HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1998, 2 - APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE HERITAGE AT GARDEN CREEK, A RECENTLY APPROVED 64-UNIT SENIOR ASSISTED- CARE FACILITY AT 61 BROAD STREET council °
j acEnaa Report h4=Nu.�. z
CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Community Development Department's approval of the final
landscape plan for The Heritage at Garden Creek, a recently approved 64-unit senior assisted-
care facility at 61 Broad Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution "A" denying the appeal, and upholding the Community Development
Department's action.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On May 22, 1998, the Community Development Department (CDD) reviewed and approved the
final landscape plan for The Heritage at Garden Creek, finding the plans to be consistent with the
ARC-approved conceptual landscape plan. On July 7, 1998, Mr. Bill McLennan (appellant)
appealed the CDD's decision, to the City Council, claiming that the CDD approved a final
landscape plan that violates a condition of City Council Resolution and ignores the ARC-
approved conceptual landscape plan. A more thorough discussion of this issue is contained in
the evaluation section of the ARC staff report of August 3, 1998 (Attachment 3).
At its July 7, 1998, meeting,the City Council voted to refer this issue to the ARC for input and a
recommendation on the final landscape plan prior to the Council making a decision on the
appeal. This item was reviewed by the ARC on August 3, 1998. The ARC action is discussed
below and a copy of the ARC minutes is included as Attachment 4.
Architectural Review Commission Action
On August 3, 1998, the ARC held a public hearing to review the final landscape plans and make
a recommendation to the City Council. There was substantial discussion on the circumstances
surrounding the removal of the existing palms and the installation of replacement palms next to
the building. The ARC was concerned about the removal of the existing palm trees,but felt that
the proposed location of the replacement palm trees would mask the building much more
effectively than the trees in their original location, adjacent to the building. The ARC discussed
several issues including: the feasibility of modifying the building foundation to accommodate
palm trees next to the building; the possibility of installing another type of tree within the
narrow landscape planter on the north side of the building; the idea of revising the plan to
provide more palm trees along Broad Street; and the possibility of installing taller palm trees
than the 20' to 25' foot height specified in the landscape plan. In addition,the ARC felt that the
east side of the building was more important as it is the side of the building closest to the existing
residences.
Council Agenda Report
ARC 158-96, 61 Broad Street
Appeal of Final Landscape Plan
Page 2
After much debate, the ARC voted 4-0 (Commissioners Stevenson and Regier were absent and
Commissioner Rawson refrained from participating due to a potential conflict of interest) to
recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and approve the final landscape plan based on
the following findings:
1. The approved final landscape plans are in substantial compliance with the ARC-
approved concept landscape plan and meets the intent of City Council resolution
8674,which is to mask the three-story building from the street.
2. The developer consulted with the City Arborist and Public Works Department
before removing the existing palm trees, and did not arbitrarily remove the palm
trees.
The ARC also recommends that the City Council consider the following suggestions.
3. Replace the Washington Robusta(Mexican Fan Palm)with a Washington Filifera
(Califomia Fan Palm),which has a bigger trunk and larger fan to mask the
building even further. This species of palm tree grows to about 60 feet in height.
4. Review the availability of taller palms (more than 25' high)at the same location.
The ARC feels that the placement of the palm trees are fine, but that the initial
tree height needs to be increased from the 20' brown trunk height(total height of
25') shown on the plan.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council could adopt draft Resolution`B" upholding the appeal and direct the
applicant to revise the final landscape plan; or
2. The City Council may continue action with specific direction to the applicant and staff.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution"A" (Deny Appeal)
Attachment 2 - Draft Resolution`B"(Uphold Appeal)
Attachment 3 - Architectural Review Commission staff report of August 3, 1998
Attachment 4 - Minutes from ARC meeting of August 3, 1998
Draft Resolution "A"
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE FINAL
LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE HERITAGE AT GARDEN CREEK, A 64-
UNIT
4UNIT SENIOR ASSISTED-CARE FACILITY AT 61 BROAD STREET,
ARC 158-96
WHEREAS, on May 22, 1998, the Community Development Department of the City of
San Luis Obispo (Community Development) approved the final landscape plan for The Heritage
at Garden Creek, a 64-unit senior assisted-care facility at 61 Broad Street, finding said plan to be
substantially in compliance with the conceptual landscape plan approved by the City
Architectural Review Commission(ARC) in June of 1997 ; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development's approval of the final landscape plan was.
appealed to the City Council on July 6, 1998, and the City Council referred the landscape plan to
the ARC for input and a recommendation on said plans; and
WHEREAS, the ARC conducted a public hearing on August 3, 1998, for the purpose of
reviewing the final landscape plans and making a recommendation to the City Council on said
plans; and
WHEREAS, the ARC finds the final landscape plans in substantial compliance with the
ARC-approved conceptual plans and recommends that the City Council approve the final
landscape plan without modification; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 18, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the applicant, the records of
the Planning Commission hearings and recommendation, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1.Action: The appeal is hereby denied.
SECTION 2. Added Conditions: The final landscape plans shall be modified as follows:
1. The Washington Robusta(Mexican Fan Palm)shall be replaced with Washington Filifera
(California Fan Palm)to mask the building even further.
2. The palm trees shall have an initial brown trunk height of 30 feet.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of August, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Acting City Clerk Kim Condon
APPROVED:
/i/Kojey Je y dJorgensen
z-�
Attachment-2-
Draft Resolution"B"
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S APPROVAL OF THE FINAL
LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE HERITAGE AT GARDEN CREEK, A 64-
UNIT SENIOR ASSISTED-CARE FACILITY AT 61 BROAD STREET,
ARC 158-96
WHEREAS, on May 22, 1998, the Community Development Department of the City of
San Luis Obispo (Community Development) approved the final landscape plan for The Heritage
at Garden Creek, a 64-unit senior assisted-care facility at 61 Broad Street;finding said plan to be
substantially in compliance with the conceptual landscape plan approved by the City
Architectural Review Commission(ARC)on; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development's approval of the final landscape plan was
appealed to the City Council on July 6, 1998, and the City Council referred the landscape plan to
the ARC for input and a recommendation on said plans;and
WHEREAS, the ARC conducted a public hearing on August 3, 1998, for purpose of
reviewing the final landscape plan and to make a recommendation to the City Council on said
plan; and
WHEREAS, the ARC finds the final landscape plan, with modifications, is substantially
in compliance with the ARC-approved conceptual plan and satisfies the intent of the City
Council direction to break up the visual mass of the three-story building; and
WHEREAS, the. City Council conducted a public hearing on August 18, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the applicant, the records of
the Planning Commission hearings and recommendation, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff.
z�
Attachment 2
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1.Action: The appeal is hereby denied.
SECTION 2.Final Plan Modification. The final landscape plan shall be modified as follows:
(Council specifies final landscape plan modifications)
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of August, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Acting City Clerk Kim Condon
APPROVED:
City Attorney Jeffrey G.Jorgensen
�-6
Attachment.3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 3
BY: John Shoals,Associate Planner TING DATE: August 3, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manag
FILE NUMBER: ARC 158-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 55 and 61 Broad Street
SUBJECT: Appeal of Community 'Development Department's approval of final landscape
plans for The Heritage at Garden Creek.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the final landscape plan and make recommendation to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation -
The Community Development Department (CDD) reviewed and approved the final landscape
plan for The Heritage at Garden Creek, finding the plan to be in substantial compliance with the
conceptual landscape plan approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). This
decision has been appealed, to the City Council, by Mr. Bill McLennan (appellant) who asserts
that the CDD approved landscape plan violates City Council Resolution 8674 and ignores the
conceptual landscape plan approved by the ARC. This item is tentatively scheduled for City
Council consideration on August 18, 1998. The ARC is being asked to review the final
landscape plan and make a recommendation as to whether the plans are in substantial compliance
with Council direction and the ARC-approved conceptual landscape plan.
Project
Appeal of the Community Development Department's approval of a final landscape plan for The
Heritage at Garden Creek. Attachment"A" is a copy of the approved final landscape plan.
Project History
Following is a brief chronology of previous City actions on the project.
On April 4, 1997, the Subdivision Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing and approved a
subdivision of two lots into three lots (55, 61 and 73 Broad Street). The Hearing Officer's
decision was appealed to the City Council by several property owners in the immediate area. On
May 20, 1997, the City Council denied the appeal and approved the subdivision with findings
and conditions. Attachment"H"is a copy of City Council Resolution 8674(1997 series).
Attachment 3
A^7
ARC 158-96
61 Broad Street
Appeal of Final Landscape Plan
Page 2
On March 12, 1997, the City Planning Commission adopted Resolution 5217-97 approving a
mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact (ER 158-96), an amendment to the
property's Planned Development (PD 158-96).zoning to.allow.the conversion of the existing
building's use from student-housing to senior occupancy (55 Broad Street), and the construction
of a new senior assisted-care facility (61 Broad Street). The Commission action also called for
final project design to be approved by the ARC.
In March of 1997, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed.to the City Council by
several of the neighbors in the immediate area. The City Council heard the appeal on April 15,
1997, and continued the item to its May 20, 1997 meeting, with direction .to return with the
ARC's input on the project. On May 20, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8673
denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission action approving the PD
amendment and the new senior assisted-care facility. The Council left the approval of the
proposed building's design to the ARC.
On June 2, 1997, the ARC approved modifications to an existing building and site (55 Broad),
and granted final design approval for a new building at 61 Broad (ARC 158-96). The ARC
found that the applicant had substantially complied with the ARC direction to revise the project
to address the neighbor's concerns of building size, building mass and neighborhood
compatibility. Building modifications included: 1) increasing the building's street setback from
15 feet to 30 feet to be consistent with the existing buildings at 55 Broad and provide significant
landscaping in this setback area; 2) setting the building's third story 70 feet from the east
property line (with the exception of two small rooms which were allowed to be 62 feet); 3)
breaking up the roof line appearance with dormers and other architectural treatments; and 4)
maintain a maximum building height of 35 feet. The ARC also directed that the final landscape
plans return to the Community Development Department for final approval.
It should be noted that prior to making a final decision, the ARC reviewed this project on three
separate occasions—March 3, 1997 (schematic approval), April 21, 1997 (the project was
continued so the applicant could revised the project plans as directed by the ARC) and May 19;
1997 (final action continued to after the City Council's decision on the PD amendment appeal).
In June of 1997,the ARC's action was appealed to the City Council. On July 15, 1997, the City
Council adopted Resolution 8696 denying the appeal and upholding the ARC action approving
the new assisted care facility. A copy of the Council Resolution is included as Attachment"I."
On May 22, 1998, the building plans and the final landscape plan were approved by the
Community Development Department, and building permits were issued for construction. On
June 18, 1998, the appellant submitted a letter to the Mayor and City Council stating his
concerns with the removal of the existing palm trees from the site and the final landscape plan
approved by the Community Development Department(see Attachments"E and F'). On July 6,
1998, the CDD sent the appellant a letter informing him that the final landscape plan was
�-8
ARC 158-96
61 Broad Street
Appeal of Final Landscape Plan
Page 3
determined to be in substantial compliance with the ARC-approved conceptual landscape plan
and that the location of the replacement palm trees would"mask"the building(Attachment"G").
Mr. McLennan raised this issue again during the public comment period at the City Council
meeting of July 7, 1998. At that hearing, it was suggested that the approved final landscape plan
be reviewed by the ARC for its input and a recommendation to the City Council. The appeal has
been scheduled for the City Council meeting on August 18, 1998.
