HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/00/1990, - JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION o
aWof sAn tui§ oBispo
Post Office Box 8100 • San. Luis Obis o, CA 93403-8100 . 549-7100
*Dena �aon-
atian by LeadmPe ovki-Councie
A G E N D A No MteAiA-In6ohmuti,on Onty
JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ,COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1990 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL A]. 1 (OLD LIBRARY) - 888 MORRO STREET
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin ke
ROLL CALL:
City Council: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Councilmembers Peg Pinard, Penny
Rappa, Bill Roalman and Mayor Ron Dunin
Planning Commrs. Charles Crotser, R. Gilbert Hoffman, Barry
Commission: Karleskint, Janet Kourakis, Richard Schmidt and
Chairperson Donna Duerk 4
Architectural Commrs. Melinda Clark Bradford, Dan Chatham, Madi Gates,
Review Commission: Paul Jones, Duane Morris, Brian Starr. and Chairperson
Allen Cooper
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
A Not to exceed 15 minutes)
Immediately prior to scheduled items, members of the public may address and City
;.
Council on items that DO NOT appear on the printed agenda. Please observe then?r
time limit of three minutes. A speaker slip (available in the Foyer) must be
filed with the City Clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting.
a
As a general rule, action will not be taken on issues not listed on the agenda.
Staff will generally be asked to follow-up on such items. The Council is
interested in hearing from the public regarding issues or concerns of the "1
community and welcomes your input. �Fba3`y
STUDYSESSION
1. CIVIC CENTER.IMPROVEMENT PROJECT HAMPIAN 192 - 1 hr.
Consideration of a presentation of the architectural programming phase of
the Civic Center Improvement project. STATE Of CALIFORNIA I
COUNTY OF StN LUIS OBISPO ) SS
CITY OF S,.N LUIS 03IS70 )
Page 1 of, 2 rin:.iara ander uc:nalty of perjury that I am employed
hy.the- City F San Luis Obispo in the City Clerk's
Department; and that I posted this Aq�elnda near the
front door of City Hall on/'7 o2
Date Signature
Council Agenda February 21, 1990
RECOMMENDATION: A) Direct that the Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Commission review and provide input to the City Council regarding
the architectural programming phase of the Civic Center improvement.
project, as presented; and, B) by motion, approve the architectural
program, provide staff with direction- for resolving parking and transit
issues, and authorize staff to proceed with the conceptual design phase
of this ,project.
NAMPIAN* FINAL ACTION: Genucae diz=64 .on heed. Stabb di Aected .to -i:n'conpotate
ROMERO* 6ugge,6ti.onz made this evening and nepont back.
2. COURT STREET CENTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (STATLER/435 - 1 hr. )
Consideration of the current status of and appropriate future activities
related to the Court Street Center planned development project located at
999 Monterey Street.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive applicants presentation and Planning_ Commission
and ARC comments, and provide direction to both commissions for further
processing of this project.
JONAS* FINAL ACTION: Geneut dizcuzz on heed and .i;mput ph.ovided.
STATLER*
COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
During the balance of this meeting_ , any Councilmember or the City Administrative
officer may informally update the City Council of written or oral communications
and ask for comment and/or discussion. State law provides that council take
action only on ,such matters which .have been noticed at least three days in
advance of the meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be continued to the
next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, FE13RUARY 26, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M.
Page 2 of 2
o
ci t , o san l�ui5 oBis o
Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 . 549-7100
A G E N D A
JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 210 1990 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL ANNEX (OLD LIBRARY) - 888 MORRO STREET
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin
ROLL CALL:
City Council: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Councilmembers Peg Pinard, Penny
Rappa, Bill Roalman and Mayor Ron Dunin
Planning Commrs. Charles Crotser, R. Gilbert Hoffman, Barry
Commission: Karleskint, Janet Kourakis, Richard Schmidt and
Chairperson Donna Duerk
Architectural Commrs. Melinda Clark Bradford, Dan Chatham, Madi Gates,
Review Commission: Paul Jones, Duane Morris, Brian Starr and Chairperson
Allen Cooper
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
Immediately prior to scheduled items, members of the p v
Council on items that DO NOT appear on the printe
time limit of three minutes. A speaker slip (a
filed with the City Clerk prior to the begiav�
As a general rule, action will not be taks
Staff will generally be asked to followl.\
interested in hearing from the public reg
community and welcomes your input.
