HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2002, BUS 4 - ADOPTION OF COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES. cou n a t Meronc Due acEnc)a 12Epmt 1�N..b.
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directoqh�
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
As recommended by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on August 19, 2002, 1) adopt a
Resolution (Attachment 7) approving Community Design Guidelines for the City; and 2) affirm
the ARC's current role in environmental review.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On August 19, 2002,the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) completed the review of
a comprehensive update of its design guidelines (see Attachment 1— 8-19-02 ARC follow-up
memo). The Commission's review of the guidelines had been extensive involving a series of
meetings where individual chapters were thoroughly discussed. The guidelines are now before the
City Council for formal adoption.
Design review considers building design, site planning, landscaping, parking layout, signs, and
other features that affect project appearance and function. The guidelines contain information on
all these aspects of development for a variety of different project types including commercial,
industrial and residential. Land Use Element (LUE) Goals 28 & 33 call for maintenance of the
City's existing small-town appeal and rural setting, and for new development to contribute to the
City's sense of place and architectural heritage. Adoption of these guidelines is intended to
accomplish these goals by giving applicants and project designers the details on the characteristics
of development that the City is seeking.
One of the roles of the ARC, which is provided for by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), is to act on environmental documents where they are the final decision-making body
reviewing project plans. Part of the consultant's scope of work for the update of the guidelines
was to look at the ARC's role with the review of environmental documents. Specifically the scope
asked that the consultant report on what other communities with similar design review processes
do in terms of environmental review, what the advantages and disadvantages of the ARC
reviewing environmental documents was, and any suggestions on how the environmental review
process might be improved. This agenda report provides a summary of the consultant's findings
on the ARC's role in the environmental review process.
I I
Council Agenda Report—Community Design Guidelines
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Previous Review
In the summer of 2000, the City hired Crawford, Multari & Clark to prepare the update of its
design guidelines. On February 13, 2001, the ARC chairperson prepared a letter requesting that
specific guidelines for large-scale retail development be prepared in advance of the completion of
the full comprehensive update of the guidelines. The ARC reviewed the guidelines for large-scale
retail development, commonly referred to as the "big box" guidelines, on three occasions before
they were forwarded on to the Council. On November 6, 2001, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 9250 (2001 Series), which adopted the guidelines for large-scale retail
development. These adopted big box guidelines are now Section 3.2 of Chapter 3 of the
comprehensive design guidelines.
With the adoption of the big box guidelines, the ARC went back to work on the review of the
comprehensive design guidelines. There was a special kick-off meeting before the ARC on
January 14, 2002, followed by a series of meetings where the individual chapters were discussed in
detail, and culminating in the meeting of August 19'hwhere the guidelines were endorsed (see
Attachment 2 including minutes from 1/14/02, 2/4/02, 2/19/02, 3/4/02, 3/18/02, 4/1/02, &
8/19/02). With their endorsement of the guidelines, the ARC asked that there be allowance to add
graphics periodically to help further illustrate concepts without the need for a formal amendment
process to the guidelines.
Purpose of the Guidelines
While there have been periodic minor revisions to the City's Architectural Review Guidelines in
recent years, the last comprehensive update of the guidelines occurred in 1982. It has long been a
goal of the ARC and staff to update the guidelines so that they are easier to use and better convey
the design concepts and principles that the City seeks in quality development projects.
The update of the comprehensive guidelines was somewhat sidetracked last year by the desire to
have the specific guidelines for large-scale retail development projects adopted first given
concerns with some pending projects in the community. However, despite the fact that the review
of that component slowed the completion of the comprehensive package, the ARC worked very
diligently over a series of meetings to review and discuss the revised guidelines.
Guidelines are principles intended to help determine a desired course of action. They should be
flexible and allow for innovative design solutions that are consistent with City goals. While
guidelines may be specific in terms of a preferred approach for dealing with a particular design
issue, they should not prevent alternatives that achieve the same desired goals. The principal
purpose of a guideline should be to convey a sense of the desired quality of a design, rather than to
prescribe precise specifications. While the national trend with guidelines is to make them less
vague and more detailed, they should also not become architectural specifications that encourage
monotony in design.
Council Agenda Report—Community Design Guidelines
Page 3
The City's design guidelines are intended to provide both general and specific criteria that an
applicant should address in plans that are considered by the ARC or staff. Because they are
"guidelines" and not regulations, most of the principles and concepts outlined are not mandatory
requirements. However, the guidelines include some excerpts from other adopted City ordinances,
such as the Parking & Driveway Standards, that are requirements and are repeated in the
guidelines because of their relationship to the design concept.
From staff s review of the adopted guidelines in other communities and other texts on preparing
design guidelines, typically the verb "should" is used to define a desired concept in guidelines.
"Shall" is typically, though not exclusively, used where a requirement is mandatory and codified
by ordinance. The intention of a guideline that uses "should" is that it be followed in most cases,
unless there are valid extenuating circumstances that the decision makers can cite as to why a
different approach was followed. Like the prevailing standard with guideline language, the
consultant's recommendation has been to rely primarily on "should" statements. However, with
the ARC's review of the guidelines, some statements were modified to use the verb "shall" where
it was felt that the guideline represented a concept that would always be required.
The ARC's Role In Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the hearing body making the final
decision on a project consider the environmental document prepared, along with any public
comments received, prior to approving a project. The hearing body could be the City Council,
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, or Administrative Hearing Officer,
depending on the specific entitlements requested. Commonly, if the required City process for a
project requires both the approval of the Planning Commission and the ARC, then the Planning
Commission formally would act on the environmental document, even if the project needed to
return to the ARC for final consideration as a last step in the City review process. At the time of
the ARC's review of final plans, the Commission would make appropriate findings acknowledging
the environmental document and also adopting its mitigation measures. Similarly, if a project also
required the Council's review, then the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to
the Council on the environmental determination. The environmental document for projects not
requiring review by either the Planning Commission or City Council would be reviewed by the
ARC, and less frequently, the Hearing Officer.
Back in the 1970s the City had a.specific committee, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
that reviewed environmental documents for projects. However, for the last couple of decades, the
established process has been the current one described above. The ERC did not have final
decision-making authority on projects they reviewed the environmental documents for. As the
City's review processes have grown more complex, there has been a specific effort to streamline
the process where possible while still maintaining a high level of environmental review. This is
the reason decision-making authority to act on environmental documents rests with the decision-
making body for the project.
The established environmental review process has been working well. Over the past few years,
members of both the ARC and Planning Commission have had various types of CEQA training.
40-3
Council Agenda Report—Community Design Guidelines
Page 4
On both the ARC and Planning Commission, there are several members who are professional
planners with extensive CEQA knowledge and experience. On August 19'', the ARC specifically
discussed their role in the environmental review process. The ARC on a separate motion voted
unanimously to be the sole decision-making body for CEQA documents on projects under its
review.
Because CEQA requires the decision-making body to consider environmental information until the
action is taken on the project, decision-making bodies can be asked to consider information that
would not have been reviewed by a separate environmental review committee.
In addition, over the 30 years CEQA has been in effect, its implementation has been integrated into
the development review process at a fundamental level in determining the decision-making
authority required for development applications.
The use charts in the Zoning Regulations, the Subdivision Ordinance, and other Municipal Code
sections establish the decision-making authority for different types of development projects.