EVALUATION
The appellant asserts that the CDD approved a landscape plan that is in violation of: 1) a
condition, of City Council Resolution 8674, which requires that "...All existing trees will
remain, with the exception-of seven palms..." , and 2) the ARC-approved conceptual landscape
plan which requires the existing palm trees between the building and the sidewalk on the north
side of the building. It is the appellant's contention that the combination of the removal of the
existing large palms and the recently approved final landscape plan will leave the three-story
building"unmasked."
Staff has received numerous written and verbal communications from the appellant and
neighborhood residents regarding removal of the existing palm trees from the site. On several
occasions, City staff has written letters to Mr. McLellan to inform him of the status of the palm
trees and the reasons why certain decisions were made.
Removal of the Existing Palm Trees(Compliance with City Council Resolution 8674)
There has been some confusion as to: when the existing palm trees were initially discussed; the
number of existing palm trees shown to remain or be removed from the site, and how this
number was established; and the reasons why the existing palm trees were removed from the site.
The following discussion addresses these issues and attempts to provide clarification by
explaining the circumstances involved in the decisions made regarding the paha trees.
The existing palm trees were initially discussed during the processing of the applications for a
minor subdivision (parcel map) and architectural review. Tentative Parcel Map 157-96 showed
existing 17 palm trees within an existing parking lot at 61 Broad. The parcel map only showed
the existing structures, parking lot, creek, landscaping and the proposed lots. Because it was a
subdivision map, it did not show the general location of the future building and how it would
relate to the existing palm trees. Attachment"D"is a copy of the tentative parcel map.
The plans submitted with the initial ARC review application showed the general footprint of
building in relation to the existing paha trees. Attachment"C" is a copy of ARC-approved site
plan. The site plan showed a total of seven palm trees in the general vicinity of the new building,
which called for the removal or relocation of these trees. Using this site plan, a condition
ARC 158-96
61 Broad Street
Appeal of Final Landscape Plan
Page 4
addressing the removal of sevenpalm trees was incorporated into the. Subdivision Hearing
Officer's approval of the minor subdivision and was ultimately approved, on appeal, by the City
Council.
In the fall of 1997, City staff was notified, by the neighbors, that 17 existing palm trees were
removed from the site. Upon researching this matter, it was discovered that the developer was
allowed to remove the existing palms with the understanding that the trees (except for seven
palm trees) would be returned to the site, in the same general location, which would satisfy the
condition requiring these palm trees to remain on the site. For a host of reasons smaller
replacement palm trees were approved to go in place of the existing palm trees. Those reasons
are discussed below.
It is the appellant's opinion that the removal of these palm trees does not comply with the
language within City Council Resolution 8674. While staff would agree with the appellant that
the condition requires that these palm trees remain, it is staffs position that the condition, as
written and approved, provides the Public Works Department and the City Arborist with the
authority to make a determination as to the significance of the trees and the preservation of all of
the trees on the property, including those in the adjacent creek. Condition No. 5 of City Council
Resolution reads as follows:
"A tree protection plan and tree preservation bond shall be submitted prior to any
further development near or adjacent to the creek, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. Any future development shall not encroach within
the dripline of any tree determined to be significant by the City Arborist. All
existing trees to remain,with the exception of seven palms. No grade changes
are allowed within the dripline of oaks (emphasis added. If asphalt beneath
the dripline of oaks next to the creek is removed during construction, protective
fencing must be installed immediately to protect the dripliae area from
construction traffic. No materials or vehicles are to be stored or parked within the
dripline of any oak. The City Arborist must be notified prior to removal of such
asphalt."
The City Arborist and Public Works Department have indicated that there were several
circumstances involved in making the decision to allow the applicant to remove the 17 palm
trees. First,the site's elevation had to be raised for flood protection to comply with City Flood
Prevention Regulations. Second, the actual southerly property line was at a different location
than shown on the plans. Property lines on preliminary plans are typically representative as they
are based on County Assessor's Records or general legal descriptions, with the precise property
lines established later by a licensed land surveyor. Third, the dripline of the existing trees and
the riparian habitat projected further onto the site than anticipated, requiring that the building be
moved to maintain the required 20-foot creek setback. Finally, the City Arborist determined the
oak trees and riparian habitat to be more significant than the existing palm trees, which could be
ARC 158-96
61 Broad Street
Appeal of Final Landscape Plan
Page 5
easily removed and replaced in the same general area of the site. Based on these reasons, it was
determined that the building had to be moved north resulting in the removal and replacement of
the existing palm trees.
It should be noted that the final landscape plans were approved after the existing palm trees were
removed. The final landscape plan does, however, show that the trees in question will be
replaced.
The ARC should also consider that the primary reason for requiring the existing palm trees to
remain was to break up the visual mass of the three-story building, not because they were
considered to have historical significance or to be environmentally sensitive. While the appellant
makes a good point regarding the language of the condition, it is staff's opinion that the primary
purpose, which is to breakup the visual mass of the building, will be achieved with the plant
materials required in the approved final landscape plan.
Compliance with Conceptual Landscape Plans
The appellant also claims that the recently approved final landscape plan ignores the ARC-
approved conceptual plan which shows eight palm trees between the north side of the building
and the sidewalk. Attachment`B" is a copy of the conceptual landscape plan that was approved
by the ARC in June of 1997. As shown on the plan, there is a wide variety of trees, shrubs and
groundcover on all four sides of the building,especially the building's north and east sides which
will be most visible to the residents. Although the concept landscape plan does not call out
specific plant types, it does show 13 trees (including existing eight palm trees between the
building and sidewalk), a trellis with flowering vines, shrubs and groundcover to be located on
the north side of the building. The conceptual plan also calls for the installation of extensive
landscape materials,along Broad Street,to break up the mass of the building facing Broad Street.
City staff reviewed the final landscape plans for substantial conformance to the conceptual
landscape plan approved by the ARC. A reduced copy of the final landscape plan is included as
Attachment "A". As illustrated in the graphic, with the exception of the existing palm trees
-between the sidewalk and building,the final landscape closely matches the conceptual landscape
plan. There will be landscaping on all four sides of the building, especially on the east side of
the building,to break up the mass of the building facing Broad Street, and screen it from nearby
residents. The final landscape plan shows a total of 16 trees(12 palm trees, four Magnolia trees),
a wood trellis with flowering vines, numerous shrubs of varying height and groundcover on the
north side of the building. The palm trees will be Washingtonia Robusta (Mexican Fan Palm),
and will initially be about 25 feet high and grow to height of about of 60 feet.
As pointed out by the appellant, the final landscape plan does not require the palm trees to be
located next to the building. The primary reason for this decision is the narrow size of the
landscape planter next the building. This planter is approximately five feet wide with a net width
2 -/!
ARC 158-96
61 Broad Street
Appeal of Final Landscape Plan
Page 6
of 2.5 feet as there is a 30-inch wide building footing protruding into the planter. The planter's
width.was increased from three and a half feet to five feet at the direction of City staff.
Adherence to the City's Parking and Driveway Standards (which establishes a minimum
standards for parking and driveways) would not allow the size of the planter to expanded any
further. It is staff s.opinion that locating these palm trees in a narrow planter, with a large
building footing,would not provide adequate room for healthy growth.
The appellant was informed, by letter, of the reasons for the approved changes on July 6, 1998.
The appellant is of the opinion that if the building footings do not allow sufficient space for the
palm trees, then the building should be designed to accommodate a larger planter (meaning that
the building's size should be reduced). For clarification, this project has been through an
extensive planning and building process, and the project is currently under construction. It
would appear that requiring-the applicant to reduce the size of the building would not be feasible
at this time, and it would make the process susceptible to legal challenge.
While the approved location of the palm trees are not immediately adjacent to the.building,
it is staffs opinion that they are in a location that will achieve the same desired effect of
breaking up the visual mass of the building. Moreover, the final landscape_Aare
substantially in compliance with the ARC-approved concept plan. = __
Building and Planning Process Authority
While City staff understands the concerns of the appellant and the neighbors, this project has
undergone extensive review by the City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Commission and City staff to ensure that potential impacts are minimized or reduced to the
maximum extent feasible. It is not uncommon for one of these decision-making bodies to grant
City staff the authority to make decisions that meet the intent of the conditions of approval or
mitigation measures established for development projects which are often approved in concept
with final details to be worked out as part of the Building Permit Review and construction
process. Conditions of approval are typically worded: "...to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director, or Director of Community Development, or the City Arborist." This flexibility is
important as there may be some necessary project modifications to comply with City building
code requirements or state regulations. There are often unanticipated site conditions or other
unexpected developments during the actual construction of the project which require a decision
for change out in the field. This is a common situation with all projects in this City as well as
other jurisdictions.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The ARC could recommend that the final landscape plan be revised to include paha trees
next to the building and suggest different plant materials on the north side of the building.
ARC 158-96
61 Broad Street
Appeal of Final Landscape Plan
Page 7
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Public Works Department -Engineering Division and the City Arborist were consulted on
this project. Their comments are incorporated in the staff report. No other departments had
comments on this item:
RECOMMENDATION
Review the final landscape plan and recommend that the City Council deny the appeal. This
recommendation would be based on the ARC finding that the final landscape plan is
substantially in compliance with the ARC-approved landscape plan and meets the intent of City
Council Resolution 8674. .
Attachments:
Attachment"A"- Reduced scale Final Landscape Plan
Attachment"B"- Reduced scale Conceptual Landscape Plan
Attachment"C"- Preliminary Building Footprint with Existing Palm Trees
Attachment"D"- Reduced scale Parcel Map with Existing Palm Trees
Attachment"E"- William McLennan letter dated July 7, 1998
Attachment"F" - William McLennan letter dated June 18, 1998
Attachment"G"- Arnold Jonas letter dated July 6, 1998
Attachment"H"- City Council Resolution No. 8674(MS 157-96)
Attachment"P' - City Council Resolution No. 8673 (PD 158-96)
Attachment"J"- City Council Resolution No. 8696(ARC 158-96)
BhoaldARGARC 158-96(McLennan)
a-�3
R n
�� �, ■rte _ - --- - - ®- -�
��r ,(1 I��/ ,�� I�"C• �.v �.�w•e'. �►���• A I� ^��C ,.� ^tri.
