HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/1989, 2 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING CHANGES TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A 50-U LUIS MEETING DATE:
SML
��tli��nli�i�p �►��I
City Of SUIS OBISPO 4-4-89
ATEM
COUNCI AGENDA REPORTrw
NUMBER: /)
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; PREPARED BY: Greg Smith
SUBJECT Appeal of Architectural Review Commission action approving changes to the
landscape plan for a 50-unit motel under construction between Monterey
Street and San Luis Creek, north of Andrews Street.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, if the council is satisfied with the level of detail and extent of
screening required by the ARC.
BACKGROUND
Discussion
The ARC first granted final approval to the project on November 17, 1986. Since then,
the commission has reviewed various revisions at several hearings; a chronology is
attached.
The appeal, which was filed by a neighbor who lives across the creek from the project
site, asks that the council require a more detailed landscape plan and more substantial
landscape screening than approved by the ARC on February 27, 1989.
Landscaping was discussed at ARC hearings an January 30 and February 27, and various
neighbors expressed their concerns with the revised proposal for the project's
landscaping. Draft minutes from those meetings are attached, along with a letter
submitted January 30 by the neighbor's landscape architect and a letter dated February 23
requesting that the landscape plan be revised to show additional details before it is
considered by the commission.
Significant Impact
A negative declaration was approved for the original project, and the proposed
modifications are categorically exempt from environmental review requirements. No
significant fiscal or other impacts are anticipated.
Conseauences of Not Taking the Recommended Action
If the council denies the appeal, landscaping will be installed in accord with the plan
approved by the ARC. If the council upholds the appeal, the landscape plan will have to
be modified in accordance with council direction.
Data Summary
Address: 1951 Monterey Street
Applicant: Rajni Desai
Representative: Same
Zoning: C-T
- General Plan: Tourist-commercial
Environmental Status: Mitigated negative declaration approved by Director.
111111JJJJJJJ 1@11ll city of san tins oBispo
COUNC& AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
Site Descrintion
The site is a tapering lot of 37,145 square feet area located on the southerly side of
Monterey Street. Another motel, Peach Tree Inn, is on the north of the site. A
single-family residence is located on the south side of the site; Monterey Street and the
Sands Motel are west of the site and San Luis Creek borders the site on the east. The
site slopes from its highest point nearest Monterey Street downwards to San Luis Creek at
the rear of the site at a rate of about 10%. Significant vegetation on the site includes
numerous palm, eucalyptus, olive, pepper, and other miscellaneous trees.
EVALUATION
Although it was initially approved by the ARC in 1986, the project's San Luis Drive
neighbors did not become aware of it until construction began early in 1987. It became
clear at subsequent ARC hearings on revisions to the project that the approved design was
controversial.
Various revisions to the 1986 pians have been approved by staff and the ARC. The general
effect of the revisions have been to move the building farther from the creek and
residences, and to reduce the height of retaining walls at the rear of the site. One
wing of the original plan, which would have paralleled the creek with windows looking out
on the San Luis Drive neighborhood has been eliminated, although the number of units in
the motel was not reduced.
1
As noted above, the appellant asks that landscaping be required which would provide a f
"massive buffer", and that a more detailed plan than the one reviewed by the ARC be
required.
Staff has outlined several relevant issues for council consideration:
1. Proiect Descriotion
The building is located along the north side of the tot with parking along the south
side. The building and parking lot are set back 20 feet from the creek's 100-year flood
line, about 140 feet from the closest houses. The parking lot and building pad are eight
to ten feet higher than the houses. At the rear of the site, the building is three
stories high (±40 feet). There are no windows in the rear wall of the building, and no
access to the creek area for guests. An eight-foot retaining wall has been built at the
rear of the parking lot to preserve two existing trees.
2. Screenine
The plan approved by the ARC calls for a five-foot fence along the rear of the parking
area, wrapping around the south side to the lot. Shrubs and vines will be used to soften
the appearance of the retaining wall and fence.