STUDY SESSION
1. CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (HAMPIAN/192 - 1 hr. )
Consideration of a presentation of the architectural programming phase of
the Civic Center Improvement project.
Page 1 of 2
Council Agenda February 21, 1990
RECOMMENDATION: A) Direct that the Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Commission review and provide input to the City Council regarding
the architectural programming phase of the Civic Center improvement
project, as presented; and, B) by motion, approve the architectural
program, provide staff with direction for resolving parking and transit
issues, and authorize staff to proceed with the conceptual design phase
of this project.
(Report not received by agenda close. To be distributed under separate
cover,)
2. COURT STREET CENTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (STATLER/435 - 1 hr. )
Consideration of the current status of and appropriate future activities
related to the Court Street Center planned development project located at
999 Monterey Street.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive applicants presentation and Planning Commission
and ARC comments, and provide direction to both commissions for further
processing of this project.
(Report not received by agenda close, To be distributed under separate
cover.)
COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City Administrative
Officer may informally update the City Council of written or oral communications
and ask for comment and/or discussion. State law provides that Council take
action only on such matters which have been noticed at least three days in
advance of the meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be continued to the
next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURN TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M.
Page 2 of 2
o,tt% cit o san vuis . oBis o
Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 . 549-7100
A G E N D A
JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1990 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL ANNEX (OLD LIBRARY) - 888 MORRO STREET
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin
PAM'S AGENDA .
ROLL CALL: DISTRIBUTION LIST (1/11/90)
AIA President
City Council: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Councils ARC (rig-mtgs.: in box) ---
Rappa, Bill Roalman and Mayor ASI President____.___
j.
Planning Commrs. Charles Crotser, R. Gi BIA (in box)
Commission: Karleskint, Janet Kourakis, Chamber of Commerce (in box)
Chairperson Donna Duerk Housing' Authority (in .box)
KCOY
Architectural Commrs. Melinda Clark Bradford, . ' KCPR
Review Commission: Paul Jones, Duane Morris, Bria ` XDDB
Allen Cooper KKUS t
KSBY
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD KVEC
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) League of Women Voters
Library _(reg.mtgs._:_ front desk)
Immediately prior to scheduled items, members of the put
Council on items that DO NOT appear on the printed ager Mustang ADaily
time limit of three minutes. A speaker slip (availabl Planning Comm.(=eg.mtgs: .in box)
filed with the City Clerk prior to the beginning of thil Settle,, Allen (until 6/30/90)
Telegram Tribune (in box) .
As a general rule, action will not be taken on issues r__Pacific Gas & .Elec.Co. (reg.mtgs)
Staff will generally be asked to follow-up on such CcntCstPadNwsNet C16/10 0-1)i
interested in hearing from the public regarding issues or concerns of the
community and welcomes your input.
STUDY SESSION
1. CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (HAMPIAN/192 - 1 hr. )
Consideration of a presentation of the architectural programming phase of
the Civic Center Improvement project.
• J � Page 1 of 2
Council Agenda February 21, 1990
RECOMMENDATION: A) Direct that the Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Commission review and provide input to the City Council regarding
the architectural programming phase of the Civic Center improvement
project, as presented; and, B) by motion, approve the architectural
program, provide staff with direction for resolving parking and transit
issues, and authorize staff to proceed with the conceptual design phase
of this project.
(Report not received by agenda close. To be distributed under separate
cover.)