Development proposals for projects that are more likely to create significant environmental
impacts undergo more extensive review. For example, large development projects and
subdivisions must be reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council. Land use changes
require review by both. Whenever CEQA requires an environmental impact report, the Planning
Commission or Council reviews the project. In contrast, projects reviewed at the staff level are
typically those that tend to have insignificant impacts and are exempted from environmental
review in the CEQA statutes. The ARC typically reviews environmental impacts that are site-
specific or involve refinements to broad mitigation measures identified in the environmental
impact report prepared for the General Plan, most of which are institutionalized as policy
performance standards or regulations.
The consultant's survey of other communities showed that our process for handling environmental
review was not unique. Staff will present a summary of the responses surveyed as part of its
verbal presentation before the Council.
Citizen Participation
Copies of the minutes from the various meetings where the guidelines were discussed are attached,
which include the comments from members of the public. Josephine Malone attended several
meetings and spoke about her concerns with the City's ability to control the content of window
displays. On August 19, 2002, the ARC specifically made a motion asking that the City Attorney's
office provide a memo that discussed the legality of the City regulating sexuality in signs and
window displays that may be construed to compromise community values. Attachment 4 includes
the cover letter to Ms. Malone with the Attorney's memo.
Jean Anderson spoke about her concerns with accessibility and bike parking. She presented a
marked up copy of the guidelines to staff at the August 19'J' meeting with her suggestions on how
the text could be augmented to reference bicyclists and pedestrians. Attachment 5 includes a letter
from Ms. Anderson. Planning staff has worked closely with Public Works staff to include the
4-4
Council Agenda Report—Community Design Guidelines
Page 5
recommendations of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, including clarification of bicycle rack
installations.
Cover letters with copies of the guidelines were sent to Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
(RQN), the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Chamber of
Commerce, and the Downtown Association. Attachment 6 includes a copy of a letter from RQN
with some suggestions. The consultant received a copy of this memo and made some changes to
respond to RQN's comments. Comments were not received from the other groups that were
mailed copies of the guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council established as part of its Council Goals in the 1999-01 Financial Plan that the
design guidelines be updated. To meet this goal, a total of$30,000 was allocated in the Community
Development Department's budget to hire a consultant to assist in the preparation of revised design
guidelines. The development of specialized guidelines for big box retailers last year delayed
completion of the comprehensive guidelines. From a City budget perspective, addressing this
individual design issue also consumed more consultant resources than would have been used had
the large-scale retail guidelines been reviewed concurrently with the comprehensive package.
The original budgeted amount for the update of the guidelines has been expended to produce the
draft document currently before the Council, which includes the items included in the original
workscope with one exception. One topic not yet developed, which was part of the original
workscope, was hillside development guidelines. Staff would like to work with the ARC to
review these guidelines after the Council's endorsement of the comprehensive guidelines. The
attached Draft Resolution for approval of the guidelines acknowledges that this component would
be reviewed and approved by the ARC in the near future.
When the ARC was reviewing the document, they viewed it as an ongoing work in progress where
additional chapters and information could be added as particular issues came up. Community
Development Department staff can assist with the periodic smaller assignments that the ARC may
direct as updates to the guidelines. However, more involved additions on complex issues may
require additional consultant assistance to produce in a quicker timeframe.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the project with direction to City and consultant staff if the Council desires
further changes to the document prior to adoption of the guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Follow-up memo regarding 8-19-02 ARC discussion of guidelines
Attachment 2: ARC Minutes from 1-14-02, 2-4-02, 2-19-02, 3-4-02, 3-18-02,4-1-02, & 8-19-02
Attachment 3: Initial Study ER 42-00
Council Agenda Report—Community Design Guidelines
Page 6
Attachment 4: Cover letter to Josephine Malone with the City Attorney's memo on window
displays
Attachment 5: Letter from Jean Anderson dated 3-4-02
Attachment 6: Letter from RQN dated 9-27-02
Attachment 7: Draft Resolution
Provided to Council & Council reading file: Community Design Guidelines
(Also available by request in the Community Development Department to the interested public.)
LAArcguide\Council report(adopt design guidelines)
4^L
Attachment 1
City W Or SM IUIS OB1Snepartment of comm, nity nPimiapment
"J T "1" Planning Division
August 22, 2002
TO: File ARC 42-00: Citywide
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review of the comprehensive update of the City's design guidelines
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of August 19, 2002,
recommended approval of the revised draft of the Citywide design guidelines to the City
Council with direction on certain desired changes. The Commission asked that there
be allowance for additional graphics to be added without the need for a formal
amendment process to the guidelines.
With a separate motion, the ARC asked that the City Attorney provide a memo on the
legality of the City regulating sexuality in signs and window displays that may be
construed to compromise community values.
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
4 'r)
SAN LUIS OPBISPO Attachment 2
ARCHICTECTUAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 14, 2002
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. Mark Rawson, Zeljka Howard, Hana Novak, Vice-Chair Jim
Lopes, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson
Absent: Commrs. Rob Schultz and Michael Boudreau
Staff: Associate Planner Pam Ricci, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
ACCEPTENCE OF THE MINUTES:
The minutes of November 19 and December 3, 2001, were accepted as corrected.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
PROJECTS:
1. Citywide. ARC 42-00. Review of the draft for the comprehensive update of the
City's design guidelines; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented staff report, requesting the Commission to
review the draft for the comprehensive update of the City's design guidelines. She
stated they would like to have the ARC-endorsed version of the guidelines to the City
Council by early summer.
Chairperson Stevenson suggested that the City's consultant, Paul Crawford, present a
general overview to acquaint the Commission with the high points of the plan and the
organization. He voiced his opinion about the importance of graphics in design plans in
illustrating principles.
Paul Crawford, City Consultant, stated they would like the style of the draft to be as
consistent as possible. He provided an overview on organization and discussed his
thoughts on appropriate writing style and layout.
Nicholas Dietch, Main Street Architects, noted the previous design guidelines contain
information that is still very appropriate and should be incorporated into the new
guidelines.
Commr. Rawson noted the graphics presented are great, but felt there is a lot of
opportunity to use more photographs.
Mr. Dietch agreed there is more flexibility with using photographs. He suggested that if
staff and the commission have some ideas or examples of photographs, they could do
the filtering and graphic integration.
4'q
Attachment 2
ARC Minutes
January 14, 2002
Page 2
Chairperson Stevenson suggested as a general rule to have a guideline that has
graphic representation of this concept.
Mr. Crawford explained that the current version of the draft is only a way of packaging
the text for review.
Planner Ricci stated within the current budget, they might not be able to do everything
they initially wanted to do.
After much discussion on how to review the line draft of the guidelines at upcoming
meetings, it was agreed that one hour at the beginning of each meeting would be
dedicated for that purpose.
Commr. Howard suggested having pictures of the various architectural styles as an
appendix..
Vice-Chair Lopes asked for clarification on the overall approach to the update.
Mr. Crawford explained the overall organization is intended to work from general
discussion of what the City is planning to accomplish with respect to private design and
its relationship to the public realm.
Chairperson Stevenson suggested they indicate a placeholder in the table entitled
Chapter 8, which would indicate, "special areas," so anything that comes in later on
would be added, i.e., 8.1.
Vice-Chair Lopes asked for consideration on adding references to applicable City
documents that apply to particular sections of the guidelines.
Mr. Crawford explained there are some references to specific zoning ordinance
provisions, but they could establish a more clear linkage between this and the General
Plan policy in the introductory sections.
Planner Ricci stated there is a detailed Land Use Element policy specifically for the
downtown on design.
Vice-Chair Lopes felt the existing zoning code policies that pertain to the (shalls) should
have more focus on them.