Various mature trees are located in the creek area between the motel and houses. These
include several large evergreen (Eucalyptus, Olive) and deciduous (Sycamore) trees, some
of which are over fifty feet in height.
MY Of San-LUIS OBISPO
Mjj% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
Approved new trees at the rear of the site consist of four large (24" to 30" box) Redwood
trees adjacent to the rear of the building at the top of the bank; three smaller Redwood
trees at the toe of the bank; and two Eucalyptus trees between the existing large
Eucalyptus and the creek. Eight Toyons (a large shrub or small tree) will also be
planted in this area. Vinca Major (a vine) will be planted as a ground cover, and large
areas of this plant are already established nearby.
The issue of screening was given extensive consideration by the commission, and the
approved plan reflects changes based on input from the neighbors and the landscape
architect they hired to evaluate the project. Commissioners noted concerns with planting
trees which were too large- which could topple in storms before their root systems were
properly established, and might not grow as rapidly as smaller specimens - and with
planting trees too close together, which might ultimately result in slower growth and
less effective screening.
3. Level of Detail
Although the approved landscape plan is drawn at a fairly small scale, the level of
detail is not unusual. The size and number of the various plant materials are specified,
in addition to approximate locations of trees and shrubs.
The ARC and staff judged the level of detail to be adequate. In practice, landscape
materials are rarely installed in the exact locations shown on plans for various reasons:
minor variations in placement are found to be desirable because of site conditions such
as slope banks or buried pipes; large plants can be placed to more effectively provide
screening; and because placement of dozens of plants in exact accordance with a schematic
plan would be a tedious, if not impossible, task for the installers.
In practice, installation by a competent landscape contractor in accordance with the
approved plans, working under the inspection of a landscape architect and/or city staff,
usually results in a high-quality, effective landscape installation.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
Public testimony received at recent ARC meetings is noted in the attached minutes.
Generally, neighbors urged the commission to require the developer to provide a dense
landscape screen between the motel and residences.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Public Works staff notes that no landscaping should be installed which might
interfere with water flow within the 100-year flood area. Individual trees may be
located within the edge of the flood area, but clumps of trees and/or shrubs within the
flood area are not appropriate.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The council may uphold the appeal, and direct the applicant to modify the landscape
plan as requested by the appellant. Details of the modifications could be handled by
staff with council direction.
r
city of san Luis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
2. The council may deny the appeal. The landscaping would be installed as approved by
the ARC at their February 27 meeting.
3. The council may continue the appeal, with direction to the staff and appellant
regarding additional information required.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the.attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review
.Commission's actions.
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Letter of Appeal
Approved Plans
Letter to Applicant of ARC Action
ARC Minutes 1/30/89, 2/27/89 (forthcoming)
Letters from Neighbors and their
Landscape Architect
raft Resolution: Denying Appeal
Draft Resolution: Upholding Appeal
ARC Hearing Chronology
gts5:ar86102d
I
dp
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF: THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN 'LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR 1951 MONTEREY STREET (ARC 86-102)
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1989, the Architectural Review Commission approved various
amendments to plans for landscaping a building site at 1951 Monterey Street, said plans
having been approved previously by the ARC pursuant to application ARC 86-102; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 1989, the appellant appealed the Architectural Review
commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo denies the appeal and
upholds the action of the Architectural Review Commission; based upon a finding that
plans approved by the commission will provide for appropriate screening of the proposed
project.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing document was passed and adopted this_ day of
1989.
Mayor. Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
r_
City Clerk Pam Voges .
