coachman Inn, applicant. Peggy Mandeville,Associate PIanner,presented the staff report recommending denying the agChme,1+ 3,,y ARC Minutes October 20, 1997 Page 5 exceptions, based on finding no special circumstances that would justify exceptions. Jim Cravens, applicant, stated he was using the same sign cabinet and figured everything was permitted. He could remove the banding from the top and bottom of the sign which would reduce the sign height to 16' 8".. Raj Desi, Travel.Lodge, expressed his concern for the height and the addition of signs. He said he wants his sign bigger too. He thought it was illegal to have price signage. Jennifer Lang, manager of Coachman, said the signs were there before. Grace Lang, 1001 Olive, felt this was a personal attack. She has received calls of harassment and a person called using Rob Bryn's name. Brock Patel, Campus Motel, stated the height was okay, but he didn't-want a price sign. Casey said the illegal addition should be removed. Aimsted Doshi, expressed concern about the sign. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Joines-Novotny favored adhering to the new sign ordinance and she supported staff recommendations. Commr. Regier agreed with Commr. Joines-Novotny. He supported the request for 16' 8"height for the sign. Commr. Illingworth said they must follow the sign ordinance. He agreed to an exception to allow taking off the top of the sign and felt the height could be 16' 8". Commr. Day also supported a height of 16' 8". She felt they should remove the second sign with the changeable copy. She noted if they wanted white, they must submit a light study to show conformance with the sign regulations. Commr. Aiken agreed with most of the previous comments. He was fine with 16' 8" height as long as they stay within the allowable sign area. Commr. Joines-Novotny moved to approve an exception to the sign regulations to allow a 16' 8" tall sign where a 16' 0" sign is normally allowed provided the sign meet city requirements with regard to size and brightness. 3�3 ARC Minutes October 20, 1997 Page 6 Commr. Illingworth seconded the motion. AYES: Joines-Novotny, Illingworth, Aiken, Day,Regier NOES: None ABSENT: Combrink The motion passed. COMMENT& DISCUSSION: Chairperson Aiken noted that his comments are sometimes not shown in the meeting minutes. Linda Day noted_that she will not be at the December 22 ARC meeting. Chairperson Aiken reminded the Commission of the meeting attendance rule and the importance of attending the meetings. Chairperson Aiken announced the appointment of Alice Loh to the Architectural Review Commission. The Tree Committee appointment was postponed to the next meeting. Staff noted upcoming agenda items including the return of Hudson's take out restauran Albertson's project on Broad Street. t and the The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission scheduled for Monday, November 3, 1997 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted, Peggy Mandeville Recording Secretary IIII III Cityo sanl�uis OBISPOi APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by.Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of. Architectural Review Commissiorrendered on 10-20-97 which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) . See attached letter The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: on Name/Department (Date) Appellant R.M. .Desi 950 Olive, 93401 Namefl-itle Mailing. Address (& Zip Code) 544-8886 Home Phone Work Phone . Representative: Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for �y-fig—s7 Date &Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s): ' RECEIVED A. Jonas OCT 2 4- 1997 R. `4dhi$enand SLO CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office 7 0 N=007- \zx RECEIVED OCT 2 4 1997 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpO C, fS 0 COMMUN17-Y DEVELOPMENT ei, V Vc-Z- V�rz 17L \L c- kW\7 lz�� liN S Q- r- RECE;VEq SAN LUIS OBISPO SOUTH S 950 Olive Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 544-8886 OCT 2 M\�% (7: 4 199i Ob. TmSthome Forte Hotels.Inc. SL o CITY CLERK CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM n 3 BY: J ith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: October 20, 1997 FROM. o