/ a7R��I�/a1�71�1rP ��ei�/r�.\Il�� ,J ��o, ►� . IIn � �
� ..r.a � www•i��
NO
ILI
- _,■;III�_
fflIrA
now
ti"-■ LJ Gi � � 'S, -
i
O 6
I C9 I i
.Plant List
ABBREV OTY SIZE BOTANICAL NAME/COMMON NAME.- NOTES
TBEES
MAG GRA 24"BOX MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA/SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Dt1.'40,L-3
PYR KAW 36"BOX PYRUS KAWAKAMII/EVERGREEN PEAR
TRI CON 15G " '' TRISTANIA CONFERTA/BRISBANE BOX
WAS ROB 20'B.T.H. WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA!MEXICAN.FANPAL.M Dt1. 43,L-3
SHRUB
BOU'GY 5G BOUGAINVILLEA'CRIMSON JEWEL'/BOUGAINVILLEA Dtl. 41,L-3
CAM JAP'KS' 5G CAMELLIA JAPONICA 'KRAMER'S SUPREME'/NCN
CAM SAS T 5G CAMELLIA SASANQUA TANYA'/NCN
FAT JAP 15G FATSIA JAPONICA/JAPANESE ARALIA
FUC'GB' 5G FUCHSIA 'GARTENMEISTER BONDSEDT/NCN
.NAN DOM 15G NANDINA DOMESTICA/HEAVENLY BAMBOO
NER OLE TS' 5G' NERIUM OLEANDER'PETITE SALMON'/OLEANDER
PHI SEL 15G PHILODENDRON SELLOUM/PHILODENDRON
PIT TOB'CM' 5G PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 'CREME DE MINT/NCN
PIT TOB'V' 15G PITtOSPORUM TOBIRA'VARIEGATA'/VARIEGATED TOBIRA
RAP IND 'JE' 5G RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'JACK EVANS'/INDIA HAWTHORNE
STR REG 15G STRELITZIA REGINAE/BIRD OF PARADISE
VIB JAP 15G VIBURNUM JAPONICA/JAPANESE VIBURNUM
Y1NES
DIS BUC 5G DISTICTUS BUCCINATORIUS/RED TRUMPET VINE Dtl. 41.L-3
GROUND..COVER
A 24"O.C. 5G AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS/LILY-OF-THE NILE
B 30"O.C. 1G 700/6 LANTANA 'SPREADING SUNSHIJVE'/TRAILING LANTANA &Dtl. 42,L-3
30"O.C. 1 G 30% LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS/TRAILING LANTANA
C 24"O.C. 1G PELARGONIUM PELTATUM 'BALCAN RED'/IVY GERANIUM
D 30"O.C. SG PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 'WHEELER'S DWARF/NCN
E 30"O.C. 5G TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES/STAR JASMINE
F 24"O.C. 5G ' GARDENIA JASMINOIDES'RADICANS'/GARDENIA
IAIN G 5'O.C. 1G 45% RIBES VIBURNIFOLIUM/EVERGREEN CURRANT
5'O.C. 1 G 40% ROSA CALIFORNICA/WILD ROSE
5'O.C. 1G . 15% SYMPHORICARPUS ALBUS/SNOWBERRY
H 9"O.C. 4" POTS ANNUAL COLOR:
LAWN
LAWN TO BE HYBRID TURF-TYPE TALL FESCUE(SOD)
NOTE:
PLANT UST IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY; IN CASE OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE PLAN
AND THE SCHEDULE.THE PLAN SHALL PREVAIL.
B.T.H. = BROWN TRUNK HEIGHT
STREET TREES TO BE LOCATED 10' MINIMUM AWAY FROM SEWER 2 /g
LATERALS. VERIFY LOCATION OF LATERALS IN THE FIELD
i A I AI
/�-_—_._ ��[ff ��Ili Il 11 li�r�,..l•�ws: . .C'F9 S:��ls�w
r `, �r►.tie„- �. ` ii
■�I �o.omaamo:�.aoo cio�aa:F,ow®a II
all ,cDS� d8 �,awo� J;It� [
da. d,- -. to•• ��t
� ✓ I (€
.r: I
INS
{ f /�lT1.Cie.,�eYt% �,Y 'n1P \°' '4
�7Q,yq/0 ,Pi
21 I a(1111`'a'/ j gi
AA
—
I��'
G 9 ,
F
'��, �����4 ti��Q� -�► Vii. y'�. ' �,+ �8°�►1
p {
r
Ahz
Omw
60
yo
LL
•.r ,��, "lam, p- llp7 •����. ,1, a
r.
Pm 511
I S�t •b ms I 'Val
ol
ilo
. s i
�lyyi
�-1 r
/�� -•�����y T, 1'.11 ',1
\... 'r-+'i� \ C�� wJ«Rv � �`ut1
• \ J < -gv' 9vV
� /YYYYYY,'+0..Yi•�4'Yres`-""4�'� 1 X53„ �. � :I '
F�q `.dlP"LsIR 11�/
PIS
@k a .
r,s6� y.� �`��+✓.F� '" '� Y"%'xr"�9`! -6&N t
.,Sap—
MS, T.-'Xl.,..YC'..G )�q�` e+..,.- sti,�:)■■
_ - 'r.' - .'%i: °. .:1..+ _.eYy-./.;Y.'c�G'. • :..any
,y.: ::J I: _ .r IJ'�i-):�.:•: '.1 i'f, v.tl�.... .J.._^a.' ^f:'`'\-
::;v. '.�' ry';— '',N -. :..'�'G., Wr�kP:�.'•' SO:��lr.rl_IL'Y S, .^fJ.,J 1�. y.M.'ii� l�I k��'~J.:L'•n4�^' �!�•'...;.
..Y ';jt4. 'J ��i: �J,:4'; `' •.Y•:' ..:a". r.. ..•.,�,'•. " .1ij,,. a.J�7idy'. 7. ,�{..'• �,^I`;�P.SI,.
'.i:,n. nY "``Iy.� :� .1. .t{}•{? _ rt � i'..::v,.�r :nr t... ;.1 • r�_. ,�,
,:'�...5 i .[t:��l' .•i-. �•'''l ':'ri:��•i�S%ftij�+:}�'•:r. sG�'•'t:.�'.. !'{i :'�',n`•`F.:i:�s`.C:�i:''.'C. w �t:.Lf..D'} •_t. lr:,:,•!1'�y
.:[�' �`rF ./� w.�f' _ .�:.. .:.Y_�c.+c.�gni;:if:C";.'- .a,.v$�.ti�.a.pL•Je .l. 'ilf.'$k'S I•"•:e:`� cT�y.K.•Ca:�'r't�i''1r.'•c•',�,,.1,.�-r"•'
�:' :`j. ,!+n�i:�.i�'I: lG ..�:r: ) :r:St. :`.�•... �^:. � �•: � � �.ti� s4 'vl.. �¢.�.'
1 :rY! ''v.4'ti�.•..wf..♦'� � •�. t'••-\_. r.•..ti•F .ke:-.i.j '�'r�::.4�•.S`..4`..,S.i•,'••' • ' 4. �v
��n�r.Y�p r' f • Y::
,i+ala.:./�.. :..:T.. - •i�_♦'i. '.r.. wl dy6�r +.•erc.: .Ll.'. s ., :. -, .h:'.'�7:9;-, �...;,.r.�l {-.a �..t• ..
'st �•'4, �,f. Ci♦Yh'C.;J:•.`f .•.i¢••'rj'.'%{• Y.` 44 41,:f•{:� •• � ���
n'4 ..1:.. ..Ij• :'y'
.� T T. ` •��.,.,.
Ilk
a° , votwr �• 1: 6d
jo
- .y
si I 1 �i Ina
f
PC_ , .. ' •�1
L
\.� `\`� � — � '�_ ���-�Bu�^'. .��� 'moi J _���``.�• ��•� ����• l•- � .
1 �� . �� •����_�<—� \ �J ^8'. �
Si / / 1 • li
/ e
i . � o .,htitsa
�. if ) � B6 RT��33&VD,�'IIO • 1.. ..
^ `Q 71iy/ ou/ 1A)I. l }v
Z )jpd Jad
— — �sa i Pp'99Z/30/£66I Jad s: bs6uMZ
0992J6U1 '6UIIJpd NIOMapis V ja}3n6. �gjno
"E .06 • I N - 3 —
IoaJn UMI Z 1fA ,
CL 0
s I
mot
m 11 N., . � .� r'1 .. :. .� .�, 4: `• �.
N 1
ETin% '
,y IN )' W
cv
Ea!; I M. a ..y�In IN - c f N I N 11`.� 1 I ;' QI
'I Ilm
a �I NEy t0 N I I
p O c01 O N c 1'. ob
• I I o N E C 1'
mI c a ! ' O
' IM
C4I nl " it W
m �p N d c7�
C%j . �. E o I o Oan0 Ini
0 I Icrn a t _ . Q as
°` 1511
I I E iz c v
WV !
s.
tnID
t0 YC� L L � I, •s nal I `•\ Y Y U 1�_ 111 .�
I. O p O I o 1 }
-Y 0 1r y
o v' N pI Y �� Y ' s . Z ! I Cd
N V • I .16
O /
o
01 Y
1p
CO
•
o -ems -' 1'• . - o Q.'. � t,7r!_/ %'
. L �O ', •�"' ��•5 Yom_ /. \O� .� � /;
VALLIAM R.McLENNAN RECEIVED
AnWOMAruw
1022 MQ.L STREET,SUITE E JUL 0 7 1998
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401
"� ►S1°°i2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
�1AD�°iO706®AO1'°0M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Arnold Jonas . .July 7, 1998
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,Cal. 93401 Hand Delivered
Re:The Heritage at Garden Creek(73 Broad Street) and City Counsel Resolution 8674
Dear Mr. Jonas:
Thank you for your letter dated July 6, 1998, concerning elimination of palm trees
on the north side of the proposed building at The Heritage at Garden Creek-
I do not believe the Community Development Department has the legal authority
or the delegated discretion to alter the clear, explicit language of the City Council Resolution
8674. Both Resolution 8674 and the approved plans require the existing palm trees to remain on
the North face of the proposed building to shield its incredible mass from the neighborhood. If
the building footings do not allow sufficient space for required palm trees,the building should be
designed to accommodate a larger planter.
Since the language of Resolution 8674 and the approved plans.are so exact,I
believe the appropriate course of conduct is to place this matter on the City Council agenda and
allow all parties to advocate their position.To do otherwbe demonstrates blatant disrespect for
those who work so hard to include the"palm trees"in Resolution 8674 and achieve the balanced
integration of this project into our neighborhood.
I will attempt to being this matter to the attention of the City Council this evening.
Sincerely,
William R McLennan
2-20
Attachment "E"
Attachment '71
WILLIAM R.McLENNAN
ATMRNEYAruw
1022 MILL STREET,SUITE E
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401
0$44.7" naM5 4 =
r nun:MCONO►oLCON
Honorable Mayor and City Council June 18, 1998
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401 Hand Delivered
Re:The Heritage at Garden Creek(73 Broad Street)and City Counsel Resolution 8674
Dear Mayor and City Counsel:
Despite months of input and protest by neighborhood members,the planning
department approved a landscape plan for The Heritage at Garden Creek on May 22, 1998,that
ignores the explicit language of City Counsel Resolution 8674("All existing trees will remain,
with the exception of seven palms") and the plans approved by the ARC that required palms
between the building and the sidewalk on the north-east side of the building.
This is not a trivial issue. The Heritage at Garden Creek will be a massive 3-story
building directly adjacent to an R-1 neighborhood. Neighborhood appellants, 68 in number,
attempted unsuccessfully to limit the size of this building. We fought for and obtained one small
concession:the large existing palm trees located between the sidewalk and the new building
would remain to `mask"the bulk of this three-story structure.
In the fall of 1997, all pahns were stripped off the site. The newly-approved
plans do not require any palms against the side of the building and only require six smaller palms
in the adjacent parking lot. The three-story mass of this building is not longer`masked."
In addition,there is serious neighborhood concern that the building is not"30 feet
from the street property line"as required by Resolution No. ARC 158-96.
This is a matter of principal. My neighbors and I participated in good faith in the
process of government. In the give and take of politics,we accepted both our defeat and the
unnecessary denigration of our neighborhood. However,we expect city resolutions to be
enforced or proper procedures followed to change them This matter must be placed on the
Counsel agenda and, after public input,Resolution 8674 should be amended or the developer
required to comply with its explicit terms.
rely,
William R.McLennan RECEIVED
—]
JUN 1R1998
. Attachment "G"
Milo
A .
cityo san wis '061SPO . ..
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,.CA 93401-3249
July 62 1998
William R.McLennan
1022 Mill Street, Suite E
San Luis Obispo, CA 93.401
SUBJECT: THE HERITAGE AT GARDEN CREEK (73 BROAD STREE1) AND CITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8674,
I am writing in response to your letter of June 18, i998.,which states your concerns with.further
construction of the above:referenced project. Specifically,you expressed concern with aspects of
the approved final landscape plans, and the future building's distance from the Broad Street
property line.