is
a
Page 2; Resolution No. (1989 Series)
APPROVED:
City�Ad inistrative Officer
City Attor y
Communit Cevelopment Director
�_ V
�. RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
t "
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
C_OMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR 1951 MONTEREY STREET (ARC 86-102)
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1989, the Architectural Review Commission approved various
amendments to plans for landscaping a building site at 1951 Monterey Street, said pians
having been approved previously by the ARC pursuant to application ARC 86-102; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 1989, the appellant appealed the Architectural Review
commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo finds that the revised
pians do not provide an adequate landscaped buffer between the proposed project and
adjoining residential uses and upholds the appeal, and requires the applicant to make the
following modifications to the landscape•plan, to the approval of the Community
Development Director:
(Council to provide appropriate direction)
On motion of , seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing document was passed and adopted this _ day of
1989.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges
APPROVED:
City A ministrative Officer
City Attorney
Commu i Development Director
� % 1
�D ST
1 1 .�Vm-
W
L '�J
07• E1
v � h
^'•� Opp 0p
4
Rj A
act
��``_ �• TONT. 0 4MNTRY
MOTEL •
M :::I •� ilk ��i••:., �.• \ ` , ` `Q•'
to
..iii. •. i���; ` `,.
•'fir,::#.• :;; k.
SOME1hCT � ♦ � .�. O p%
MHna ` `
C-Tov
.
e .4
, r k
�4k
♦ 4il co
�o
04e
c
t v
r O
INC
O
i
�i►IIC�IIIiillnlllflhlll�l����� �IIDIIII�III .
�IIIII IIIA city of sAn tuts oBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
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 the Architectural Review Commission rendered
on February 27, 1989 , which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed):
See attachment.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on
Appellant:
Jane Anderson
Name/Title
RECEIVED Representative
Q 1920 San Luis Drive, SLO, CA
Address
OTYCLERK
SAN!L^5�•et�?C.C%1
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Ca1endared [or: %/�:!/! =i Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s) :
City Clerk -�
• 1 I
*Denotes action by Lead Person
GRespond by:
a unci)
3-CAO
` 1920 San Luis Drive
�`'On9. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
C�Ax� March 4, 1989
�/m•;nutrixr
Mayor Ron Dunin
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93403
Dear Mayor Dunin;
The scale of this commercial development so totally
overwhelms the homes- on San Luis Drive that a massive buffer
requirement is reasonable. Line item approval by the
Planning Department, an efficient mechanism for most
projects, is not acceptable due to the potential. negative
impact on the residential neighborhood.
San Luis Drive neighborhood had no knowledge of the nature
and/or density of this project prior to city approval. We
are deserving of maximum protection from negative impaction
at this or any future point in time.
We expect_ a comprehensive plan to achieve this objective
prior to additional approval by the city.
We apReal the decision of the .Architectual_ Review Commission
at the. February7,
21989 -meeting - Subject ARC 86-102 - New
5o-unit Super 8 Motel at 1951 Monterey Street.
Sincerely yours,
Jane Anderson
cc: City Council Members
ARC Members R E C E I V E
i_`•� Mr. Mike Multai
Mr. Roger Piquet HAR 6 10
CiTYCLEttu
SmLIDSCkur,PO.cA
Voi
N \ .1
ZZ /
Z99:l \ } H I
10C 1 I I+
41
I �l
29 . OG 2 '.:• vi ' o
267
t / z
to
J C 1
I
^1
F E D B A
Mh1"C�E{ EXt57tNCT - -
�j{DINCr MP�TE(�IRI.. --
EAST ELE:VATIO
� _-
�;� �i11�,� ... ,�...s 1.•r 1 � � �•
��. li:'
I ,.'' iii, l ,.�
,, � � ; .� :: ��I
I. iii`
i
� ~
�' � �
M �
r
' 1�' 1 ,
x-4-1
d'
f-
1 � �
r- t z
i ate..
0
•--
� �
r r—'
i �_ � � /
111111 IIID�C", city of sAn luis oaspoI
—rnsrrrs S
— -.e- 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,.CA 93403.8100
March 1, 1989
Ran ji Desai
950 Olive Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 86-102 and SA-3986: 1951 Monterey Street
New 50-unit motel
Dear Mr. Desai:
At its February 27, 1989 regular meeting, the Architectural Review Commission approved a
landscaping plan for the Super 8 Motel subject to the addition. of a 5-foot high fence at
the southerly property line, vines on the fence, and non-glare lighting. The commission
also approved a 24 square foot in area, eight foot.high,monument sign with modifications
to the base to match the building.
Minutes of this meeting will be sent to you as soon as they are available.