Mr. Crawford felt it would be convenient to have them at the beginning of each of each
topical section, cross-referencing them to relevant zoning code material.
Chairperson Stevenson felt a general rule should be to minimize the "shalls," and make
them "shoulds."
Commr. Howard suggested that "shoulds" are preferred in guidelines and that they
should apply the same criteria to every project, but there may be.reasons to deviate
from criteria under certain circumstances.
Attachment 2
ARC Minutes
January 14,2002
Page 3
Commr. Rawson suggested the beginning of the Guideline state "the guidelines are
intended as a design tool to help".
Mr. Dietch expressed that "shalls" belong in ordinances and "shoulds and mays" belong
in guidelines.
There was much discussion on the use of "should's and shall's."
Commr. Rawson suggested having a section that addresses residential areas, and that
there be a guideline that exterior elevations of buildings have consistent treatment on all
sides. He suggested requiring attractive facade treatments on zero lot line walls. He
suggested rewording that the width of the garage should be subordinate to the width of
the living space.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Josephine Malone, SLO, submitted a letter that expressed her concerns with window
displays.
Commr. Rawson reiterated that Ms. Malone's expressed concerns were with non-
regulated displays that are in windows and not part of City signage.
The public hearing was closed.
Commr. Rawson noted that some sketches in the guidelines have names of particular
tenants and felt they should be more generic.
Mr. Dietch explained that they hoped that graphics would look like "real life" and not
appear generic.
Chairperson Stevenson encouraged the Commission to take photographs as examples
for these guidelines.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chairperson Stevenson suggested all members of the Commission be present before
making a decision on a potential name change for the ARC.
The special Architectural Review Commission meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
4- 10
Attachment 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 4, 2002
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. Michael Boudreau, Mark Rawson, Zeljka Howard, Rob Schultz,
Vice Chair Jim Lopes, and Chairperson Charles Stephenson
Absent: Commr. Hana Novak
Staff: Associate Planners Pam Ricci and Michael Codron, Recording Secretary
Irene Pierce
ACCEPTENCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was modified. Item 5 went to the last of the order.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
PROJECTS:
1. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of the draft comprehensive update of the City's
design guidelines; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Pam Ricci reviewed meeting goals, which were to discuss the preferred name for the
Commission, as well as to review Chapters 1 & 2.
The ARC agreed to set aside the first part of the agenda on upcoming meetings for
review of the draft guidelines, and suggested all comments be addressed to Planner
Pam Ricci.
The Commissioners discussed revising some of the language in these two chapters.
Commr. Boudreau suggested that section 1.1 be condensed.
Chairperson Stevenson suggested some language to clarify what makes traditional
neighborhood development desirable.
Commr. Howard suggested they elaborate on those elements of traditional
neighborhood patterns that establish context.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested using the word "discourage" or "minimize" instead of
"prohibit", for a guideline regarding parking located between buildings and the street in
commercial areas (1.3, B.3).
r I
Attachment 2
ARC Minutes
February 4, 2002
Page 2
Chairperson Stevenson suggested they make a reference to maintain the City's creeks
from pollution run-off.
Commr. Rawson commented that nothing in the guidelines explains to an applicant
what the best technique is for going through the ARC's conceptual review process.
Chairperson Stevenson suggested they add a section to encourage study sessions with
the ARC.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
2. 755 763, 769. 779, and 783 Santa Rosa: 1060 and 1064 Mill Street. ARC 97-99;
Review of proposed changes to a new 20,000 sq. ft. office building; 0 Zone; Jim and
Bev Smith, applicants.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented staff report, recommending the ARC grant final
approval to building modifications and details, based on a finding, and subject to
conditions.
Vice-Chair Lopes asked what the roof material was and if it is the same as used on the
towers.
Planner Ricci replied it was a slate roof.
Chairperson Stevenson asked if the building height is 1.5 feet lower.
Planner Ricci replied the building is still 25-feet overall, and that condition 2 refers to the
area along the back property line facing the adjacent property.
Vice-Chair Lopes asked if there is street parking along Mill Street.
Planner Ricci explained there are a couple of parallel spaces maintained.
Commr. Schultz asked what material would replace the light well.
Planner Ricci explained that the local company, Air Vol, will supply the narrow and
elongated bricks, which will result in a long and variegated pattern with the taupe and
darker gray.
Steve Caminiti, SLO, stated that his landscape plan has located all the trees in the rear
planter so that they fall between parked cars
Mr. Puglisi stated if they could modify the project planter and still meet City standards,
` they certainly would.
Attachment 2
ARC.Minutes _
February 19,2002
Page 10
Chairperson Stevenson asked if he had a solution.
Mr. Snyder felt a fence could solve the problem
Commr. Schultz asked Mr. Snyder if his property boundaries extend across the creek.
Mr. Snyder replied yes.
John King, King Ventures, commented that in some areas, there is no access coming
off the creek and in some areas you could walk down into the creek. He suggested they
could fence off some of the areas where access would not be desirable.
Mike Copeland, 1998 San Luis Drive, noted they have a problem with noise generated
from customers using the walkway and coming out of the bar.
There were no further public comments.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Howard expressed her thanks for the presentation and the research on this
historical piece of property. She felt the two architectural styles in the context that was
provided make sense.
Commr. Boudreau stated he was impressed with the design and the in-depth portrayal
of the project on the boards. He supports the two different architectural styles.
Commr. Schultz stated the project is headed in the right direction, but felt there are
some concerns that need to be addressed with the neighbors.
Commr. Novak expressed some concern with the scale of Apple Farm II and wasn't
sure that it is appropriate for this site. She commented she would like to have seen a
detailed visual analysis. She asked staff if the Fire Department hammerhead turn-
around was allowed in the 20-foot creek setback area.
Planner Ricci explained they have not fully evaluated the setback issue for the
improvements, and is not sure if there is any need for an exception yet.
Commr. Rawson commented that it is an outstanding project and expressed support for
the two architectural styles.
Chairperson Stevenson expressed his appreciation with the passion and devotion to the
historical context and felt it is an outstanding effort.
There were no motions made.
5. Citmide. ARC 42-00; Review of Chapter 3 of the draft comprehensive update of
the City's design guidelines; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
� 13
Attachment 2
ARC Minutes
February 19,2002
Page 11
Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, asking the Commission to
provide preliminary comments and/or direction on Chapters 1 and 2, and to determine
an upcoming date for the next review of the guidelines and identify which chapters will
be covered.
The Commission made a number of grammatical corrections and slight wording
changes.
Chairperson Stevenson suggested expanding on pg. 16 (2) insert employee break
areas and pedestrian linkages.
Commr. Rawson suggested putting something about color and intensity of lighting on
pg. 19 (5).
Commr. Howard suggested changing dominant with (visible) on pg. 20 (7-d).
Chairperson Stevenson suggested striking (office) on pg. 32 (2-c), and suggested
revised language on pg. 32 (2-d).
Planner Ricci explained at the next meeting the next chapter is Downtown Design
Guidelines.
ACCEPTENCE OF THE MINUTES:
The minutes of December 17 were accepted as corrected.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the ARC, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to the next
regular meeting scheduled for March 4, 2002, at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Irene E. Pierce
Recording Secretary
Attachment 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 4, 2002
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Zeljka Howard, Mark Rawson,
Jim Lopes, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson
Absent: Commr. Hana Novak
Staff: Associate Planner Pam Ricci, Consultant Paul Crawford, and Recording
Secretary Irene Pierce.