City staff reviewed the final landscape plans for substantial conformance to the conceptual
landscape plan approved by the City Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Copies of those
Plans are included for your reference. In reviewing the plans, staff evaluated the overall
landscaping as well as the plant material proposed for the north side of the building. It is stag's
Opinion that the final landscape plan is in substantial conformance with the conceptual landscape
plan approved by the ARC. As shown in the final plan, there will be landscaping on all four
sides of the building, especially on the east side of the building where substantial plant materials
(trees, shrubs and groundcover) will be installed to break up the mass of the building facing
Broad Street,and screen it from nearby residents.
You are correct in your statement that the final plans do not show any palm trees between the
sidewalk and the north wall of the building. Staff was also concerned that the initial landscape.
plan did not show palm trees in this location, where existing trees were noted to remain on the
Preliminary plan. The applicant was directed to-revise the plans to show palm trees adjacent to
the building's north elevation. However, during building permit application review, it was
discovered that adherence to building code requirements and City Driveway standards would
result in the net width of the landscape planter being too small to accommodate the palm trees.
Locating these trees in a narrow planter, with a large building footing, would not provide
adequate space for healthy growth. It was only after discussing this issue with a licensed
landscape architect that staff was convinced that the palm trees would do better in a parking lot
planter rather than a narrow planter adjacent to the building.
You also indicate that there are only six small palm trees in the,adjacent parking.lot. The final
landscape plan shows a total of 12 palm trees, four Magnolia trees, a wood trellis with flowering
vines,numerous shrubs of varying height and groundcover on the north side of the building. The Z;
2
William McLennan letter
73 Broad Street.
Page 2
palm trees will be Washingtonia Robusta(Mexican Fan Palm),and will initially be about 25 feet
high. This species of tree is very fast growing and achieves a maximum height of 60 to 80 feet
:with good conditions. While the palm trees are not immediately adjacent to the building, it is
staffs opinion that they are in a location that will achieve the same desire effect of breaking up
the mass of the building.
Regarding your concern for the proper location of the new building relative to its setback from
Broad Street,please be aware that the foundation location was established by a licensed surveyor
to insure accuracy. In addition, this dimension has been checked in the field by the Community
Development Department staff from the Building and Planning Divisions, and it has been found
to be accurate and in compliance with the conditions of approval for the project.
Please be assured that City staff considers your concerns important, and that we all are working
to make sure that the project is constructed in substantial compliance with all project approvals.
I would, however, ask that you recognize that the ARC approved a conceptual landscape plan,
and that there may be some modifications based on building code requirements, site conditions
or other unexpected developments in the field during the actual construction of the project This
is a common situation with all projects in this City as well as other jurisdictions.
I hope that this-information answers your concerns. If you have further questions, you can
contact me at 781-7170.
A4Jonas, "CoatDepartment
cc: Mayor and City Council
Architectural Review Commission
John Dunn,City Administrative Officer
VRen Hampian,Assistant City Administrative Officer
on Whisenaad,Development Review Manager
John Shoals,Project Planner
Enclosures:
1. William McLennan letter dated June 18, 1998
2. Conceptual Landscape Plan approved by the ARC
3. Final Landscape Plan
Y i _ Attachment "H"
RESOLUTIONNO. 8674(1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THECOUNCIL,OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL.OY TH_E.HEARING OFFICER'S
ACTION,THEREBYAPPROVINGA SUBDIVISION OF:TWO.LOTS INTO THREE,
AT 61 BROAD STREET
(MS 157-96)
WHEREAS,the Subdivision Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on April 4, 1997,
and approved a subdivision of two lots into three at 61 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS,William McLennan appealed that action;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a ;public hearing on May 20, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties,the records of the Subdivision hearing and action,and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Categorical Exemption from
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as prepared by staff and
reviewed by the Subdivision Hearing Officer;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows: .
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project is exempt from
CEQA because it is a Minor Land Division in an urbanized area (CEQA Class 15, Section
15315), where all standards are met, and this determination reflects the independent judgment of
the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Categorical Exemption.
SECTION 2. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby denies the appeals and
upholds the Hearing Officer's action approving the subdivision based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements,as conditioned, are consistent with.
the General Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the High-Density
Residential,with Planned Development (R4-PD)zone.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements,as conditioned, are not likely to
cause serious health problems,substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably
injure fish or wildlife-or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for
access through,or use of property within,the proposed subdivision.
2 ^24
Resolution no. 8674 (1997 Series)
.MS 157-96
61 Broad Street
Page 2
•5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed land division is exempt
from environmentalreview,because it meets�all standards(Class 15,Section 15315).
6.:. The design of the proposed subdivision,including four lots, may not be physically suited to the
constructionof another building on proposed.lot 1.
SECTION 3.The approval is subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
Conditions:
1. The final map shall show a total of three parcels,with proposed parcel 1 combined with parcel 2 or
4, or otherwise reconfigured so that the property within.parcel 1 is part of a lot that contains a
building.
2: All boundary monuments,lot comers and centerline intersections,BC's,EC's,etc.,shall be tied to
the City's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the
coordinates shall. be submitted.with the final map. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk,
containing the appropriate data for use in AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format,.DXF) for
Geographic Information system (GIS) purposes, is also required to be submitted to the City
Engineer. Any exception to this requirement must be approved by the City Engineer.
3. The subdivider shall install a City standard handicap ramp at the comer of Ramona and Palomar,
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
4. The final map,public improvement plans and specifications shall use the Intemational System of
Units(metric system).The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary
(for example,all record data shall be entered on the map.in the record units, metric translations
should be in parenthesis),to the approval of the City Engineer.
5. A tree .protection plan and tree preservation bond shall be submitted prior to any further
development near or adjacent to the creek,to the satisfaction of the.Director of Public Works.Any
future development shallnot encroach within the dripline of any`tree determined to be significant
by the City Arborist All existing trees are to remain,with the exception of seven palms.No grade
changes are allowed within the dripline of.any oaks.If asphalt beneath the dripline of oaks next to
the creek is removed during construction, protective fencing must be installed immediately to
protect the dripline area from construction traffic. No materials or vehicles are to be stored or
parked within the dripline of any oak.The City Arborist must.be notified prior to removal of such
asphalt.
6:. The developer shall install bicycle racks near the entrance of each building(two bicycles per rack).
Each building shall have bike lockers for two bicycles,or comparable enclosed spaces dedicated to
this use.
..Resolution no- 8674 (1997 Series)
MS 157-96
61 Broad Street
-Page 3
7. -The engineer for the project shall submit water.dewand and-wastewater generation calculations so
that the City can make a determination as to.the adequacy of the supporting'inrastructure,If it is
discovered that an'off--site deficiency exists; ithe subdivider will be required to mitigate the
deficiency as a part of the overall project
8. The subdivider must submit an agreement for common parking and access for all lots,along with
recording fees,to the approval of the Community DevelopmentDirector.
9. The subdivider shall dedicate a six-foot-wide public utility easement and a.10'-wide street tree
easement along all public street frontages,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
10.Any bridging of the creek shall be in compliance with the City's Flood Management Policy Book
(specifically regarding clear-spanning of creeks)and approved by the City Council,Department of
Fish and Game,and Corps of Engineers.
11.Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or
removals,and any necessary erosion repairs shall.be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works, The'Community Development Director; Corps of Engineers and,the Department of Fish
and Game.
12.Density on all parcels must be consistentwith City regulations,as approved by the City Council in
its action on the Planned Development appeal.
Code Requirements:
1. The applicant shall submit a parcel map for approval and recordation. The map shall be prepared
by, or under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The parcel
map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Subdivision Regulations.
2. All parcels shall be served by individual water,sewer and utilities services.
3. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit
4. A water allocation shall be developed for the proposed building on proposed parcel 3. Water
allocations may also need to be developed for parcel 2, if the remodeling results in increased
demand on the water system.The City's WaterConservation Division caa;help in determining the
needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits:
S. Water and WastewaterImpact Fees shall be paid.at the time building permits are issued.Both the
Water and the Wastewater Impact Feeare based
s on the size of the water meter serving each
parcel
2-mak
k
Resolution no. 8674 (1997 Series)
MS 157-96 .
61 Broad Street
Page
6... All buildings shall have oil.and.sand separators to the satisfaction of the City's Industrial Waste
Coordinator.
.7. EPA requirement:A General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is required for all storm
water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation
results in land disturbance of.five or more'acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres,
that are a part of a larger common plan of development or sale,also require a permit.A permit is
required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity
Permit,the owner of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed"Notice of
Intent"(NOI)form,with the appropriate fee,to the State Water Board:
Upon motion of Council Member Romero 2seconded by Council Member Williams .
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Romer49Williams, Smith, Roalman, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 20 day of May 1997.
ATTEST:
ity Clerk Bo .
Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i omJ ey J ensen
Attachment "I"
(CORRECTED COPY)
RESOLUTIONN0.8673 .,(1997 Series)
A'RESOLUTION,OF;THE CO�UNCIL,-OF-THE.CM, OF.
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING Ar1APPEr6I;;OF THE PL'AN1�Iri.G.COMNIISSION'S.
ATI
CON,T'HEREBYAPPROVING AMEND>MNTS TO.A�PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
TO ALLOW.CONVERSION.OF:AN.FJSTII, ,G BUlLDIkG TO SENIOR OCCUPANCY
:AND-ALLOWINGCONSTRUCTIUIfOF,: NASSISTED'C.AREFACI :TTY
1
PD..1:58 9 `
WHEREAS,the Planning Co*r+�ion.conducted a public hearing on March 12, 1997, and
.approved amendments to an approved planned development at 61 Broad Street;and
WSEREAS;William McLennan,Florence Tartaglia, Charlotte E. Moskiman, and Jan Scuri
filed appeals of.that action;and
WMEREAS, the City Council conducted-a ;public hearing on May 20, 1997 and.has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records. of.the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration with
mitigation of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning
Commission;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE Tr RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration with mitigation adequately.add_resses the potential,.significant environmental::impacts
of the proposed amendment to the planned development, and,reflects the independent judgment of
the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION.2. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby denies the appeals and
upholds the Planning Commission's action approving the amendments based on the following.
findings:
Fvidings:
I. The facilities as designed or modified are suitable for senior occupancy.
2. The project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of persons living or
worldng .in the vicinity, because it will.provide a. variety.of living arrangements.for elderly
persons, along with suitable amenities, within`one area, allowing efficienf use of facilities and
assistance to the elderly according to need.
3. Senior .housing is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses, because,the use,.in_general;.is:quiet.and easily.integrated into a lower
density residential aneighborhood, and because the 'use:`is. near shopping and .health care
services. a_
i .. I
Resolution no: 8673 (1997 Series)
P'D 158-W'.. .
61-Broad Street
Page 2
The'proposal_conforms with the;generaliplan;,which says that;group;housing=may;be.;permitted
in highlensity residential.areas, where itis supportive ofand compatible. with'high=density
dwe
. pings.
SECTION 3.The approval is subject to the following mitigation measures and conditions:
Mitigation measures:
I.Mitigation Measure:
:The Architectural Review Commission :shall :evaluate the appropriateness of the new
building's scale (height, bulk and massing) in:terms of compatibility.with the surrounding
neighborhood. The issue of impacts to the view corridors of nearby residents shall also be
considered.
Monitoring Program:.