The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten
- calendar days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a
decision of the commission.
Surplus plans for this project may be picked up at the Community Development Department.
Plans not claimed within 30 days will be discarded.
.If you have any questions, please contact Greg Smith at 549-7174.
Sincerely,
Ken Bruce, Senior Planner
Community Development
cc: Jane Anderson
i
dsf1/3-1let
�/V
C�
DRAFT ARC MINUTES
January 30, 1989
8. ARC 86-102: 1951 Monterey Street; new 50-unit motel; C-T and C/OS-5 zones; landscape
review.
Commr. Jones stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the
landscape plan revision if the commission is satisfied with the level of detail provided.
Rajni Desai, applicant, responded to the staff report. He noted that plan revisions were
needed due to revisions to the retaining walls: He indicated that 24-inch box trees
could now be used, but there was no room for trees at the easterly property line. He
requested approval at this meeting and was willing to work. with staff.
Jane Anderson, San Luis Drive resident, was concerned with the applicant's previous
creekside motel in the city and showed photographs of that project and other motels on
Monterey street. Mrs. Anderson felt the proposed building was out=of-scale and that
existing trees which were supposed to screen the site had been removed. She was
concerned with the kitchenette units, emergency access, building colors, and lighting
glare. She wanted to see a complete plan of the site.
Joan Roberts was concerned with lighting.
Bonnie Garritano was concerned with screening and requested that large trees be planted
as soon as possible.
Bob Alberti was concerned with the westerly property line landscaping and replace of
removed shrubs and trees.
Alice Werbel, 1872 San Luis Drive, was concerned with the lack of detail. She questioned
earlier tree removals.
A. Higby stated that the creek was the most attractive part of the lots and that
insensitive development would detract from the community.
Commr. Morris felt 24-inch box redwood trees should be installed because they are fast
growing. He also suggested adding six 15-gallon redwood trees and ten 1-gallon myrica
trees at the base of the wall.
Commr. Bradford was concerned that the commission was dealing with this project on a
piecemeal basis. She concurred with Commr. Morris regarding trees.
Commr. Gates was concerned with bank erosion.
Commr. Starr felt a comprehensive plan would havc been preferable. He felt it was
possible to establish landscape screening within three years.
Commr. Cooper supported SEDES recommendations 1, 2, and 3.
ARC DRAFT MINUTES
January 30, 1989
Page. 2
Commr. Starr moved to continue consideration of the project with direction to provide a
complete landscaping plan for the entire site for commission review.
Commr. Gates seconded the motion.
AYES: Starr, Gates, Bradford, Morris, Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jones, McClave
The motion passes.
SIGNS:
A. SA=3986: 1951 Monterey Street; request to allow a monument sign for Super 8 Motel
(previously San Luis Inn); C-T zone.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending a continuance with
direction on colors and details.
Rajni Desai, applicant; responded to the staff report and indicated that a 6 .x 4 foot
sign was the smallest one available. He noted that any brick or stucco color could be
used for the base but he could not change the colors.
Commr. Gates felt the sign should stay with colors which are compatible with the
building. She was concerned that the sign was placed very close to the building.
Commr. Bradford noted design of Monterey Street motels and the absence of garish signs..
She felt the sign colors had to be changed and the sign reduced in size.
Commr. Morris felt the applicant was "stuck* with the proposed colors but wanted the
yellow part of the sign reduced.
Commr. Starr noted that previous actions have allowed "corporate" color schemes. He felt
that red brick would be acceptable with the sign proposal..
Commr. Cooper felt that a green wood frame may be acceptable and supported the size of
the sign. He wanted to see a color presentation.
Commr. Bradford moved to continue consideration of the sign proposal with redesign of the
framework to be compatible with the building design..
Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
After commission discussion of the motion; Commr. Bradford withdrew the motion, Commr.
Cooper withdrew his second.
Commr. Gates moved to continue consideration of the sign proposal with direction to
contact the franchiser concerning revising the standard color scheme.
j -/ 7
ARC DRAFT MINUTES
January 30, 1989 -
Page 3
Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Gates, Cooper, Bradford
NOES: Morris, Starr
ABSENT: Jones, McClave
The motion passes.