PUBLIC COMENTS:
Jean Anderson, 544 Pacific Street, gave a presentation as a member of the SLO
Bicycle Committee. She explained that the Bicycle Advisory Committee had 14
volunteers surveying different bicycle problems in the City. She noted that the survey
concluded that the amount of available bicycle parking is not sufficient. She requested
that Transportation Planner Terry Sanville work with the ARC and toe Bicycle Advisory
Committee to further review some of these problems.
Chairperson Stevenson asked if the projects where bicycle parking inadequacies were
discovered were newer projects built within the last few years.
Ms. Anderson replied yes, some of them were newer projects.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci noted that she would be meeting with Planner Sanville to
discuss bicycle parking and the concerns that the Bicycle Committee has. She
explained the next Chapter of the guidelines that the ARC will be reviewing deals with
site details, including bicycle parking.
BUSINESS ITEM:
1. Citvwide. ARC 42-00; Review of Chapters 4 & 5 of the draft comprehensive update
of the City's design guidelines;City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report asking for comments from the
ARC on the contents of the guidelines.
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
Commr. Howard asked how B-2 would affect landmark buildings.
Planner Ricci explained that.the Land Use Element has a section on downtown design,
and read a specific policy dealing with building height. She suggested that some of
these LUE policies be incorporated into the design guidelines.
Z- Is
Attachment 2
ARC Minutes
March 4, 2002
Page 2
Chairperson Stevenson suggested an emphasis for "buildings and their setting" in
Section 4.1, Goals for Downtown Design. He asked if goals from the Housing and Land
Use Elements could be referenced to encourage mixed use under 4.2-13.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested it be a footnote.
Chairperson Stevenson suggested there be a glossary of definitions. He asked what
was meant by the word "duplicating" on 4.2-C.
Mr. Crawford suggested the word "copy" rather than "duplicate".
Chairperson Stevenson suggested having clarification by definition under C-4.
Commr. Rawson commented on how the term "Main Street Architecture" in the
downtown should be defined.
Chairperson Stevenson suggested adding pre-cast concrete as a material under C-6.
He also suggested that the choices of desirable materials not necessarily be limited to
two, and the rewording or removal of False Stone Veneer as an inappropriate material.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that "unpainted plywood" be modified to say "general
plywood siding" under inappropriate materials. He commented that the use of clear
glass on the first floor is recommended, and asked if it were encouraged by the
guidelines.
Mr. Crawford suggested they could address this in the introductory paragraph on
windows.
Commr. Rawson suggested adding language that says large expansive walls are
undesirable, and that windows should be used for providing visual and human scale and
articulation.
Chairperson Stevenson suggested that on historically significant buildings, uniform
awning colors are preferred.
Commr. Rawson suggested taking out the second sentence of the 4m bullet under D-5.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested some encouragement with using higher-grade doors under
D-3. He suggested that display windows should retain a visual connection to the inside
of the store. He recommended that the word "should" replace the word "may" on D-6,
and that a section on courtyards be added to D-7.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Josephine Malone, SLO, expressed concerns with advertising and signage. She asked
what the aesthetics and ethical responsibilities of the downtown business were.
Planner Ricci replied the ARC's responsibility is for the aesthetics component.
Attachment 2
ARC Minutes
March 4, 2002
Page 3
There were no further comments from the public.
GOALS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DESIGN
Vice-Chair Lopes noted 5.2-A resembled a preamble, and suggested changing the
order of A & B, and that access be encouraged between projects in 5.2-C. He
mentioned the speed of traffic along community streets and suggested new language to
reduce the rate of speed in residential neighborhoods. He recommended that E-1 (b)
be changed to require sidewalk parkways be a minimum of 6-feet.
Mr. Crawford suggested that 5-feet is a more common standard.
Vice-Chair Lopes noted there could be another approach on clustering of hillside
density on 2-A, and that in 2-C, the second line should indicate larger lot sizes and
setbacks.
INFILL DEVELOPMENT
Commr. Boudreau commented that 5.3-B should go under A-2.
MULTI-FAMILY AND CLUSTERED HOUSING DESIGN
Vice-Chair Lopes noted that 5.4 A-4 speaks about the locations of entrances and
suggested that all units adjacent to the street should face the street.
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DESIGN
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that in 5.5 A-4, the driveway lengths should be 20-feet
from the sidewalk to the garage.
Commr. Rawson noted that in 5.5 A-4, the reference to the width of the garage as a
percentage of the width of the living space might be too specific.
There was nothing more added to the guidelines.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Josephine Malone, SLO, expressed an appreciation to Vice-Chair Lopes for going
beyond the fundamentals and speaking to the quality of life.
There were no further comments made from the public.
2. 369 Marsh Street ARC 31-01; Review of a new 2,849 square foot office building;
C-R zone; Jon Olsen, applicant.
Attachment 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2002
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Hana Novak, Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Zeljka
Howard, and Vice-Chair Jim Lopes
Absent: Commissioners Mark Rawson and Chairperson Charles Stevenson
Staff: Associate Planner Pam Ricci, Deputy Director Michael Draze, and
Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Kopecky, Assistant City Clerk, presented Commissioner Hana Novak with a
certificate of appreciation from the City of San Luis Obispo and thanked her for hard
work as a Commissioner on the ARC.
Josephine Malone mentioned that some subtle ways to deal with neutral content could
be done in zoning.
PROJECTS:
1. Citywide. ARC 42-00: Review of Chapters 6 and 7 of the draft comprehensive
update of the City's design guidelines, and Chapter 5 of the Airport Area Specific
Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented a staff report, highlighting the contents of
Chapters 6 & 7 and discussed the revised version of Chapter 5, Community Design, of
the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that Ms. Malone address any issues she has during the
discussion on the signage section of the design guideline draft.
Ms. Malone reiterated her desire to discuss letters that she had previously sent to staff
about proliferation of graphics on downtown storefront windows. She expressed her
objection to a few storefront window displays in the downtown that are inappropriate for
the public and suggested there be regulations in the guidelines on what the downtown
businesses could display in and on their front windows.
Vice-Chair Lopes asked Ms. Malone if she felt the guidelines should regulate signage.
Ms. Malone answered yes.
Vice-Chair Lopes noted that Ms. Malone suggested that the ARC regulate depictions of
signs and pictures of people that are partially clothed, which are objectionable to her.
� - tS
— Attachment 2
ARC Minutes
March 18, 2002
Page 2
Ms. Malone stated she would like the ARC to adhere to their original definition of a sign.
Vice-Chair Lopes asked if she would like verbal and non-verbal content to be part of the
Sign Regulations, along with a complaint process for commenting on this content that
would lead to a decision regarding this at a public hearing.
Ms. Malone replied yes.
Vice-Chair Lopes asked if there is something missing that should be in the design
guidelines.
Ms. Malone replied yes. She suggested an overview of the premise or manifesto, as
well as a strong policy statement.
There was much discussion on signage.
The public comment session was closed on signage.
Chapter 6 —Site Planning and Other Design Details
Commr. Howard noted a couple of changes she had on page 49, B-1 & C-1.
Commr. Shultz noted some changes on page 49, B-2.
Commr. Boudreau commented on page 49, A-3 & C-1.
Commr. Novak suggested that site analysis be mentioned in this section.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested a little more guidance be added to D-1.
Mechanical Equipment
Commr. Schultz recommended that "should" be changed to "shall' on page 50, D-1..