2. COURT STREET CENTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (STATLER/435 - 1 hr. )
Consideration of the current status of and appropriate future activities
related •to the. Court Street Center planned development project located at
999 Monterey Street.
RECOMMENDATI6N: Receive applicants presentation and Planning Commission
and ARC comments, and provide direction to both commissions for further
processing of this project.
(Report not received by agenda close, To be distributed under separate
cover.)
- COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City Administrative
Officer may informally update the City Council of written or oral communications
and ask for comment and/or discussion. State law provides that Council take
action only on such matters which have been noticed at least three days in
advance of the meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be continued to the
next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURN TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M.
\• Page 2 of 2
gill I II I IIIII I I������� �IIIII illi �
Or S�►1'1lollS 061SW
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
January 25, 1990
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING WITH THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Please accept this as your invitation to attend a Joint Meeting of
the San Luis Obispo City Council, the Architectural Review Commission and
Planning Commission, on Wednesday, February 21, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the City
Hall Annex (old Library) located at 888 Morro Street. f
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss Civic Center improvements
and Court Street planning issues. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 549-
7103 if you are unable to attend this meeting. The agenda and staff reports (if
any) will be sent to you prior to the meeting.
Lges, City Clerk
MEETING DATE:
111111111101111 city Of San LUIS OBI SPO - Fi-hriyarg 21 . 199n
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT "Nu
TO: City Council
Planning Commission
Architectural Review Commission
FROM: Dave Romero, Public Works Director
Dave Elliott, Administrative Analyst/Pro jectManager
SUBJECT: Presentation of Programming Work for the Civic C ?Mprovements
Project
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) That the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission review the
architectural program as presented for the Civic Center Improvements Project and, by
consensus, provide suggestions to the City Council about the program content and
subsequent steps.
2) That the City Council, by motion, approve the architectural program, provide direction to
staff for resolving the parking and transit issues, and authorize staff to proceed with
conceptual design.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has scheduled a joint study session of the city council, planning commission, and
architectural review commission for Wednesday 2/21/90 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chamber. At
this meeting, project architect Fred Sweeney will present the programming work completed for
the civic center improvements project, which includes construction of a new city hall annex and
various site improvements.
Enclosed is a copy of the architectural program, which includes written and graphic summaries of
the programming work completed. Also included is an appendix of pertinent documents which
outline the progress of the programming work. Because this project was deferred for several.
months pending preparation and adoption of the 1989-91 Financial Plan, the council and
commission members may want to study this appendix for an.overview of programming activity
during the past year.
'RECEIVED
Fri 1 3 10`1
R4soA
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
MEETING DATE:
������►�►iilullillllllio ��Ulll city of san WAS OBISp0 2-21-90
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Or
FROM: Arnold Jonas,7 Community Development Director; By: Jeff
Hook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Joint City Council, Planning Commission, and
Architectural Review Commission meeting to review the
Court Street Center Planned Development, located at 999
Monterey Street.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Consider the applicant's presentation and provide direction
to the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission
and staff on the Planned Development (PD) issues outlined
below.
BACKGROUND
During the past six months, the City's negotiating team and the
project developer have focused on financial and legal issues
related to Court Street Center. As a condition of the PD approval,
the City and developer are to enter into a long-term ground lease
to allow private development and operation of a mixed-use
commercial project on this city-owned lot.
The purpose of this joint meeting is to review planning issues
which need clarification in the Final PD Plan. These are issues
which can fundamentally influence project design, land use, and
financial performance. Staff and the developer believe that
council and commission direction is needed before final PD approval
or consummating the lease.
The developer plans to introduce the final PD plans at the meeting,
and, among other items, specifically address the issues noted
below. Staff has not yet seen the final plans, so this report does
not analyze specifics of the PD. The following outline of planning
issues is intended to help focus discussion. Staff expects to
return to the ARC, Planning Commission, and City Council with a
thorough analysis as part of their formal hearings on the final
development plan at a later date.