Commr. Jones returned to the meeting.
i�
i
CDRAFT ARC MINUTES
February 27, 1989
1. ARC 86-102 & SA-3986: 1951 Monterey Street; new 50-unit mote; C-T and C/OS-5 zones;
landscape review and request to allow a monument sign for Super 8 Motel.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending approval of the
landscape plan revision if the commission is satisfied with the level of detail provided,
with direction regarding the number and size of trees.
Rajni Desai, applicant, responded to the staff report and showed a video of the project
site. He felt that 24-inch box trees could be used if directed by the commission. He
noted that 9-watt fluorescent lighting with globes were proposed for outside lighting.
Bonnie Garritano, San Luis Drive neighbor. was concerned with the 24-inch box trees and
with lights shining on residential properties. She also questioned the fence height.
Alice Werbel, San Luis Drive neighbor, felt that a 5-foot fence was inadequate at the
southerly property line. She felt views were affected by the entire length of the
building.
Commr. Bradford felt that box trees were needed and that the applicant may be able to
C, work out neighbor screening concerns with the adjacent property owner. She wanted a high
fence used and suggested the applicant work out light details with staff.
Commr: Morris noted problems with reviewing the entire plan. He felt the existing
sycamore trees were dormant now but would screen the property when leafed out. He
thought smaller trees than 24-inches would be better because the roots would be more in
proportion to the tree. He felt neighbor views would be screened by the proposed fence.
Commr. Starr concurred with Commr. Morris. He suggested using down lights.
Commr. McClave questioned the use of 15-gallon trees vs. box trees. He liked the larger
tree but would defer to Commr. Morris's opinion on size.
Commr. Gates suggested screening the pool. from the neighbors.
Commr. Cooper felt a 6-foot fence was needed at the southerly property line and suggested
the applicant consult with Mr. Alberti regarding the trees on his property.
Commr. Morris moved to approve the landscaping plan subject to the addition of a 5-foot
high fence at the southerly property line, tree planting at the rcar of the building in
accordance with specifications discussed at the prcvious meeting, vines on the fence, and
non-glare lighting.
Commr. Starr seconded the motion.
/ AYES: Morris, Starr, Bradford, Gates, McClave, Cooper
- NOES: None
ABSENT: Jones
The motion passes. � -/
The commission then reviewed the sign request.
Rajni Desai, applicant, responded to the staff report and requested approval. He noted
that the minimum sign available was 24 square feet.
Commr. McClave felt brick was out-of-context and suggested the sign base be of wood
siding. He felt colors were not a problem and could support a 24 square foot size.
Commr. Gates supported the request but wanted to see the base details.
Commr. Bradford felt the sign did not harmonize with the building and wanted the base
modified.
Commr. Morris thought the colors may be acceptable but the base and sign should related
better to the building.
Commr. Starr wanted to see wood siding used on the base.
Commr. Cooper agreed the base should have wood siding.
Commr. Starr moved to approve the monument sign consisting of 24 square feet in area and
8 feet in height with modifications to the base to match the building.
Commr. Morris seconded the motion.
AYES: Staff, Morris, Bradford, Gates, McClave, Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jones
The motion passes.
I
C 11
February 23 , 1989
KtC:kIVtU
Mike Multari
Community Development Director FEB 261989
City of San Luis Obispo
Mr. Multari ;
At this point in time further project approval for the
Super- 8 Motel located at 1951 Monterey Avenue justifies
critical review. Any proposals which adjacent properties
regard to negatively impact the neighborhood, must achieve.
appropriate commission approval rather than administrative
approval even when the department considers it to be minor
and incidental. The most apparent immediate examples are;
elevated lighting, landscaping and irrigation.
At the ARC meeting where the developer presented a
partial landscape plan, the staff and the developer were
directed to return with detailed - comprehensive landscape
plans. After reviewing the most recent landscape plans
February 2.1, 1989 with the staff planner, it is apparent that
C ARC directions have not been implemented for the scheduled
February 21, 1989 meeting. .Therefore, we request that it not
be placed on the agenda until the staff and developer comply
with these directives.