Trash/Recycling Enclosures & Services Areas
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that trash enclosures be located as far back as possible on
sites (page 50 & 51 (F)).
6.2 Landscaping Design Guideline
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested there be a sidebar to define what the City's definition of
landscaping is, to help guide the applicant.
Vice-Chair Lopes questioned if page 53, B-1 is intended for the downtown as well.
6.3 Parking Facilities
�- ISI
Attachment 2
ARC Minutes
March 18, 2002
Page 3
Vice-Chair Lopes commented on page 55 B-4 and suggested it say non-residential.
Commr. Novak suggested there be a higher percentage of landscaping in parking and
driveway areas.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested #6 be placed after #4 on page 55, C.
Commr. Novak suggested adding a minimum of 6-inch curbing to C-4.
The Commission asked staff to report back on the process for changing the Parking &
Driveway Standards to increase the minimum percentage of required landscaping in
parking lots.
Long Range Planner Michael Draze left the meeting before the Airport Areas Specific
Plan was discussed and suggested they discuss it at the next meeting.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that pedestrian access be planned into projects between
sites under D on Page 56.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested adding colored concrete as an alternative paving material
under E on Page 56.
Planner Ricci stated the Bicycle Committee would be looking at the bicycle rack
standards at their next meeting.
6.6 Signs
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that C be located elsewhere.
Planner Ricci suggested under pedestrians.
Vice-Chair Lopes agreed.
Ms. Malone asked when an update of the specific sign regulations would be reviewed
by the ARC.
Commr. Schultz replied that the Commission would be unable to answer that and she
would need to consult staff on this issue.
7.1 Creekside Development
Commr. Novak commented she would like the creek setback area to appear in a more
natural setting.
There was much discussion on creekside development.
Planner Ricci noted there would be edits to this Historic Resource Preservation section.
-4 "
Attachment 2
ARC Minutes
March 18, 2002
Page 4
It was the consensus of the Commission to have the Airport Area Specific Plan come
back on the next meeting.
2. 210 Tank Farm Road. ARC 113-01; Review of a proposed health club including
two structures totaling 47,000 square feet, and outdoor recreation facilities; and
height exception to allow a 37-foot high building where a 35-foot high building is
allowed; M-SP zone; Kevin Kennedy, applicant.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending final approval to
the project.
Commr. Novak asked how they were able to figure out the fissures on the Hydrology
Report.
Mr. Hamrick explained that the soils engineer did borings on the site and determined
there were some granular fissures that would accept site drainage.
Bob Tartaglia, further discussed the proposed drainage system and how it took
advantage of the natural underlying geologic features.
Commr. Novak asked if they would be creating trenches.
Mr. Tartaglia replied yes.
Commr. Boudreau asked about planned infiltration devices.
Mr. Tartaglia explained that they are plastic units that are 34-inches wide and 16-inches
high with louvers on the side, which are easier to install and gives more capacity
underground.
Vice-Chair Lopes questioned the height of the standpipes and where would they be
located on the landscape plan.
Planner Ricci replied they would be 18-inches to 2-feet tall and defined their location on
a map.
Vice-Chair Lopes asked for an explanation on the building height exception.
Mr. Hamrick explained when the building was first designed, he had a 35-foot height
limit with the parapet. He noted that further soils and grading analyses recommended
that the building site be raised with a 24-inch thick base of compacted sand to provide
better drainage.
Vice-Chair Lopes noted that they had lowered the towers.
Mr. Hamrick explained that the towers were lowered, but they are still at the same
elevation.
Attachment 2
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 1, 2002
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. Zeljka Howard, Allen Root, Jim Lopes, and Chairperson Charles
Stevenson.
Absent: Commrs. Michael Boudreau, Mark Rawson, Rob Schultz.
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director.Michael Draze, Associate Planner
Michael Codron, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
Allen Root was sworn in as a new Commissioner for the ARC by Lee Price, City Clerk.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES:
The Commission had a unanimous vote to have all Commissioners present before
approving or amending the minutes of February 4, 2002.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Josephine Malone, SLO, commented on the graphics of the Design Guideline and noted
that the process will be here when they move forward on the graphic regulation.
1. Citywide. ARC 42-00; Review of Chapter 5 of the Airport Area Specific Plan; City of
San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze presented the staff report to
discuss the revised version of Chapter 5 (Community Design) of the Airport Area Specific
Plan.
The Commissioners made individual comments on the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Vice-Chair Lopes commented on page 5-17 and suggested some guidance on what
preference the City has on providing pedestrian walkways between sites.
There was discussion on easements between walkways..
Commr. Howard suggested they change the language to "walkways should be provided'.
Vice-Chair Lopes commented on page 5-19, and suggested highlighting the policy for
protecting scenic view. He also suggested that the visual cone be measured at 60%
instead of 50% on 5-20.
There was much discussion on what the percentage should be with the visual cone along
Tank Farm Road and where the cone should be taken from.
44 -91)-
Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 2
April 1, 2002
Page 2
The Commissioners concurred on the 60% visual cone threshold from across the street.
Vice-Chair Lopes suggested the same 60% on Broad Street. He also suggested a
paragraph be added to note that there be additional features such as plant materials in
medians and parkways on 5-23. He suggested taking out "as seen from" on 5-20, under
Tank Farm. He commented on 5-3 (4t bullet) that says "are" discouraged rather than
"should be" discouraged.
Chairperson Stevenson commented about the site design on 5-13 and suggested they put
people in the illustrations. He commented on 5-41 (2nd bullet) that a parenthesis be added
that says except for additional height.
Commr. Howard moved to recommend the Airport Areas Specific Plan, Chapter 5 (Design
Standards) as modified, be recommended to the Planning Commission. Seconded by
Vice-Chair Lopes.
AYES: Commrs. Howard, Lopes, Root, and Chairperson Stevenson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commrs. Rawson, Schultz, Boudreau
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 4-0.
2. 1128 Garden Street. ARC MOD 20-01; Review of changes to an approved mixed-use
building; C-C-H zone; Robert and Dora Carpenter, applicants.
Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report, recommending approval of
the building modifications, based on findings, and subject to one condition.
Vice-Chair Lopes asked staff if they were approving the parapet and not the finial.
Planner Codron explained that staff is not recommending that the finial be retained.
Thomas Brajkovich, project architect, explained the main changes are to eliminate the roof
terrace, except for the stairway, which would maintain the roof access and simplify the
parapet at the top, as well as changing the front elevation.
Vice-Chair Lopes asked if the applicant agrees with the staffs recommendations.
Mr. Brajkovich replied yes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
Attachment 3
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 42-00
1. Project Title:
Community Design Guidelines
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7168
4. Project Location:
Applies citywide.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. Description of the Project:
The project is a comprehensive update of the City's design guidelines. The intention of the
document is to provide both general and specific criteria that an applicant should address in plans
that are considered by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) or staff. Because they are
"guidelines" and not regulations, most of the principles and concepts outlined are not mandatory
requirements. However, some excerpts from other adopted City ordinances, such as the Parking
& Driveway Standards, are requirements and are repeated in the guidelines because of their
importance in project design.
1 Attachment 3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards& Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
x and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
A
Attachment 3
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed proiect, nothing further is required.
September 30,2002
Signa a Date
Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director(Development Review) Community Development Dir.
Printed Name for
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
4�
Attachment 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determinationis made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
e4-
r�t1aG,n Hent
Issues,Discussion and Supporting imation Sources Sources P ,ly Potentially Less Than No
Sie ..cant Significant Significant Impact
ER#42-00 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic X
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely effect day of nighttime views in the area?