Compatibility issues shall be addressed by the both the'Planning.Commission and the
Architectural Review Commission with their-review of.the:pro*ect..-Compliance with the
conditions of both these review.bodies shall be overseen by Planning staff during building
permit plan check.
2..Mitigation Measure: .
The'applicant shall submit a detailed landscaPmg/creek restoration plan along with plans
submitted for final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The
Plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L.
Holland, Ph.D. dated December 1996 and incorporated into this study be reference. The
plans shall be routed to the City's Resource Manager for review and comment, and will
also require the review and approval'.of other agencies with regulatory control over work
done in the riparian corridor of Garden Creek, specifically the State Department of Fish"
and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Monitoring Program:.
The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve the landscaping and creek
restoration.plan Community .Development`Department staff will coordinate with other
regulatory agencies with jurisdiction`over:plans;.review':building permit plans to insure
consistency with ARC approvals and provide field inspections.to confirm that'installation
complies.with plans.
3. 1�C wation Measure,
Consistent with`.the recommendations included in the Seismic.Safety Element,.a detailed
sod engineering report needs mto=be`submitted at`.the` time`'of building permit :which
considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to.address the-potential for Z;
liquefaction. 'It shall identify .the soil profile on site -,and provide site preparation �_
V
Resolution no. 8673 (1997 Series)
PD.158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 3
recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and.building must be
:_;designed-and.performed in.compliance:with.the.soils.engineering report.
Monitoring Program•
The Community.Development Department staff will 1review.plans in conjunction with the
sods engineering report through the building:perrtiit plan check process.
4.:Mitigation Measure:
Oil_and sand..:separators .or .other.1iltering::media shall be_installed:.at_each-drain inlet
intercepting runoff as as means of filtering.toxic:substances-.from-mn-off before•it enters the
creek directly or through the storm water-system. Theseparator separator must be regularly
maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development and the Utilities Department staff (Industrial . Waste
. .Coordinator) will review plans for compliance through the building :permit plan check
process and subsequent inspections.
5. Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with Municipal.Code'Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307:2); all graded surfaces
shall .be wetted, protected or contained in.:such a manner as to.prevent dust or spill upon
anyadjoining property or street. The following .measures shall.constitute the project's
dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage
of all active areas); -
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or
off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the
construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Monitoring Program: -30
GL/
Resolution no- 8673 . (1997 Series)-
PD•158-96 .
�61 Broad Street
:Page:4
Grading practices shall be monitored by:.the Community Development Department.staff
. .through"field inspections dming:proj . construction.
6. 1VTitigation'Measure:
In conjunction-:with required fire sprinkler_and.fire alarm.systems, a graphic.annunciator
panel shall be installed to the approval.of:the'Fire`Marshall.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement:shall be monitored through the review..of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
7.,Mitigation Measure:
Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed to expedite
emergency access.
Monitoring Program:
... .:Compliance with this requirement shall be.monitored.through.the review.of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
8. Mitigation Measure:
An emergency.vehicle loading area shall:.be,provided:for the.new.assisted living facility.
The:-loading :area.shall-be located as: to :m+*+imize:noise and glare :impacts to::adjoining
neighbors and shall not block or otherwise compromise other required parking spaces:
Monitoring Program:
Design of the emergency vehicle loading area shall be reviewed and monitored through the
review of plans during architectural review and building permit plan check.
9. Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate:
* Skylights to maxmuze natural day lighting.
* Operable windows to maxmnze natural ventilation.
* Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the. event operable windows and skylights .are <not feasible .alternatives for tenant
K. .. - .-.... .i..
operational reasons, buildings should be designed to.exceed energy..conservation standards
in the California Energy Code by 10%
Monitoring Prom-am: T17
Resolution no. 8673 (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
.61 Broad Street
Page 5
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored .through the review of plans
submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
10. 11Titigation Measure:.
The developer'shall.install an oil and-grease separator at an appropriate location in the
sewer system to the approval of the City's.Industrial Waste Coordinator.
Monitoring Program:
The 'Utilities'.Department staff (Industrial. Waste .Coordinator) .will-,.review .plans for
compliance through the building:permitplan check process and inspections.
11. Mitigation Measure:
The new assisted care facility and the remodeled building at 61 Broad shall incorporate
facilities for interior.and exterior on-site recycling. A..plan for:recycling.construction waste
shall be submitted to the Community Development!.Director prior -to lbuilding permit
issuance. Construction waste shall berecycled in accordance.with this plan. '
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with.this requirement shall:be monitored through the review of detailed.plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community
Development Department staff.
12. Mtigation Measure:
All exterior lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto
adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the required
architectural review process, with special attention given to the height and type of lighting
fixtures.
Monitoring Program:
Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of plans during
architectural review and building permit plan check.
13. Mitigation Measure:
An Archaeological Resources Inventory. (ARI) shall be completed prior to final
architectural review of the project .(Phase. I report). In addition, a Subsurface
Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SAKE) will.be.required for those area of the site
where excavation is proposed. .The report shall note that a-.qualified archaeologist will be
retained to monitor project grading ,and trenching activities. If excavations encounter
significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then
construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of-the resource is
determined and appropriate protective' measures are approved by the Community
Development Director. The Community .Development Director shall be notified of the "3
�l -
Resolution.no. -8673 (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61'Broad Street
Page 6
extent and location of discovered materials so.that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist.
:Monitoring Program.
Compliance with this requirement .shall.---be: monitored ::through;the.review .of plans
submitted for:architectural review and a'.building pefmit-by.:the'Community Development
Department staff and subsequent inspections.
14.Mitigation Measure .
-.- ..If:pre-historic;-Native:American Tartifacts are- encountered,•-a-Native--American monitor
should.be called in to work with the"archaeologist to document and remove the items.
Disposition'of artifacts shall comply with state and federal'laws. A note concerning this
requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Program
- .-Compliance with..this-requirement :shall be .monitored -through ahe ,review of plans
-submitted for a.building.permit by the.Community.Development Department staff.
Conditions:
. 1. Occupancy of the complex shall.be limited to.residents:who.are 62 years.of:age or older. The
-maximum-occupancy"of.The-Heritage-is:80 residents. The.ownersand man.agers shall:allow
the City to verify occupancy of the building by inspection of,records'or by a visual inspection
of the premises." Any inspection shall be scheduled at a reasonable.time.of day.and shall be
preceded by a one-hour notice to the management. A notice must be submitted to the
Community Development Director, for approval and recordation, informing future owners of
this restriction.
2. A minimum of 185 parking spaces, 9 bicycle spaces, and 9 motorcycle spaces shall be.
provided on the site at all times.
Thirteen parking spaces must be designated and maintained, four of which are accessible to
the handicapped and nine of which are for visitors, on the north side of The Heritage. Spaces
required for visitor and disabled parking at the Heritage may also be included in this location.
The parking area cannot be used for staff or resident parking. However, two spaces, if
Possible, will be added for resident parking ; making a .total of fifteen parking spaces on the
north side of The Heritage..
Bice i'adm must be installed near the entrance of each building (two bicycles per rack). Each
building shall provide bike lockers for two.bicycles or comparable enclosed.and marked
spaces, for the use of employees..No charge shall be made to:employees for the use of these 2 _3
-lockers. /
�
7
Resolution no. 8673 (1997 Series)
PD 158=96.
61 Broad Street
Page.7. .
No'specific number of parking spaces has been determined.as.appropriate for The Heritage at
_ -thisaime.JU-necessary; sucha:determinationwill.be.:madein.the:future.
The management and owners will establish and enforce rules which require, that staff and
residents park on site.
3. The final design of the assisted care facility.must be to the approval of the Architectural
Review.Commission.
4. Jf: halt beneath..the-dri line of oaks near the .creek is -removed d
�P dripline wring-construction,
protective fencing must be installed immediately to protect the dripline:area from construction
traffic. No materials or vehicles are to be stored Or parked within the dripline of any oak. The
City Arborist must be notified prior to removal of this asphalt.
5. The subdivider must submit an agreement.for common parking and.accessfor all lots,along with
recording fees,to the approval of the Community Development Director.
Upon.motion of Councihnember Romero' . second6dby:Council
member Williams, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: CouncilmembersRomero,Williams,Smith,Roalman,Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 20' day of_May 1997.
ATTEST:
rtY Clerk B e wf Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:-
yU
rney a Jo en '17
-- Attachment "d"
RESOLUTIONNO. 869 6(1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE
ARCHTI'ECTURALREVIEW COMMISSION'SACTION,
THEREBYUPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ARCHITECTURALREVIEW
COMMISSION,APPROVINGMODIFICATIONSTO AN EXISTING BUILDING
AND PARKING AND APPROVING ANEW ASSISTED CARE FACILITY
AT 61 BROAD STREET.
(ARC 158-96)
WHEREAS,the Architectural Review'Commission conducted a public hearing on June
2, 1997, and approved modifications to an existing building and site, plus construction of a new
building(ARC 158-96),with conditions; and
WHEREAS,Jacob Feldman and 68 others filed appeals of that action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted. a public hearing on July 15, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested-parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission
Hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact, with mitigation, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Architectural
Review Commission;
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council previously, on May 20, 1997, found and determined
that the project's Negative Declaration with mitigation adequately addresses the potential
significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council. The Council adopted said Negative Declaration on May 20,
1997 and hereby incorporates the following mitigation measures.into the project:
Mitigation measures.
1.Mitigation Measure:
The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness of the new
building's scale(height,bulk and massing)in terms of compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood. . The issue of impacts to the view corridors of nearby residents shall also
be considered.
Monitoring Program:
Compatibility issues shall be addressed by the both the Planning Commm—on and the
Architectural Review Commission with their review of the project Compliance with the
conditions of both these review bodies shall be overseen by Planning staff during
building permit plan check
2.Mitigation Measure- '
Resolution no 86961997 Series)
ARC 158-96 appeal ..'.
61 Broad Street
Page 2
conditions of both these review.bodies shallbe overseen by Planning staff during
building permit plan check
2.Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping/creek restoration plan along with plans
submitted for final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The
plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L.
Holland,Ph.D. dated December 1996 and incorporated into this study be reference. The
Plans shall be routed.to the City's Resource Manager for review and comment, and will
also require the review and approval of other agencies with regulatory control over work
done in the riparian corridor of Garden Creels, specifically the State Department of Fish
and Game and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.
Monitoring Program:
The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve the landscaping and
creek restoration plan. 'Community Development Department staff will coordinate with
other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over plans, review building permit plans to
insure consistency with ARC approvals and provide field inspections to confirm that
installation complies with plans.
3.Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed
soils engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which
considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential
for liquefaction. It shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation
recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must
be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
MonitorinjrPro m:
The Community Development Department staff will review plans in conjunction with the
soils engineering report through the building permit plan check process.
4.Mitigation Measure: ,
Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet-
intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters
the creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly
maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
`(7
Resolution no 8696 1997 Series)
ARC-158-96appeal
61 Broad Street
Page3
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development and the Utilities Department staff (Industrial .Waste
Coordinator) will review plans for compliance through the building permit plan-check
process and subsequent inspections.
5. Mitifation Measure:
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sea 3307.2),-all graded surfaces
shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon
any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's
dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases-.of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice'daily with complete.
coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or
off-site; .
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the
construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work
Monitoring Program:
Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff
through field inspections during project construction.
6.Mitigation Measure: `
In conjunction with required fire sprinkler'and fire alarm systems, a graphic annunciator
panel shall be installed to the approval of the Fire Marshall.
_Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
3r 1
Resolution no' 8696 1997 Series) :
ARC 158-96 appeal
61 Broad Street
Page 4
•7.Mitigation Measure:
Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed to expedite
"emergency access.