In December, 1988, the ARC supported the design concept for the
project, and requested restudy of the atrium design, pedestrian
access from the retail areas to the atrium, stair tower design,
Court Street character and design, noise and privacy protection for
adjacent uses, tree preservation, and entry design and Monterey and
Osos Streets. The Planning Commission last reviewed this project
in February 1989, when it recommended City Council certification
of the EIR, rezoning to C-C-H-PD, and approval of the Preliminary
PD plan.
At its March 22, 1989 hearing, the City Council gave final approval
��� ► I�uhIII11�Pn���Ill city Of San lois OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
staff-Report
Page 2
to Ordinance No. 1135 which certified the final EIR, amended the
zoning map from C-C-H to C-C-H-PD, and approved the planned
development preliminary plan for Court Street Center. As
background information for tonight's discussion, the PD findings
and conditions, and approved preliminary plans are attached.
Additional material has been included in a reading file available
from the City Clerk, including Ordinance 1135 certifying the EIR
and approving the rezoning, a summary of project impacts and
mitigation measures from the EIR, applicant-submitted rezoning
information, project Request for Qualifications, April 14, 1988
letter from Interwest commenting on the project, original floor
plans, and City Council, Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Commission meeting minutes.
PLANNING ISSUES
1. Atrium Design:
A. Overall design, including floor area, height, amenities,
pedestrian circulation, and location of entries.
B. Relationship of atrium to adjacent tenant spaces, ie.
retail access to and frontage on the atrium.
2. Public Art
i
A. Location, type, and amount of public art to be included
in the project, both exterior and interior (the PD
condition requiring public art was not specific as to
location or amount of public art) .
3. Art Gallery:
A 1200 sq., ft. public art gallery or other public use area was
required as a condition of PD approval. A 1988 letter from
the developer led staff to believe that this space was to be
provided free of charge to the Arts Council or other non-
profit organization. Staff now understands that the developer
plans to include the gallery, but believes the condition
allows the option of leasing the space, at or below market
rates, for an art gallery.
A. What was the Council's intent or understanding of the art
gallery requirement, condition 13? '
B. Should the condition be interpreted to allow the art
gallery to be leased "to the highest bidder", for a fixed
at- or below-market rate, or donated for public use by
��I� ia►Nlllll�p�"���J�I city of san Us oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
staffepor
Page 3
the SLO Arts Council or other non-profit organization?
4. Fifth Floor Use:
The project originally consisted of two floors of retail, two
floors of offices, and a sports club and restaurant on the
fifth floor. The developer is now considering offices on the
fifth floor in lieu of the sports club and restaurant..
A. Would such a change in use be consistent with the
approved preliminary PD plan and project description?
B. Would this change be appropriate in terms of meeting the
City's original goals for the project?
5. Child Care:
Child care was proposed with the PD as part ok the project's
public amenities package. Condition 6 requires child care to
the approval of the •Community Development Director, but does
not specify type. Child care could range from a "drop off",
child-sitting service for shopper convenience, to a licensed,
full-time child care program serving downtown employees.
A. What type of child care is needed and appropriate for
Court Street Center?
I
B. How should the PD condition requiring child care be met?
It should be noted that the State requires 75 sq. ft. of
outdoor activity space per child and 35 sq. ft. of indoor
activity space per child. At its face, this may seem to make
child care infeasible for this project. However, staff
responsible for administering the program explained that
exceptions to these standards are possible in cases of special
need or where comparable facilities are provided.
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
The following format is suggested for the February 21st meeting:
1. Staff introduction and overview.
2. Project developer presentation.
3. Commission/councilmember questions and discussion.
4. City Council direction.
Attachments: PD Ordinance findings and conditions
Council-approved PD plans
ll 111F,11,11111 tuis OBISPO c� of san
990 Palm Street/Post Office Boz_8100 • San Luis Obispo.CA 99409 8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I. Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of rendered
on which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
Appeal not filed because the appellant felt: .