The City of San Luis Obispo is located in a naturally beautiful setting consisting of lower lying areas amidst the imposing
volcanic peaks of San Luis Mountain and Bishop Peak, and vistas beyond of the Santa Lucias and Irish Hills. The relative
isolation of the community from other more urbanized parts of the state have helped it to retain a small town character and
keep a high standard of environmental quality.
The City's adopted plans and policies help to maintain the City's beauty and environmental quality by articulating principles
to guide existing and new development. Most new multi-family residential, commercial and industrial projects in the
community require some form of architectural review. Through the City's established architectural review process, all
aspects of a project's site and building design are scrutinized to assure that new development is high quality and aesthetically
pleasing. The City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is an appointed advisory body whose job it is to review new
project designs,as well as remodels and civic projects.
To assist the ARC in its review of projects, the City has a booklet, which contains design guidelines. While there have been
periodic minor revisions to the City's Architectural Review Guidelines in recent years, the last comprehensive update of the
guidelines occurred in 1982. Over the past few years, staff and the ARC with the assistance of consultant staff have been
working on a new set of design guidelines.
The guidelines are intended to provide both general and specific criteria an applicant should address in plans, which are
considered by the ARC or staff. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide direction to applicants on general design
preferences for typical project situations in the City of San Luis Obispo. An applicant that designs a project that is consistent
with the guidelines is likely to create a project that is well-received and moves more quickly through the City's architectural
review process. While the guidelines cannot provide information on every potential situation or detail that may come up
with a project, they will identify general concepts considered in the review of projects, and more specific information on
aspects of project design such as site planning, building design,parking, landscaping and signs. A project that is developed
consistent with the guidelines would be aesthetically pleasing and not adversely impact scenic resources or environmental
quality.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps X
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,which,due
to their location or nature,could result in conversion of X
Farmland,to non-agricultural use?
The guidelines would provide an applicant with guidance on desired design elements for a variety of different development
projects. They would have no impact on establishing policies or zoning for particular sites that might have the potential to
affect agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
4,9
Attachment 3
Issues,Discussion and Supporting enation Sources sources P, lly Potentially Less Than No
Si�..__..:ant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER#42-00 Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment X
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Adoption of the guidelines would not directly result in air quality impacts. The guidelines may indirectly help to improve the
air quality of the City by encouraging efficient designs that are pedestrian oriented.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a X
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Some components of the design guidelines contain recommendations that should help to protect biological resources.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of -T X
formal cemeteries?
CRY OF SAN Luta Oaispo 6 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2001
Attachment 3
Issues, Discussion and Supporting rmation Sources Sources Pf Jly Potentially Less Than No
Sit :am Significant Significant Impact
ER#42-00 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The design guidelines contain references to the City's historical preservation review process,which encourages applicants to
seek further information on potential historic resources early in the review process. They also contain information on
specific ways that downtown buildings can be remodeled or new buildings constructed to fit into the historical character and
context of the downtown.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X
State?
The design guidelines contain information on solar energy installations and generally encourage energy efficient designs.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects, including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
H. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially X
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life X
or property?
There is no direct relationship between the guidelines and physical changes to sites that could potentially impact soils and
geology.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous X
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter X
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBlspo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Attachment i
Issues,Discussion and Supporting -nation Sources sources Pc ifyPotentially Less Than No
Siz ,ant Significant Signiticant Impact
issues Unless Impact
ER#42-00 Mitigation
Incorporated
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety X
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of;or physically interfere with,the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury,
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands X
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
There is no direct relationship between the guidelines and physical changes to sites that could potentially create issues with
natural hazards or hazardous materials.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would X
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner,which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner,which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map X
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area,which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
The guidelines contain information on site drainage and storm water retention that will help to promote more efficient and
environmentally conscious designs.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the project:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the X
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservation plans?
Adoption of the guidelines will complement the City's zoning regulations and General Plan.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X
Element
or general noise levels in excess of standards
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
4 ^J
Attachment 3
Issues,Discussion and Supporting rmation Sources Sources P AY Potentially Less Than No
Sk, .cant Significant Significant Impact
ER#42-00 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
There is no direct relationship between the guidelines and physical changes to sites that could potentially create noise issues.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
Adoption of the design guidelines does not affect the ability of the City to control and regulate future development proposals,
which could generate additional demand for housing.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
C) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
f) Other public facilities? X
Adoption of the design guidelines does not affect the ability of the City to control and regulate future development proposals
for public services issues.
14.RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Adoption of the design guidelines does not affect the demand for parks and other recreational facilities.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic,which is substantial in relation to X
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management X
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. X
farm�uipment 7
Crrr OF SAN LUIS Oslspo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
4"3a-
Issues,Discussion and Supporting mation Sources Sources Pr ly Potentially Less Than No
Sit, ant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER#42-00 Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? X
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, X
noise,or a change in air traffic patterns?
Adoption of the design guidelines does not affect the ability of the City to control and regulate future development proposals
which could generate additional vehicle trips and have consequent impacts to transportation facilities,traffic and parking.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or stone drainage facilities, X
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and X
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste? I I T
Adoption of the design guidelines does not affect the ability of the City to control and regulate future development proposals
for impacts to utilities and service systems.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop X
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Adoption of the design guidelines will have no direct impact on the physical characteristics of sites that could result in
environmental impacts. In general, development projects that are consistent with the guidelines should be more
environmentally sensitive and compatible with adjacent development.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable X
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future projects)
See explanation under 17.a).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X
CITY OF SAN Luis OsisPO 10 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
4.33
1 a 1IV,I I %J
Issues,Discussion and Supporting rmation Sources Sources Pc ,ly Potentially Less Than No
Si, .ant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER#42-00 Mitigation
May f] Incorporated
�£ .l^.fitndtiGY`IY{ L _ )'
See explanation under 17.a).
CITY OF SAN LUIS Own 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
4-34
Attachment
18. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Farber analysts may lie used where,pursuant to tfie ttering;progratrt FIR,or other CEPA process,one or more effects have'
*been adequately analyzed m"an earlier FIR'or Negattve I)eclaraUon. Section 15063'(c) (3j,(U) In flus case a,discussion`
should identif} thefollowing_items
a) _Earlier'aniifVHCusea ;Identify earlier,analyses andstate where they areAavaitable for;eytew
None.
b Iun acts ade Istel addressed:',Iden" ` which`effects' from the'above cfieckliii were within the scope of sad
._p q y . - �Y.,
adequately analyzed in an earlier do cument`pursuant to applicable legal standards,and-state whether such effects.were
addressed.by:mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.,
None.
-e) :Mitiga'tion measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with.Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or,refined from the earlier document and,the extent to which they address site
specific_conditions of the project._
None.
Attachment 4
IIIIIIIi�II����l�I II ��
CityOsAnOBIS O
A p
EMIZe990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
October 28, 2002
Josephine Malone
P.O. Box 13015
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SUBJECT: City Regulations of Signs and Window Displays
Dear Josephine:
On August 19, 2002, during their discussion of the City's design guidelines, the ARC
made a separate motion asking that the City Attorney's office provide a memo that
discussed the legality of the City regulating sexuality in signs and window displays that
may be construed to compromise community values. As I noted to you in a letter dated
September 19, 2002, once that memo was prepared, we would forward a copy to you as
well as to the ARC.