-Monitoring Program:
-Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
8. Mitigation Measure: -
An emergency vehicle loading area shall be provided for the new assisted living facility.
The-loading area shall be located as to rnimmize noise and glare impacts to adjoining
neighbors and shall not block or otherwise compromise other required parking spaces.
Monitoring Program:
Design of the emergency vehicle loading area shall be reviewed and monitored through
the review of plans during architectural review and building permit plan check.
9. Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate:
* Skylights to maxim=ize natural day lighting.
* Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation
* Energy-efficient lighting.systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant
operational reasons, buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation
standards in the California Energy Code by 10%.
Monitoring Program: '
Compliance with this requirement shall be*monitored through the review of plans
submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
10.Mitigation Measure:
The developer shall install an oil and grease separator at an appropriate location in the
sewer system to the approval of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator.
Monitoring Program•
The Utilities Department staff (Industrial waste Coordinator).will review plans for
compliance through the building permit plan check process and subsequent inspections.' -
7
Resolution no 8696 1997 Series)
ARC 158-96 appeal ,
61 Broad Street J
Page 5
11.Mitigation Measure:
The new assisted care facility and the remodeled building at 61 Broad shall incorporate
facilities-for interior and exterior on-site-recycling. 'A plan'for recycling construction
waste shall be submitted to the Community. Development Director prior to building
permit issuance. Construction waste shall be recycled in accordance with this plan.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural.review and building permit primarily by -the Community
Development Department staff.
12.Mitigation Measure:
All exterior lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto
adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the required
architectural review process,.with special attention given to the height and type of
lighting fixtures.
Monitoring Program:
Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of plans during
architectural review and building permit plan check.
13. Mitigation Measure:
An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior .to final
architectural review of the project (Phase I report). In addition, a Subsurface
Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SAKE) will be required for those areas of the site
where excavation is proposed. The report shall note that a qualified archaeologist will be
retained to monitor project grading and trenching activities. If excavations encounter
significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then
construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource
is determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by-the Community
Development Director. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the
extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist.
_Monitoring Prosram•
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans
submitted for architectural review and a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff and subsequent inspections.
7
Resolutionno 8696 1997Series) '
ARC.158-96 appeal
61 Broad Street `
'Page 6
14.Mitigation Measure
1f pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor
should be called in to work with the archaeologist.to document and remove the items.
Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this
requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Program
Compliance with this requirement shall be.monitored through the review of plans
submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council,after considerationof the ArcbitecturZReview
Commission's action, the appellants' statements, staff recommendations,public testimony, and
reports thereof,makes the following findings:
1. The new assisted-care building respects and will be compatible with nearby residences
because it is sufficiently set back from the street and from neighboring buildings and is
designed to mini*ni�e its impact from the street.
2. The project design is consistent with the City's architectural guidelines.
SECTION 3. Appeal denial. The request for approval of an appeal of the
Architectural Review Commission's action approving the project is hereby denied, and
therefore the Architectural Review Commission's action is upheld,subject to the following .
Conditions:
1. The final landscape plan must incorporate additional riparian planting within the 20' setback
from the top of bank, to the satisfaction of the biologist who surveyed the site and the
Community Development Director.
2. At least.two trees and additional medium-height shrubs must be added to the landscaped area
between the Heritage building and Broad Street, to provide shade for the patio and help
screen the building, to the approval of the Community Development Director. A variety of
plants in a variety of sizes,including 36"box trees and 15-gallon shrubs shall be used.
3. Final design of securityfencing and gates must be in accordance with fence height standards
and to the approval of the Community Development Director.
4. Additional benches must be added to outdoor use areas, outside of required creek setback /
areas. ' .
Resolution no 8 6 9 6 1997,Series)
ARC 158-96 appeal
61 Broad Street
Page 7
5. The patio at the Broad Street frontage must be eliminated or the building.and patio set back
farther on the site so that the patio is no closer than 30' from tht street property line.
6. Colors must return for Commission approval.
.Onmotionof _Williams .seconded by Romero
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Williams, Romero, Smith' s Mayor Settle
NOES: Council Member Roalman
ABSENT: . None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 15 tHay of July . 1997.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Zyu C1erkBonni wf
APPROVEDAS TO FORM.
City Attordey Jeffrey Jorgensen
' 7/
Draft
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Regular Meeting August 3, 1998
PRESENT: Commrs.. James Aiken, Curtis_ Illingworth, Alice Loh, Lance Parker, and Mark
Rawson
Y T: Commrs. Ron Regier and Chuck Stevenson
OTHERS
PRESENT: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner, Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, John Shoals,
Associate Planner and Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
PROJECTS:
3. ARC 158-98: 61 Broad Street: Referral by City Council for input on landscaping details
to a previously approved remodel and addition to a senior housing facility; R-4-PD zone;
Morrison 1 LLC, applicant.
Commr. Rawson refrained from participating due to a potential conflict of interest.
John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report,outlining the project and the issues
before the ARC. He indicated that the ARC's role was to review of the final landscape plan and
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Commr. Loh asked if there were any street trees planned on Ramona Drive.
Associate Planner Shoals responded that the existing street trees would along Ramona Drive and
Broad Street will remain.
Commr. Parker asked how far out from the building the trellis would extend, and how many
palm trees were being replaced.
Associate Planner Shoals noted the trellis would extend approximately two to three feet from the
building, and that twelve palm trees would be replaced.
Commr. Loh asked if all the palm trees were gone from the site.
Associate Planner Shoals said the 17 that were identified on the subdivision map were gone.
Bill McClellan, appellant, noted the project was already scheduled for City Council on August
� -y2
ARC Minutes
August 3, 1998
Page 2
18, 1998. He pointed out that the previous palm trees-in the planters near the building had
provided high masking for a large building. He.understood that the palm trees were to remain in
place. He stated concern that the trees had not been replaced and felt the neighborhood should
not have to bear the burden of a failure by the developers. He asked the Commission to follow
through with what was approved to make the planter large enough to accommodate big palm
trees that would adequately mask the building.
Commr. Loh asked for clarification that the discussion focused on the north side of the building.
McClellan responded yes.
Commr. Loh pointed out that there were other ways to mask the three-story building besides
replacing the palm trees.
Commr. Aiken reinterated that the main concern was the removal of the palm trees that had been
shown on the approved conceptual landscape plans. He asked Commr. Loh if the proposed
planter was large enough to support a palm tree.
Commr. Loh said the planter was too narrow and it would be too close to the foundation.
Commr. Aiken asked if the foundation could be modified to accommodate the palm trees.
Commr. Illingworth noted that the Commission was to respond to the issue of the removal of the
Palm trees and not necessarily come up with an alternate solution.
Commr. Parker asked if the trees were arbitrarily taken out or if the City Arborist had directed
the removal.
Associate Planner Shoals responded that it was his understanding that it was the okayed by the
City Arborist and the Public.Works Department.
Commr. Parker asked Bill McClellan for his suggestion on how to make more room to put the
Palm trees in the planter next to the building.
Mr. McClellan said there obviously is another type of tree that could provide the necessary
masking and also fit in that area.
Commr. Parker asked Commr. Loh what type of tree she would recommend to accomplish this
goal.
Commr. Loh stated she felt it was more important to mask the Broad Street side of the building
ARC Minutes
August 3, 1998
Page 3
instead of the Ramona Drive side. She said the 2-3 foot wide (net width) planter was too small
for any tree to be planted there.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Parker agreed with Commr. Loh's comments regarding more masking along Broad
Street. He felt the final landscape plan was going to achieve what was called out in the
conceptual plan and recommended the City Council to keep the plan as is.
Commr. Illingworth agreed with Commrs. Parker and Loh that new landscape plan would
provide better screening of the building. He felt the current plan does what was conceptually
asked for. He also agreed with Commr. Loh that the more significant face of the building is the
Broad Street side.
Commr. Loh stated she was really sorry the existing trees were gone. She felt there were other
palm trees that could be used for screening. She again stated concern with the Broad Street side.
She recommended changing the proposed palm trees from the Mexican Fan Palm to the
California Fan Palm, which is bigger.
Commr. Aiken concurred with Commrs. Illingworth and Loh. He felt that the planters in the
parking lot were limited and narrow in dimension and could restrict the California Fan Palm. He
also thought it was unfortunate that the trees had been removed. He thought the new solution
provided a better buffer for the neighborhood.
Commr. Illingworth moved to recommend to the City Council deny the appeal and approve the
final landscape plans based on the following findings:
I. The approved final landscape plans are in substantial compliance with the ARC-approved
concept landscape plan and meets the intent of City Council Resolution 8674, which is to
mask the three-story building from the street.
2. The developer consulted with the City Arborist and Public Works Department before
removing the existing palm trees, and did not arbitrarily remove the palm trees.
The ARC also recommends that the City Council consider the following suggestions.
3. Replace the Washington Robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) with a Washington Filifera
(California Fan Palm), which has a bigger trunk and larger fan to mask the building even
further.
ARC Minutes
August 3, 1998
Page 4
4. Review the availability of taller palms(more than 25' high) at the same location.
The ARC feels that the placement of the palm trees are fine, but that the initial
tree height needs to be increased from the 20' brown trunk height(total height of
25')shown on the plan.
Commr. Parker seconded the motion.
AYES: Illingworth, Parker, Loh, Aiken
NOES: None
ABSENT: Stevenson
REFRAIN: Rawson
The motion passed.
1
APE -
landscape architecture
planning
environmental studies
ecological restoration
August 17, 1998
John Shoals
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
RE: Heritage at Garden Creek
Palm species selection for the north building elevation
Dear John,
It is my understanding that the ARC recommended denial of the appeal of landscape
plan approval for the Heritage at Garden Creek. I understand that the ARC also
recommended that a different species of palm be selected to provide more screening of
the north elevation of the building. I would like to suggest that the selection of California
Fan Palm (Washingtonia filifera) may not be appropriate, as the eventual girth of the
trunk will become too large for the planter. Instead, I suggest use of Queen Palms
(Aracastrium romanzoffianum), which will have a trunk girth in scale with the planter,
have an eventual height which is less (thus preventing the tree from outgrowing its
screening intent), and which will have a broader canopy. Additionally, I would suggest
planting the palms initially with differing heights, thus allowing the canopy of all being
visible rather than 'in line.'
Sincerely
Burdsm
sociate
encl.
cc: Hamish Marshall, Smith and Company
Principal:David W. Foote ASLA,AEP
Registration No.2117
849 Monterey Street Suite 205
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
805.781.9800 tax 805.781.9803
n
s �
a. a40
r _
i
^^11
CO ..
I. : — �•a
I .......................
�I
i
,
,
III:[T—.•v.�.C.:..l. �/ LII 'i
f i..
L .,1
1
i
1 ,
+I ! J
gy�p•-.;..}. �......... . . �,.
--c,l - ...........
41
...._...,-i. ,
I
r..........
L.
_._F ...... ............
_
5_............:
_...._.._:�S I is __..........4:« I•! _:hi —_ II....._ ___...._._�...
sm
is
,
IIS
S
F41IIA;
EIVED
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN ATMP.NEYATLAW 2 .r11022 MILL STREET,SUITE E SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 << RK
(US)(ans)U4-7"0/(S s)W-80 x ......
F.MALL.:MCL706 @AOUMM
Ms. Kim Condon August 24, 1998
Acting City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo Hand Delivered
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re:Request for Administrative Record
Dear Ms. Condon:
On August 18, 1998, the San Luis Obispo City Council rejected my appeal
concerning the final landscape plan at 61 Broad Street in San Luis Obispo.