Appeal limited to one ARC Review,
Concern was with the notification process
and the ARC actions as they have and may
impact the development of lots 79-86 of
tract 1182..
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on
Appellant:
Name/Title
Representative
Address
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Calendared for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s) :
City Clerk
ARC Reviews forlots 79-86 of Tract 1182
I am Philip Johnson. I live at 699 Patricia Drive.
It states in the Architectual Review in San Luis Obisoo handbook that
"All ARC meetings arP open to the public forcomment."
As a practical matter, the Dublic has been excluded at times from
making informed comments on two of the three hillside houses which
have received final approval . As neighbors , we are concerned that
we may also be excluded from some of the five remaining sensitive site
reviews for lots 79-86.
It is also important that the public be allowed to participate,as they
appear to be the only group monitoring the actions of the ARC. ARC
members are aDDointed by the City Council. The ARC makes decisions
that affect hillside development. Commissioners are not subject to
the elective process or to any periodic evaluative procedure.
Tonight , I am asking you, the City Council , to review this matter, and
as a consequence , provide a way for the public to particpate. in ARC
reviews on an equal footing with the property owner/architect teams.
We would appreciate a written reply or an opportunity to. meet with you
at your convenience.
The material which is attached, provides background information and
details. I would like to highlight our concerns in the following
summary
Public involvement is restricted/eliminated from some ARC reviews' _
The Community Development Department Notification Process to the
public is inadequate;
There is not sufficient time to review house plans, staff
report, meet with project planner and prepare an informed.
response when notified on the Friday or Saturday preceding
the Monday meeting.
Suggest a seven day notification for signs and mailings.
There is no set deadline for receiving .information from the
owner/architect which may be acted upon during the ARC review:
Times have varied from a few days before the review until
actual submission after a review had begun.
Public does not always have adequate time to review infor-
mation. At times, neither does Staff.
Suggest a cutoff day to receive information for review,
such as a minimum of. the Wednesday preceding the Monday
review.
Suggest also that any information received after the cutoff
day be automatically continued to the next review.
How can the public participate in ARC reviews when the ARC at
times does not seem to be following one of it"s three basic
functions , ie : to Review development proposals to be sure the
guidelines are followed. " When the public asks why they aren't
being followed, some commissioners and staff .may offer when pressed ,
"It 's a matter of interpretation or it 's Standard Operating Pro-
cedure. "
Is this a reasonable interpretation of the hillside standard,
"Houses should be built in stepped levels to conform to the
slope of the hill:"
Look at the house presently being built at the end of Al Hil
and the plans for the house in ARC 89-45 review. They do
not show stepped levels and the highest side is on the lowest
slope. The ARC voted 5 :2 it met the standard even though the
chairman and one commissioner voted "no. "
Is this a reasonable interpretation of the standard, "Grad-
ing on individual lots should be minimized:" The architect
did not supply any cut and fill calculations to there was no
way to determine the extent' of the grading« However, the
ARC voted it met the standard.
Is this a reasonable S. O. .P. "
Schematic and final reviews are often combined. This saves
time for applicant, architect, staff and ARC. However, it
reduces the time the public has to respond from two reviews
to one.
SUMMARY ARC ACTIONS ON LOTS 79-86; TRACT 1182
Lot ` Address Owner ARC Actions
79 730 Patricia Lutra
80 724 Patricia Ruggles 89-45 5/1 continued plan 1
5/15 Final plan 2
10/30 Staff rec denial plan 3
10/30 Final plan 4
81 702 Patricia
82 651 Al Hil De Vitto 88-137 Final
83 658 Al Hil Bennet
84 684 Oakridge Brennan 89-95 9/5 Continued
9/18
85 673 Oakridge Warren Final
86 672 Oakridge Volney
ARC REVIEW 89-45
Listed below are the anoarent inconsistancies between the AR
rC actions
and the procedures and criteria established by law or stated in
Architectual Review in San Luis Obispo handbook.,
INCONSISTENCIES LAWS
Quote of ARC Chairman. On tape of 1977 General Plan. Hillside
10-30 ARC review, beginning at 51 Standards. p25, f (1)
minutes.