Attached to this letter is the memo to the ARC from the City Attorney's office. A copy
of this letter along with the memo will be part of the November 4, 2002 agenda packet. If
you have any questions regarding this memo, please contact Pam Ricci of my staff at
781-7168.
Again we appreciate your continued interest and participation in the review of the design
guidelines and sign regulations.
Sincerely,11
�/�
ohn Mandeville
Community Development Director
cc: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director(Development Review)
L:\LVU.Malone response 2
J4)b-1
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
Attachment 4
�Illllllullpl�������Illlg�����I
MEMORANDUM
From the Office of the City Attorney
October 21, 2002
To: Architectural Review Commission
From: Gilbert A. Trujillo, Assistant City Attorne
Subject: City Regulation of Signs and Window Displays
INTRODUCTION:
The Architectural Review Commission has requested the City Attorney's Office to
provide it with a legal memorandum discussing the City's ability to regulate sexuality in
signs and window displays that may be construed to compromise community values.
Unfortunately, a public agency or entity has extremely limited authority to regulate such
"content" of signage or displays, unless the material is deemed"obscene" in violation of
Penal Code Section 311.2.
DISCUSSION:
Local regulation of signs must be consistent with the constitutionally protected First
Amendment right to free speech. In general, cities have more leeway to regulate
commercial speech than non-commercial speech. A regulation of speech that concerns a
lawful commercial activity and which is not misleading must 1) seek to implement a
substantial government interest; 2) directly advance that interest; and 3)reach no further
than necessary to accomplish its objective. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v.
Public Service Commission of New York(1980)447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65
L.Ed.2d 341. As a matter of law, traffic safety and.aesthetics are substantial interests
which justify the regulation of commercial signs. National Advertising Co. v. City of
Orange (9`s Cir. 1988) 861 F.2d 246, 248.
The local regulation of signs should be limited to size, height, number, location and
physical attributes and should be content neutral. Blockbuster Videos, Inc. v. City of
Tempe (9`t' Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 1295; California Municipal Law Handbook, V-175 (2002
Ed.).
However, the First Amendment does not protect obscene material. California Penal Code
Section 311.2 prohibits the display of obscene material. The United States Supreme
Court addressed this issue in the landmark case of Miller v. California (1973)413 U.S.
15. In this case, the Supreme Court identified the test for obscenity as follows: a work
1
Attachment 4
may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a)
whether"the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find
that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work
depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
In Justice Douglas' dissent, he acknowledged the Court's difficulty in crafting a
definition of obscenity by his famous statement: "I could never succeed in defining it
intelligibly, but I know it when I see it." (413 U.S. at 39.)
While some commercial displays in San Luis Obispo may be of questionable taste, they
clearly do not come close to meeting the definition of obscenity as prohibited in Penal
Code Section 311.2 and as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California.
The Architectural Review Commission should note that under certain circumstances, the
public display of nudity may be entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's decision
(e.g., paintings and sculptures).
CONCLUSION:
The City does not have the legal authority to regulate the "content" of signage but clearly
has the authority to regulate aesthetics, including size, height, number, location, color
and/or other physical attributes.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions, concerns or comments.
Cc: Jeff Jorgensen
Ken Hampian
John Mandeville
Ron Whisenand
Pam Ricci
2
4 -31
T 'Of SAN LUIS OBISPO - Attachment 5
Jean E. Anderson
WR 4 2002 PO Box 12858
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-2858
slohpver@charter.net
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4 March 2002
Charles Stevenson, Chair
Commissioners Novak, Howard, Schultz, Rawson, Boudreau and Lopes
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Stevenson and Commissioners:
Although I serve on the Bicycle Advisory Committee, I am writing to you also as
a resident and cyclist in San Luis Obispo. I have asked Terry Sanville to request a
meeting of the BAC (or a subcommittee thereof) with your commission or one or two
representatives so that we may review all city zoning and other regulations governing
cycling parking facilities in the city.
During this January and February, about 14 volunteers rode sections comprising
the entire city of San Luis Obispo to survey and inventory several concerns of
cyclists—especially those who commute to work and those who use their bicycles
(and in my case, a recumbent trike) for everyday shopping and errands. Among some
of the specific items we were looking for were bicycle parking facilities in the city,
information that will be used for the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan
update. It is apparent that the zoning standards for sufficient, convenient and well-
placed bicycle parking racks, etc., are not being followed.
On the following pages, I have reproduced those pages from the San Luis Obispo
Bicycle Transportation Plan (adopted October 27, 1993), as well as the latest zoning
regulations governing bicycle parking facilities included in the update draft that I
prepared (Terry may have made some editorial changes). As I surveyed some of the
newer projects in the city, I found that many racks (for example at the Promenade
shopping center) are placed such that it is almost impossible for cyclists to use
because of placement next to walls or windows, being tucked tightly into ell-shaped
spaces, and certainly not placed where cyclists can get to or see the racks easily. Most
of the placement of the racks appeard to be an afterthought, as in "Oh, gee; I see we
have to put bicycle parking somewhere. Let's see, where can we stick it so that it's out
of the way."
I can speak only for myself, but there are many stores and restaurants where I will
not do business because they do not have convenient or secure racks that I can use. In
other places, such as the current Trader Joe's, I put up with poorly-designed or poorly-
placed racks even though they are not easy to get to or are too close to cars and or
pedestrians. There are several new buildings, some not yet occupied, that do not have
bicycle parking at all. I hope we can address these concerns in a timely manner.
cerely,
Jean E. And rrson
Attachment 5 it 5
IV. BICYCLE PARKING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES
N. Introduction
"Bikeways will be most successful in reducing travel in communities with compli-
mentary policies such as bike parking,shower and lockers at job sites...."Source:
Energy Planning Guide,California Energy Commission,January, 1993.
Convenient and secure parking encourages people to ride bicycles. This plan presents
iesign standards and requirements for the installation of bicycle parking for multi-family
lousing and commercial land uses in San Luis Obispo. Requirements vary depending on
whether the destination is for shopping, working, living, or visiting.
Showers installed at work sites will serve as an added incentive for those with a one way
commute distance of over 5 miles. Consistent with policies of the Circulation Element, this
Ian recommends standards for installing showers at employment sites.
The following policies and standards were developed in cooperation with the County Air
Pollution Control District and are supportive of the District's Commute Alternatives Rule
,Rule 901).
B. Definitions
Short-term bicycle parking is used by visitors to multi-family housing and by patrons of
commercial and institutional uses. Bicycle racks are used to satisfy this need.
Long-term bicycle parking is used by employees of commercial and institutional uses
and by residents. Fully enclosed lockers are used to satisfy this need.Lockable rooms
reserved for bicycle storage and secured parking areas managed by attendants are other
acceptable forms.
Showers are bathing stalls accompanied by clothing lockers and changing areas reserved
for each gender at the work site.
Multi-tenant work sites are known by a common name, are governed by common set of
covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's), were approved as an entity by the City, are
covered by a single tentative or final subdivision map, or are located on a single, or adjacent
assessor's parcels.
C. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Parking and Showers
1. Short-and long-term bicycle parking should be provided whenever a new structure
is erected or enlarged or whenever a new use is established requiring more spaces
according to the schedule shown on Figure#6. For existing commercial and institu-
tional uses, including multi-tenant work sites, bicycle parking should be installed as
shown in Figure V.
2. Bicycle racks should:
4 Stand a minimum of 30 inches from ground level and support bikes in a stable posi-
tion. They should be coated with rubberized plastic, PVC or a similar material to
avoid damage to bicycle frames.