I am requesting you to prepare a complete copy of the administrative record
concerning my appeal of the landscape plan at 61 Broad (Item 2 on the August 18, 1998, agenda)
pursuant to CCP 1094.5. I believe this will include the tapes of the August 3, 1998, ARC meeting
relating to this issue,the tapes of the August 18, 1998, City Counsel meeting, and the various
reports and letters that were filed for these respective meetings. I am not requesting the
administrative record relating to the numerous other proceedings that have taken place in this
case.
As stated in CCP 1094.5, the record"shall include the transcript of the
proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the
final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its
commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case."
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please call me at 544-7950 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
William R. McLennan
►i►II�IIII�IIIIIII�II��;I����III�I�IIIIIIIIIIIII III
cityo SM x IS 061sw
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
August 28, 1998
William R. McLennan
Attorney at Law
1022 Mill St., Suite E
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 61 Broad Street—Request for Administrative Record
Dear Bill:
Thank you very much for taking the time to meet with me on August 28, 1998,
concerning your request for the Administrative Record of the ARC and City Council
meetings on your appeal of the landscape plan for 61 Broad Street. Following up on
our discussion and your request, I have asked the City Clerk to make copies of the
tapes of the August 3, 1998, ARC meeting and the August 18, 1998 City Council
meeting for you. It is my understanding from your comments that you will review
the tapes, but that the compilation of the Administrative Record can.be put on hold
unless I hear further direction from you. If the above understanding does not reflect
your intent, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Otherwise, please
contact Kim Condon at 781-7104 to make arrangements for delivery of the tapes.
Sincerely,
rojey e eyg sen
City A
JGJ/sw
c: Kim Condon
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.
Trma
landscape architecture
planning
environmental studies
ecological restoration
August 17, 1998
John Shoals
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
RE: Heritage at Garden Creek
Palm species selection for the north building elevation
Dear John,
It is my understanding that the ARC recommended denial of the appeal of landscape
plan approval for the Heritage at Garden Creek. I understand that the ARC also
recommended that a different species of palm be selected to provide more screening of
the north elevation of the building. I would like to suggest that the selection of California
Fan Palm (Washingtonia filifera) may not be appropriate, as the eventual girth of the
trunk will become too large for the planter. Instead, I suggest use of Queen Palms
(Aracastrium romanzoffianum), which will have a trunk girth in scale with the planter,
have an eventual height which is less (thus preventing the tree from outgrowing its
screening intent), and which will have a broader canopy. Additionally, I would suggest
planting the palms initially with differing heights, thus allowing the canopy of all being
visible rather than 'in line.'
Sincerely
dm�'B rrows, ASLA
ssociate
encl.
cc: Hamish Marshall,Smith and Company
Principal:David W. Foote ASLA, AEP
Registration No.2117
849 Monterey Street Suite 205
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
805.781.9800 fax 805.781.9803
� r
Nz
+j CO
::..................- -
�{i ._............ - ................ L�
:1:111
i
jii ...._ i
i
I'I 1
;;
.
tA........
��31....9..{•.;.';Y,... \V-_' ' ! 1.11,.- ::rll:» 1.I.
rt1
---- - OC
r...
i
._..........
v
,...........I1){ �::?:__'_:• `�ti� it
§S
1..._. _ u-
-
} I.
.t
:
IE iv . �y�tt'lCs f:
' S
i
z
�a
�J
Et Jy4.
r f 1 3
v ,
73
i{<
i }
ar �t t
,l.
T,
1
t£1 3
� M
iId3x
�i
a
e J
S
t
m,
Im
3
lee
3f �
7f)
v m�
J!
Y>
f Y
i,
yr . .......
km
}
k�
i
PAI HNPIG
s �
�!th�578llfi
6
,n .
DEFYING AGENDA A�
DATE 7-T-f MEM # (!
city clerk memorandum
Date. July 7, 1998
To: City Council
From: Kim Condon,Acting City Cle
Subject. July 7, 1998 Council Meeting-Public Comment Period
Although you have already received a copy of the attached correspondence,this is being red-filed
in the event that Mr. McLennan speaks to this issue during the public comment period at
tonight's meeting. Mr. McLennan contacted the City Clerk's Office yesterday indicting that he
might wish to speak tonight.
c: John Dunn, CAO
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
Todd Martin, City Arborist
�III�IIh�IIIIIII��������������llll �III111111111�
,t city of sAn luls OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
July 62 1998
William R- McLennan
1022 Mill Street, Suite E
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: THE HERITAGE AT GARDEN CREEK (73 BROAD STREET) AND CITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8674
I am writing in response to your letter of June 18, 1998, which states your concerns with Ruther
construction of the above-referenced project. Specifically,you expressed concern with aspects of
the approved final landscape plans, and the future building's distance from the Broad Street
property line.
City staff reviewed the final landscape plans for substantial conformance to the conceptual
landscape plan approved by the City Architectural Review Commission(ARC). Copies of those
plans are included for your reference. In reviewing the plans, staff evaluated the overall
landscaping as well as the plant material proposed for the north side of the building. It is staffs
opinion that the final landscape plan is in substantial conformance with the conceptual landscape
plan approved by the ARC. As shown in the final plan, there will be landscaping on all four
sides of the building, especially on the east side of the building where substantial plant materials
(trees, shrubs and groundcover) will be installed to break up the mass of the building facing
Broad Street, and screen it from nearby residents.
You are convect in your statement that the final plans do not show any palm trees between the
sidewalk and the north wall of the building. Staff was also concerned that the initial landscape
plan did not show palm trees in this location, where existing trees were noted to remain on the
preliminary plan. The applicant was directed to revise the plans to show palm trees adjacent to
the building's north elevation. However, during building permit application review, it was
discovered that adherence to building code requirements and City Driveway standards would
result in the net width of the landscape planter being too small to accommodate the palm trees.
Locating these trees in a narrow planter, with a large building footing, would not provide
adequate space for healthy growth. It was only after discussing this issue with a licensed
landscape architect that staff was convinced that the palm trees would do better in a parking lot
planter rather than a narrow planter adjacent to the building.
You also indicate that there are only six small palm trees in the adjacent parking lot. The final
landscape plan shows a total of 12 palm trees, four Magnolia trees, a wood trellis with flowering
vines,numerous shrubs of varying height and groundcover on the north side of the building. The
/O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
William McLennan letter
73 Broad Street
Page 2
palm trees will be Washingtonia Robusta(Mexican Fan Palm), and will initially be about 25 feet
high. This species of tree is very fast growing and achieves a maximum height of 60 to 80 feet
with good conditions. While the palm trees are not immediately adjacent to the building, it is
staffs opinion that they are in a location that will achieve the same desire effect of breaking up
the mass of the building.
Regarding your concern for the proper location of the new building relative to its setback from
Broad Street, please be aware that the foundation location was established by a licensed surveyor
to insure accuracy. In addition, this dimension has been checked in the field by the Community
Development Department staff from the Building and Planning Divisions, and it has been found
to be accurate and in compliance with the conditions of approval for the project.
Please be assured that City staff considers your concerns important, and that we all are working
to make sure that the project is constructed in substantial compliance with all project approvals.
I would, however, ask that you recognize that the ARC approved a conceptual landscape plan,
and that there may be some modifications based on building code requirements, site conditions
or other unexpected developments in the field during the actual construction of the project. This
is a common situation with all projects in this City as well as other jurisdictions.
I hope that this information answers your concerns. If you have finther questions, you can
contact me at 781-7170.
Arnold Jonas, ec r
Community Deve meat Department
cc: Mayor and City Council
Architectural Review Commission
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
en Hampian,Assistant City Administrative Officer
on Whisenand, Development Review Manager
John Shoals,Project Planner
Enclosures:
1. William McLennan letter dated June 18, 1998
2. Conceptual Landscape Plan approved by the ARC
3. Final Landscape Plan
WILLIAM R McLENNAN
ATWRIEYAruw
1022 MILL STREET,SUITE E
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401
(8"5I/.7vSWMIS)54""2
s-MArt.MQ.706 @AOLWM
Honorable Mayor and City Council June 18, 1998
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401 Hand Delivered
Re: The Heritage at Garden Creek(73 Broad Street) and City Counsel Resolution 8674
Dear Mayor and City Counsel:
Despite months of input and protest by neighborhood members,the planning
department approved a landscape plan for The Heritage at Garden Creek on May 22, 1998, that
ignores the explicit language of City Counsel Resolution 8674 ("All existing trees will remain,
with the exception of seven palms") and the plans approved by the ARC that required palms
between the building and the sidewalk on the north-east side of the building.
This is not a trivial issue. The Heritage at Garden Creek will be a massive 3-story
building directly adjacent to an R-1 neighborhood. Neighborhood appellants, 68 in number,
attempted unsuccessfully to limit the size of this building. We fought for and obtained one small
concession: the large existing palm trees located between the sidewalk and the new building
would remain to `mask"the bulk of this three-story structure. 1.
In the fall of 1997, all palms were stripped off the site. The newly-approved
plans do not require any palms against the side of the building and only require six smaller palms
in the adjacent parking lot. The three-story mass of this building is not longer`masked."
In addition, there is serious neighborhood concern that the building is not"30 feet
from the street property lime"as required by Resolution No. ARC 158-96.
This is a matter of principal. My neighbors and I participated in good faith in the
process of government. In the give and take of politics, we accepted both our defeat and the
unnecessary denigration of our neighborhood. However, we expect city resolutions to be
enforced or proper procedures followed to change them. This matter must be placed on the
Counsel agenda and, after public input,Resolution 8674 should be amended or the developer
required to comply with its explicit terms.
A
ly,
William R. McLennan RECEIVED
JUN 1 9 1998
SLO CITY COUNCIL
21IN
, ,�
of
,
OM
„���cdc'eieeEieii:::•>((Qtw � �� 1 ��' d'���;`
�� III\�►./� ' �, '
.`,I;R� :.. ,,or.. !;: -. .S •:fie a;�.�
w \
a w�.:.'� ��� l A �QLSy�w T�1 iE• a 7a � ����
a� :
}
. r: r. .O. ,,. "'�t•. '..�: .i'.✓:•."a;L:::,i:rCtna:.. t.'r j
re. �i'!.l'iJ:'M•"rt� •j= Nv '^1 �iJ4:�7 i�Sapi•`i.•:; : - :J.' .y'. r ��:. .)i`- .�;.. 7�.:•r: Y'.';!TJ.r. 1Y 1
5,fi![SG � `x dY ��:� 'r . �. .In n Vit' �r5i�!"h�j,'�°�!y � \::.j'„�T• M
:•.r„,i•.4r 4YY, .1 ?rt7\ � 'r ! t yr L t'f ,�r�3,J},.'4 �Y4
�I..Asf,f,♦' �(yl r��wlf o r °. ri 1. 1 v t i 1 � Pl� r51 s��ina'•�1 Je•.JM J .7
,:r:,i':•h � r• .. , 1 ., \ ..,.,C'. �� r�j 1�1J�a••{yf f\tir:ltl� F`_
raa Q, r r
:1:' .n - r$�,�� - :f:.'r..[� .). •-,.,• •r ),.:J;,�JN1gv. `�?LXurY.�'� a 'rn 'P
,'` .t .SIS. )•Tti•.....;:I'i�Y ,.� .1:It r.'.•yaxPt t'�A rZ. .1,,..,r•M1' �.