Whisenand, Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: ARC 133-97 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1001 Olive Street SUBJECT: Exceptions to sign regulations to allow a larger, taller, and brighter sign than normally allowed. RECOMMENDATION Deny the exceptions,based on finding no special circumstances that would justify exceptions. BACKGROUND Situation. The applicant wants approval of a pole sign that is larger and taller and probably brighter than allowed by the regulations. Exceptions to size and height are reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission(ARC). Data Summary Address: 1001 Olive Street Applicant: Coachman Inn Representative: Jim Cravens Property owner: Rue Liang et ux Zoning: Tourist Commercial (C-T) General.Plan: Tourist Environmental status: Categorically exempt: Class 11, section 15311: construction or replacement of accessory structures, including on-premise signs. Project action deadline: December 11, 1997 Site description The site is a trapezoidal-shaped flat lot developed with a motel built in the shape of a T. The site is adjacent to the Olive Street freeway exit and entrance, one block from Santa Rosa Street. The motel is next to Round Table Pizza and across the street from the Olive Tree Inn, the Heritage Inn, and a Travelodge. ARC 133-97 1001 Olive Street Page 2 Project description The project is the approval of an existing pole sign that does not conform with current regulations. The sign is two-faced, 17.5' tall, and 95 square feet in area. The upper portion (name) is interior-illuminated and has a plastic face set in an aluminum cabinet. The lower portion of the sign, which indicates the price of rooms, is not illuminated. The sign is perpendicular to Olive Street, immediately opposite the Olive Tree Inn. EVALUATION 1. A convoluted history. A pole sign similar to the current sign was issued a permit in August 1971. The sign was 50 square feet in area and about 16' tall. (See copy of photo, attached.) It conformed to the regulations in place at that time. In 1977, the City adopted a new sign ordinance, and the property owner was informed that most of the signs on this site did not conform to the new regulations. This specific sign was non-conforming because there were too many signs of the same type (freestanding) on the site. The sign was given an amortization period of two years. After that period, it was required to be taken down. However, in 1980 the new regulations were amended, and at that time this sign was determined to conform with the new regulations, which allowed such signs to be up to 25' tall and up to 72 square feet in area. Two smaller signs were hung from this sign, one with the Automobile Club logo (AAA) on it, the other stating amenities in the motel (cable TV, coffee, etc). These signs did not conform with the 1977 regulations and did not have permits. They were required to be removed immediately, with no amortization period, because they had been installed illegally. The total area of all three signs then exceeded 100 square feet,which was not in conformance with the regulations. The smaller signs were not removed as required. The City adopted a new set of regulations in July 1997. The new regulations allow pole signs in this zone to be up to 16' in height and up to 72 square feet in area. The older sign was apparently modified sometime since 1980 by the addition of wooden raceway covers on the top and bottom of the sign, increasing the height of the sign from five feet to seven, for an area of 70 square feet, and replacing the two illegal hanging signs below the modified sign. Recently, this older sign was damaged when a truck ran into it. The property owner then replaced the sign with the current one, replacing the two appended signs with one that advertises the price of the rooms. No permit was obtained for this replacement, because the property owner was under the impression that he was replacing the face only of a legal sign, and face changes can be made without permits. 