" (project ) doesn't conform to hill- Houses should .be built in stepped
side standards --- projects out levels to conform to the slope of
further down slope than a one story the hill an keep a low profile.
---doesn 't conform to step design --
very disappointed applicant and
architect don't understand what I 'm
talking about --= but the neighbors
do--- Don 't support this" .
Material distributed by architect
at 10-30 ARC review.
See North and. South Elevations, p 1. Ditto
House not built in steDDed levels.
Highest part of house is on the
lowest slope of the hill.
See Site Section A, p3. House does Ditto
not make a low profile. Height of
house above average grade is 25 ' , '
but height above. natural grade is
32.251.
Rotation requested by applicant in Ditto
10-30 Staff Report received a
denial.
Rotation requested during 10-30 Ditto
ARC meeting is similar to 5-1 plan
which was continued with direction
to restudy location. Latest plan
differs sgnificiently from the
5-15 plan which was approved. See.
attached drawing showing House
Orientations.
INCONSIS`i. iC1LS LAWS
The ARC heard but seemingly ignored City Council Resolution '5428 ,
appeals from the public about ; p 4, D
limiting size (about 5000 sq. ft. ) These lots ( 79-86 ) are ' sensiti _, '
sites ' subject to review by the
location (4 different sites) ARC which may limit
design ( Hi Tech) and size
choice of materials (plaster, location
glass and metal)
for a home which will be placed design
on the tip of a highly visible choice of materials
knoll.
of a pr000sed dwelling.
Site grading appears to be excessive. 1977 General Plan. Hillside
No Cut and Fill Calculations were Standards. p25, f (2).
included with the Alternate Site
Grading Plans of 10-30. Grading on individual lots should
be minimized.
The house orientation plans con-
tinued 5-1 and approved 10-30 are
similar. See House Orientation
Drawing, The 5-1 plan showed that
an excess of earth was to be re- �\
moved.
Cut 1088 cubic .,yards
Fill 165
The ARC failed to follow its own Architectural Review in San Luis
guidelines and those adopted by the Obispo, p 14, col. 2, 3.
City Council.
Review development proposals to be
Commission voted to approve re- sure the guidelines are followed.
vision introduced during the 10-30
ARC meeting by a 5 to 2 vote.
Commission Handbook. ARC , p 11.
Some commissioners either do not
understand the Hillside Guidelines The Architectural Review Commission
or they aapear to choose to ignore has a vital role in the preservation
or interpret them in an unusual and enhancement of the beauty and
manner. visual character of the city.
-3-
INCONSISTENCIES LAWS
The ARC Review should have been Staff normally prepares a Staff
Continued after the 5 pages of Report for the ARC which is also.
new material were introduced at available to the public a few
the beginning of the 10-30 days before the ARC meeting.
meeting.
The Commissioners, Staff and Architectural Review in San Luis
the Public did not have adequate Obispo , p 7, Meetings.
time to make informed responses
to the material introduced All Arc meetings are open to the
during the meeting. public for comment.
The Mayor in a September telephone
conversation said the public has
a right to make an informed
response.
-4-
♦
\ _
• •4
1
•M
f •
Ir
•.
, f•. 1
. �.
�15 51
svo4, eY4p b "rIlli.NIED cbba"Umb
�-lo U Ste. c�R1�.A?riz'Sy oN�
o S ois' ip
1" =2d� dvr Va�Q.L oVs•?L.y.4•►S�"8��=
.ARC REVIEW 88-137
INCO? SISTHMIES GUIDELINES
Notifications to the public of
pending. ARC review either omit-
ted or ineffective.
At least one adjacent property Notification -Requirements.
owner was not notified by mail as Adjacent property owners are to be
shown on "Notification Require- notified by mail and sign 5 days
ments", before an ARC review..