From: San Luis Drive Association
'w
cc City Council
Roger Piquet, City Attorney
ARC
Planning Commission
See Attachment..
Concerns which are expected to be addressed in a detailed
plan include;
1. A general irrigation plans including an immediate one
for the olive Tree which has been identified as being in
stress due to the construction of the retaining wall
2 .Comprehensive parking plan including the idea proposed
for a cantilevered wall to permit car bumpers to extend over
the retainer wall facing the creek.
3 . Comprehensive fencing plan including the proposed fence
which is to be placed over the cantilevered wall directly
next to two matured trees -
4 Comprehensive plan for specimen tree replacement of mature
trees which were removed
5. Plans for screening active recreation areas such as the
pool or any noise generating equipment.
6. Plans for addressing the variables such as light,
glare,privacy,noise and traffic
7. This Super 8 Motel has not been designed to be
compatible with the adjacent commercial or residential
properties and was approved without notice given to
surrounding properties; therefore every possible means to
screen the noise, lights and traffic needs to be implemented.
FEB 2 S 1989
tarty of San LUIS Q0600
sedes site and environmental design
849 nwnson Luis obispo • calitornla f
805) 34=44c:. a eWlornia mrpm Uos
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
January 30, 1989
Mrs.Jane Anderson
1920 San Luis Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: San Luis Inn-Proposed Landscape Mitigations
Dear Mrs..Anderson:
Pursuant to my meeting at your property with Bonnie Oaritano on 1=25-89 and yourself
on 1-30-89, and review of conditions at the San Luis Inn, I offer the following as measures
which would mitigate the high visual impact of the rear of the motel as currently being
constructed:
1. The developer should provide automatic irrigation in the area below the new retaining
wall. Irrigation will help ensure that the existing alive tree thrives and producesdense foliage which will help screen parking area lights.
2. The developer should provide planting in front of the retaining well to soften the well.
Tall fast-growing native shrubs such as Myrice ealifornice (Pacific Wax Myrtle)
would be suitable.
3. The developer should plant several redwood trees in 30" box sizes or greater to provide
an initial screen 10' to 12' tall immediately along the rear building face. Fifteen
gallon trees, which when planted are about 6'-7' tall, may be planted along the toe of
the slope.
4. The developer should strongly consider replacing the Eucalyptus trees removed along
the northerly property boundary with suitable screen trees such as redwood or
eucalyptus. This will help screen the building from views looking southwesterly from
the San Luis Drive residences.
S. If feasible from a circulation standpoint, the plan should include a 3' to 4' wide
planting strip at the end of the parking area extending from the stairwell to the
southerly property line. This planter should be planted with shrubs to screen
headlights, and several trees to provide screening of the building.
In my professional judgement, the above recommendations are reasonable mitigation
measures and should be given due consideration by the ARC in view of the proximity of the
proposed project to a sensitive visual area.
cerely,
David F te, LA
Jerry D.Emery, ASLA David W. Foote, ASLA Dale A.Sutliff. ASLA
C1616 C2717 ( 1205 � -v�" 3
,.nn Ar4
ARC HEARING CHRONOLOGY
ARC 86-102, 1951 MONTEREY STREET
i 1/17/86 ARC grants final approval to project.
2/88
to 5/88 Construction begins. Inaccurate topography on approved plans necessitates
revisions to grading and building plans, which are approved by staff.
6/6/88 ARC denies applicant's request to remove additional trees at rear and side
of building site.
8/1/88 ARC approves location of stairwell at rear of building, with details of
stairwell and landscaping to return to commission.
10/3/88 ARC approves design of stairwell, with details to return to staff.
1/30/89 ARC reviews revised landscape plan, continues with direction to provide
plan for entire site, provide larger trees, etc.
2/27/89 ARC approves landscape plan, subject to changes to lighting, etc.
gts5:ar86102d:5