• Allow the frame and both wheels (one wheel removed from the frame)to be locked
to the rack using a standard-size"U"-lock.
• Be installed on a concrete or asphalt surface with access provided by aisles at least
five feet wide.
• Be located as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and be located
at least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking.
• Be visible from the interior of the destination.
- 2-
�� i
Attachment 5
Table _. Bicycle parking for existing commercial and institutional uses
Number of employees Parking by
100 or more 1995
50-99 1997
20-49 1999
Requirements for bicycle facilities from the San Luis Obispo General Plan
Digest
CI 3.4: New development.New development should provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage,
parking facilities and showers, consistent with City plans and standard's. (p 14,3.4).
CI 3.12: Bike lockers, parking,and showers. The City will modify its zoning regulations
to establish standards for the installation of lockers,and secured bicycle parking, and showers.
(p 15,3.12).
Current bicycle plan standards specifying design and Iocation2
1. Short- and long-term bicycle parking should be provided whenever a new structure is erected
or enlarged or whenever a new use is established requiring more spaces according to the schedule
shown in table 6.5 above. For existing commercial and institutional uses, including multi-tenant
work sites, bicycle parking should be installed as shown on Figure#7 (i.e., Figure 6.5 above).
2. Bicycle racks should:
• Stand a minimum of 30 inches from ground level and support bikes in astable
position.They should be coated with rubberized plastic, PVC or a similar material to avoid
damage to bicycle frames.
•Allow the frame and both wheels (one wheel removed from the frame) to be locked to
the rack using a standard-size "U"lock.
-.Be installed on a concrete or asphalt surface with access provided by aisles at least
five feet wide.
• Be located as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and be located
at least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking.
• Be visible from the interior of the destination.
• Be placed where they will not be damaged by vehicles or vandals.
• Be located where clear and safe pedestrian circulation is ensured.
• Be accompanied by pavement markings or symbols on the rack to show proper
parking orientation for bicycles.
3.Area employers should provide showers for commuter bicyclists consistent with provisions of the
Commute Alternatives Rule (Rule 901)adopted by the County Air Pollution Control Board.
(Footnotes)
1 Bicycle Transportation Plan,Citv of San Luis Obispo,CA. 1993.
2 op.cit.,pp. 13-15.
- 5-
4-41
UQL UC UC U.7➢ 1OP 6TU11Cr nUL.UUMM oU.7-OJT-UJOa P. 1
4
Attachment 6
ffilW .v QW,Ain a 0 T W
Mir Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O.Box 12604.San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
September 27, 2002
Ms. Pamela A. Ricci, AICP
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department FAXED TO: 781-7173
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Re: Architectural Review Guidelines - Draft
Dear Pam,
Thank you for including RQN in the review process for the draft ARC Design Guidelines. Our
suggestions are as follows:
Chapter 1. - Introduction and Applicability
1.2.Applicability of the Design Review Process
Page 4 - When is Design Review Required
A. Single family homes
Municipal Code 62.49.050 requires ARC review for single family residences:
(1) when architectural review is required as a condition of a subdivision, use permit or other
discretionary entitlement;
(2) when a developer proposes to construct three or more units;
(3) when the director determines the site is sensitive as set forth in the procedures
document; "sensitive sites" shall include, but not be limited to, open space zoning areas
designated by resolution of the planning commission, architectural review commission or
council;
(4) where the scale or character of the proposed dwelling contrasts significantly with
adjacent or neighboring structures; and
(5) where any required parking space that is covered is converted to another use and
replacement parking is proposed.
ACTION: Add (4) as stated in Code § 2.48.050 to " A. Single family Homes"
RATIONALE: It appears from the. language in the draft Guidelines that the project
would also have to be a "sensitive site" to be reviewed for scale and character. In
our opinion (3) and (4) as stated in the.Code, are two separate and distinct criteria.
'4a-
UCL UC. UC U0: 10P l.TUJICF nUL6UM0 Wawa p• �
Attachment 6
October 2, 2002
Re: Architectural Guidelines -Draft Page 2
ACTION: Add (5) as stated in Code §2.48.050
RATIONALE: This criterion was added to the Municipal Code pursuant to Ordinance
No. 1412 (2000 series) on April 16, 2002.
Chanter 6. - Site Planning and Other Design Details
6.1 Miscellaneous Design Details
Page 64,
C_I ahting
ACTION: Word addition - second sentence
6. The use of exterior lighting to accent building architecture is encouraged. All
lighting fixtures should be properly shielded to eliminate light and glare from impact
adjacent,and other properties, and passing vehicles or pedestrians.
Page 6% D- Mechanical Equipment
ACTION: Add language to address sound impacts of mechanical equipment such as
Jacuzzi pumps and HVAC units on adjacent properties.
Chapter 7 -Special Design Considerations
ACTION: Add 7.2 Hillside Standards for Sensitive Sites
RATIONALE:.Consistent.with.WE..6.2.2
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
7 .
Cydney Holcomb
Chairperson, RQN
4- 43
Attachment 7
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) s
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo,
adopted on August 23, 1994, sets forth goals, policies and programs to: develop and maintain a
pleasant and harmonious environment; promote and enhance real property values; conserve the
city's natural beauty; preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character; and insure the orderly
and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of
public and private structures; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design Guidelines are consistent with Land Use Element
(LUE) Goals 28 & 33 which call for maintenance of the City's existing small-town appeal and
rural setting, and for new development to contribute to the City's sense of place and architectural
heritage; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design Guidelines are intended to provide specific
guidelines and requirements to assist developers in designing projects in order that they will be
more acceptable to the decision-makers reviewing them, and ultimately better received by the
entire community; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has the ability to add graphics and
photographs to the document to further illustrate concepts without a formal amendment process;
and
WHEREAS, the Community Design Guidelines are considered an ongoing work in
progress where additional chapters and information could be added as particular issues come up,
the first of which .is Section 7.2, Hillside Development of Chapter 7, Special Design
Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 19, 2002, and has
considered the testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review
Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Deputy Community Development
Director;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council
determines that the guidelines will have no significant effects on the environment. The Council
hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
L.{. `4
Attachment 7
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Approval. The Community Design Guidelines are hereby approved.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2002.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
e y G. or sen, y Attorney
LAArc guides\Council Resolution(adopt design guides)
DIERRE RADEMAKER DESIGN
738 HIGUERA STREET, SUITE F
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 RECEIVED
TELEPHONE:805/544-7774
P uV 1 1012
November 18,2002 SLO CITY CLERK
Mayor Settle,Council members Ewan, Marx, Mulholland and Schwartz
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Dear Mayer and Council Members,
I'm writing in support of your adoption of the "Community Design Guidelines"
being considered for your approval on Tuesday night. It is gratifying to see
the effort of many years finally come to fruition.
In my opinion,the document clearly states the purpose and procedure for design
review in the City and provides sufficient detail to address most situations
without being overly restrictive. By presenting design criteria in a concise
manner the guidelines should enable designers and developers to gain
approval for their projects without unexpected delays.
Sincerely,
Pierre Rademaker
cc: John Mandcville
0 COUNCIL Z CDD DIR
2T CAO ZZ FIN DIR
Z ACAO 2'FIRE CHIEF
C'A7TORNEY !Z PW DIR
RED FILE ZCLERK/ORIG t POLICE CHF
MEETING AGENDA 11 D�EP HEADS r REC DIR
fd I 19=L Z UTIL DIR
DA !l ITEM # ..BUS 4 IR DIR