Posted sign at the end of Al Hil Ditto
a dead-end street, was ineffect-
ive in notifying neighbors.
A visual inspection of this house 1977 General Plan. Hillside
will show that it was not built Standards.. p259 f (1)
in step;-ed levels.
Houses should be built in stepped
levels to conform to the slope of
the hill an keep a low profile. .
ARC approved height extension of Public not notified, so no
6-8 feet above the Height limit, neighbors present to challenge reque:
ie average grade + 25' . of applicant/architect.
r
N®TIFICATIVN REQUIREMEN' i a
LETTERS TO LETTERS TO
PROCEDURE AD AD MAP ADJACENT PROPERTY SIGNS
PROPERTY OWNERS
OWNERS WITHIN 300'
AGGRESS CHANGE 5
APPEALS SAME AS.OR_ IGINAL APPLICATION
ARCHTTT:CTURAL REVIEW-ARC. 2L Y
Minor or Incidental 5 e So
Non-Residential Adjacent to Resldentlal Zone 2 56 S
Determination of SI gnifleard Structure 2 5 5
Demolition of SI nHloant Structure h h 5fg 5
CONDOMINIIUM CONVERSIONS 10 10 log 10 10
CULTURAL HERITAGE-Projects on Residential Sites 5
Projects In Historical Districts b
Demolition on Historical Resource Sites 5
Demolition In Historical Districts b
Changing Master List:Resources 5
C.hanging Historical District Boundaries 10 10 10 10
DOWNTOWN HOUSINO CONVERSION PERMITS.city Council 10 loag 10
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW-Community Development Department h
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT-Map-Planning Commission and C.C. 10 10 10
Text-Planning Commission and City Council 10
HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS 5
Home Occupation with Administrative He S 54 5
PARCEL MAPS all except Planned Devel. -Tentative map-Director 10 10 10 10
Final map-Director 10 10
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING-Preliminary-P.C.and C.C. 10 10 10 10
Final Development Plan-Director NO NOTICE.
Amendment(preliminary or fina4-Planning Commission 10 10 10 10
REZONING-Map-Planning Commission and City Count 10 10 10 10
Teid-Planning Commission and City Council 10
SCHOOL TENANT PERMITS , h
School Tenant with Administrative Hearing S 10b 5
SIDEWALK SALES PERMITS NO NOTICE
SIGN PERMITS NO NOTICE
SPECIFIC PLAN AMANDMENT-Planning Commission and C.C. 10 10 10
STREET ABANDONMENTS-Planning Commission 10 10 10 10
Resolution of Intent-City Council NO NOTICE
Resolution Orden Council 10 10 10 e
STREET NAME.CHANGE-Planning Commission 10 10 10 10d
TIME EXTENSIONS Is
TRACT MAPS AND PARCEL MAPS WITH P.O. entative -P.C. 10 10 too 10
USE PERMITS-Administrative S S• S
Planning Commission and City Council 10 10 a 10
VARIANCES-Administrative S 58 S
'NUMBERS IN COLUMNS INDICATE THE NUMBER OF DANS PRIOR TO HEARING THAT ACTION(LEGAL AD,LETTER POST SIGN...)IS TO OCCUR
a. Notice to adjacent tenant.Including those across the steaL e.Notice at least flus days before flap action.
b.Notice may be required to adjacent or any other property owners of . I. Letters writ to persons or organisations that have requested notice
the discretion of the Community Development DepertmonCe of denalltlon of significant drucwres.
Director or his reproeentathro. g.Notice to tenards.
c. Signs must be 300'apart or Mon.minimum three signs
R No speetik dots or time Rrtrlt
d.Minimum of three signs.
The above noted procedures most of exceed the requirement of other sections of the Oty of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or applicable stat taw.
While M le city policy to provide additlonsl notla beyond thew minimums,faNure to provide such notkshall not be construed In any way ea irwalidaF
Ing otherwise proper actions or decisions. rias