3-Ar ARC 133-97 1001 Olive Street Page 3 2. The sign no longer conforms. This new sign is larger in total area than allowed, if the price sign is included in the area, and taller by one and a half feet than now allowed. If the smaller price sign on the same pole is considered a separate sign, however, then the area of the upper sign is 70 square feet, which is within the current regulations. Lighting levels may also exceed the 100 luxes (10 candlepower)now permitted in this zone, at a distance of ten feet from the sign. Therefore, exceptions are required. 3. The sign is larger and brighter than permitted signs in the area. The new sign is larger and brighter than the signs for the Travelodge, the Heritage Inn, and the Homestead Inn. It is also taller than most of them. (The signs for the Olive Tree Inn across the street are also nonconforming and are subject to abatement.) 4. There are options. The sign does not conform to current regulations because it is taller, because it is larger, and probably because it is brighter than now allowed (light levels have not been measured). The sign could be modified by: • reduction in pole height by 1.5 feet; • removal of price sign; • replacement of plastic face with a face that has a dark background (to lower light levels). If the applicants question the determination that the illumination exceeds allowed levels, then they should submit documentation of the actual light levels ten feet from the sign, measured at night. If the Commission is inclined to consider granting one or more of the requested exceptions, it should do so only after thorough consideration of the lack of extenuating circumstances supporting such action. Any exceptions granted should be fully supported and justified by appropriate findings to minimize the establishment of adverse precedent for the future elimination of amortized or illegal non-conforming signs. 5. Other motel owners object to the price sign. The representatives of two nearby motels have written letters in opposition to the price component of the sign. Their objection is based on how such a sign might affect other motels and could create a"price war". Court actions on cases on this issue have all been on the side of"freedom of speech". The City cannot regulate the content of signs. Therefore, the Commission may request the removal of the price component of the sign, but may not do so on the basis of what it says. ARC 133-97 1001 Olive Street Page 4 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Other departments have no concerns with this request. Attached: vicinity map photographs of original sign photographs of current sign plan and elevation of existing and former sign(application materials) letters from neighboring motels(2) coachman ,inn ,. MOTEL -m 'VACANCY yy 1pf��+�.1Cr���1y IL I I ) J •. I aC JY�Jyh�� n r . tl t. �i _ ,.yam _1 f• �_"� �. -- '4Y�A•.=-�-�-, `_rte"' ALM INVESTMENTS, INC, (HOMESTEAD MOTEL. SAN LUIS OBISPO. FWmrly JMD D MS h1BNTLTD.. October 10th, 97 City Of San Luis Obispo, Comminity De-vlopment Dept, San Luis Obispo, Ca.93401. Attn: Judy, SIGN: ARC-13397. ----------------- As other Hotel Owners putting rate sign changing everyday this will effect all Motels business and also this price war effect San Luis Obispo City's revenue. Please consider this and do the needful to save City 's revenue. i Thanking y.ou, MJD investmentnc, (HOMESTEAD MOTEL. ) —-------------- J.V.shah. 1621 D.SUNFLOWER AVE.= SOUTH COAST PLAZA VU L.AGE SANTA AXA. CA 92704 TE LEPHODM'(714)241-0590■FAX(714)241.0616■TELEX: 18307.3 rALYrAss A m AwtJL FROt9 TRAVELODGE SOUTP PHONE NO. : 805 543 1511 P01 T Sl TtT, pt EN' 4UbtnvT�La 't0 QA = 'to 7 c.i-e- of aPco Lu ocsw% po Sv .SEc c P ac j 9 r- to to z.C�, � 7 QEG to 0.o��vG C c�A Ch�c•.A� \�\`i SiGN w t\icH A �S �� o �ti,ca RICE SIGN wkatqz-\,A ,\A Ar` V t-a-t moo S w \6 L t.. N ('�t_-r Fo � e �� c� stGN \r a~c S vQr� I'� v� \t 13 C 4 R c c w tvti w t\\cIO% V" S TIC-,E� L ow \vF �s In t -t `c o rn 't P'E '0.Ev" U t %"V- *`40\1 w\L P RAS CNT 't'1�� 1^E 2'tom rL Zp ARC cc�tc.E�l\�1 G , t � �'`� Oepos �NG t� R�cc• SIAN a. I \rj !s c v R-\ Qc Re N T g �L� aOon- t� ovc ��s` \� jtc56r-t \t ( F' PER(ss -t..kAk CLoRcNm%s\ Gi z�c�ti F 2�z t� P�\c� �5 w �\`e �-zl��.rz Q►`o`�.�- ow���iS $ p��,-� �hnvs �F 'qo ►.u t�� �cL � 'C`S�h1G SAN LUIS �tSPO SOUTH 950 Olive 5beet San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (805)544-8886 \\�( AM a Ii Llhouse Fame Motels.Inc. m�'' G ( R m c N i 3-13