1 ':� :i�f.'... :.{.1." \ 4'.. "Qt:C.:.. ''A.�y'. 1�,. •r::,:.q !• TY' IW t`
51�y
IY.it f�[.. �i.,' ( .,3 .ut. �r!:. i 1:?i' � ,�',.✓,1t., a�r.�` t,,r••,Y,.r,11'. f(�Y`�i lir.l.. . },
•
2r ;
, C'pp• _:y,., ia.i � 1 ,r , ,., Tr a . ;,r 1!i1 f . ix•i.� W,c
r aa.ir. 1: 'x.rir ♦ r Y Y5, �. , � fl Mrd „, r J1 r :µ. �,g��4:a •4�,.A�a t•�; 1 �1�
iY,;Si ,k �./�•' ui.. "7 r Ix"i J P JY A !. 17': "5��}N�f� r"r4 i�
' ,,((; 5�'J. :�"-yI r! 4�1 F, 'J,� �71 , li 't ` '+1 ti,� 14.•t t�1�,v N�`"y�}I, Yy' YY;Pt 4.
i `]'• ".Yr�?N7'ty5 j '� '�T•�'Gl Lnj�wC�i �9.;n._.��7.r)�G� -,r �1:, 1 -�( '�( r j t�.C.;. �. �{r '1tl
7•!➢rr
1,y.'":7«: )i Y �,4ri~�•y'��O('� �A�ri1Ji ...:!: •:S :u-r.v rS .' f':_1•'.�.;• � a.i r n •it JA ��e
r. J :> +rT cut-�'M:`.7a.., t.�.,,','..:}' 'Ii...;,..' ('�". 't ,i$r. dr°: :�•r • ^:�` y {;. nf-
h' ,y
Ni,Lr N,.l-r'G.a'ti�t!5�:`tia,' `'r•(� ,•r:rJ�.Cj1 a;i!i.Z:iJ•{}_.`:1'._i;..�` .:a. '%:.:...\ ,�r� ',\ 1
S; 'r� I, C• s � +r a :3 i, AJ' wJ'1/\ '
.'hA'pyV•.,'..�(.Q:�n.i.� •1i!.!•p:: sv, J�, 1 , ) .r•'f, il ."Y s 1 f ..r , I 'Y ;1�:G [:Ca1�tJi '�� A r..�l' [
„ 1�.rr
i ' 'p'�'•y�SI gg :r :1'lr..l".!{( a :�i.J':.:.r : 1"E q 'i1=;i.f1.J, a• ..f-a.-'�:. r• •')•,•'.. :trl!!r 11• ro
ti'r,;1y a pjrr,. •r!•s,.';j:✓! :,x•; .i., .'i,.. •c, >1r'ri .r`d i�.-_�,,,.2.. _v,• . :t'i,.,. e3' {' - r
Fd.j•nIJT t K'.Z': .,vx 'ti:�i{:i li�;Y•'�
:�;- :•�•.;..a�•• ,.{ (.Y
.�li• +} l,'t f\`lti r 4 ,
L rCL;' =• �• N....'J �. P �4'n- ,,,lll t
J,V1�}
�� •�M .. t JF�r FT�JI 1 I Y '2 Y/,'>..1`t'(�1 A "I•, 1 1. `4 'rJ 1 l''{�'t Y1lI
r, � � •.i \P r? n '3,..5 • �•' �..� x�>: 'Gl Y.r,..l.� :;i", .5„ P
�)%.'. ylai2.f.p��'4 '+SA Y)S" :fie �'i`. ;:1•".s.. ,;; ,•..•. .':1: r,1 r. ^.y. " s.'.:f.e
C.i •.iXl•ti ' 1 •''7' r�%'r�bi'y"i i��. +` r r'. r fC; 1 [ r qli>,. .,,c (�1.PI�'
M 1t l'J 1 �,a,�.,r 'SP�.'•��_iy?�'j F 1 J , � ( 'r 1 �•rR Z: °•i�" J r r x t � T1�tC rTC• 5' }' �4•j
W
1i[ 97 it 1r� 3Gx }X�7�.rp , .1 :,1 _UI�, .`1 1 Z • t ` ,'`i�VrC ...vl:;:iye rfi
•
r " 'I}t PL qw'i`
- �=`51. t.•J+�,� � 1 h ' � O ! S 5.N` •�•'�r,.'T'tr•!5a 5411'
(•"'7'•'Y:V:f n •iT 1 " 5.
�• 1 ; :T 1 1 l7'r,[ yr',•^1` •)�ftl
7 v7 t , i f
A. 1 , •u 1.., b'°.:.•,:>, 7:1i'.,�q1• t.
'.5;. Srl7r 1 „i( '!•i,.�• 11:;.• '� ,�. v f Z r n�v_ .Ri �Y.•'�/�� .{ IY�GY1„Yf• I
�' 1 ,.�•-i ti iit r a: t.�. 1 a , •:Fr y ,r"u, r r N ,
i,
{ x :'.= s t Y,\ 5 J 1 b �. 57i�i 1�t' � J•rr
<t ,`l;.{ , t. t '1 1 �r \,h•.r��N(.i� rt..i �y�}J,,r,�+a11
' -`�Y y'��" .+.5f 1� �, a4 J t t. 1r.1 Jµ� }. 1T• �y�, ��I.
r t _ ,•..0 J'k O J r.' 41 7 � l
if}}IS rt T] 1 A d - r r 1•, { . �!.` !r '.' iS,•
re�,R.�`t6 J,e�f r rfs i J .� \ x :.i� 'yyr1:•n f'} 4. .7
°r �'i i�l 1 +aaa`r4•r 4s d.al"f�'r'•\il a ° r r, `. y. '� u ai 1 l5 •f'1 � � 't!1p.}C`ly.�'r.'�/f y}�r� � �y'
a((V .x'4'4 ' {-t •'.: \ 1 4 1 1 J \f: Z IY .� /S, �\ r1'. r
;S,', •. 55 �1� �j. AJ � iC rl rr �i b) 'Y' C��"tl � aSS p.•. �
A��•n 'a t^ t'r' J f J 4 t. r r J "?) .t,� r r� �'u t 1 Y -��
■' :�5:• f MvC�r ` s-` r J'''r � �.tt It l n I 1 '` .:1n d.r'Fr1 . y.�
liilf• 1f$'iJ?LAY G�Y'�' 1,T„�,f�f ' ~ r '�.� 1 r. r f \. r T r,A i{ y.' i -..,y�r �} -r +W
,:J � { RS L,ry rn4+7 t +.iS •• " s 4'.n ,.0 'i A' y 2,l-,J♦.t✓r
1r a' • r \ r r 1 l hn ... , a • vk 4'MY
J�f'a:l•t l'� kLLr' i { J (, .........r ' t xa M if'• 'i45;1
a=-1}l'�✓7)Il'.�•tt'r"F rr f as .` ra � , 1 i 1 i t n -. t. a t QJi I�,1 th r. j� ��� t').
'
'• il`ftt ^ r -rJ .tJ ' i 4 s '!. . rT(•t',i'i. .�`• r6l ! r1:5 Irr .
IfjYt`•; M \ 1. l Y � 1
gJ1C, p S 5� I ,�}J r 1 •t14 •� •��1 �" " .G'� f 1i i'�1
:,��. r �1.. 0 1 v' 4YJ v J 1 _ ' ,. Ora�: +.' 4 ' '.•.
If
°.'rti t-r. r , `n 7 ,r•K r � '"r 1 fa f 41 t: 1 f)Si� '!: .i>�$'.
V'rq„} 1 a J • 41 •11 1. 3 .:rx, m Al
J
crr
r'•r1'�� J 'j �'r r I
• .tix:1�.11� T�r�jf, .ci./:F•, ��r,}-n{:•fr.., .a._:'i ,, w r v 1 y�
• i,.� T r - , ,...;_.....:F - :..Y�.l�'Slc:�i'L A.1 •. f ^•� ;•r.e
�l.f. �,:... .�J.Y. :.in`•.:l'• ti.i: ..L: ;:Il�•''i:Y>.,t� ':1:.`.•J..(:'1 '': {�,S� Wit:
i)�l )1�'"1� yt�rfi(A}` 'f t r lF .r + 1,. 7 ) ' 1 +IG r c'�'✓- ',J�j( J �5 PS
F .•.1 (,�/h I±YYI.4 1 .• �L 4'� l I 1 f N •, •r['..,•!''•W al'N'y,'al Il yr.tlr
lr .r�r r.,.... 1•,f 1, a t1 t rl 1 r t If1Y r.y..: ..q
� ' r`•1 �tF{ ) J ,4L t. 1 f J1 1 ry 1 ,. �rft f r� 1 s hiir*+• .
7 r q 1 M r ; is1'i )iSy 1, �i '• 1 '� I. ,Y9
1 1 r 1mo
.{fy,,� ti 1 i�•^P"'"k'-gi N } r••. 74
VA,�C7i �i'I t Y), �!Ul •P` (11 •!'rte.,n1 W1 VI G7 VI S)1 a4 ,t 1�rJ1�ly r"',�M1 y; r 7 ,7. ,'r,'
OO N S• 9 < u' Gl �ro ni �i Cp 9r.e• ,,���//r"• .
m - " �jrJ�"¢- $ ylx• y
\s' ANp 17PJ �.J .aZa N y 1.
1 r.tn Ilk;,s mix 'L.0�;1'-"• ::t, r.. m m Z O .N -;C 4 j - ._M;y�ti�>,• 'l�' ,t.L`L t ,Ir
> >_ttb'tvy',/'err
�.y b JIJ,S tf 1 i. ; / TL 1 a' i 1 , � N r`rl. �; } x iv. J=P•ln. �'+'' .1r7 ,hi` :fy
° •'i�S,� 11s"r r :° l'tt , •1 . 1 1 � 1"L 1 ftirr f)I It)JxJy �A,''YG•.SIV a�
7 ' .4t+ s A�iYSri { 'ri `fit is 1 J i I' xy J•k�f Fios'(til' y 1
777f "r ti r ,�AAC ,rat�rt 7j
!, , Vr•,;1�1 l.,y„.AJ�rI'I1�'. ., .gip•,' .
7.1
'i; i:r.•= '�'Vtr} e"y1V'5.p..Z!?•i51� �_-,y,',
..y • 4
?Tc
.rx'• A u ..1.x
. S�afr>.d.J••ir t: .�...v..i.'.� ..�,r:. '.w - �il7iAia�;''Tiiir':eell?�
`41 f, O • 7 �y 141 � � •:G1 47 .1 ° ';T,� , BR�O�11SAaDt�3TR�� �'r,
w N �. ppJJ N C , _ rx.m u Y�I♦kC1 va^ rG.A
allTVI
- ,.;• P i�. !3. 77 _{. ! 70; T 1 O :•,L.p'i,:,�.T, .red U �•.
.. ,l. �...
�\`"`'M1 1��i'r]e41 pi v � y 1 1 \ t y (n 1. v. li'�1(w7'{r{'S�"� ?Y",'1•• r.
•'+^f�i}J\t,t'`ytf 1t.�erY� r J r 7A700 .1 ` i N },`�.tF l" 1r4 1pai iy,�r'�i.,t'��}�5. ¢1^.
al ...7..n-rte• + , J F RI m _
MttTING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN
AMRNUATLAW FBIATTORKEY
DDDIFI
1022 MILL STREET,SUITE E ❑FIN DIA
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 ❑FIRE CHIEF
(805)544-7M(805)5"-HOBS ❑PWDIRF-MM<MCLM @AOLDOM E3 POLICE CHFO REC DIRp REC.�R� O PM DDI
Honorable Mayor and City Council July 7, 1998
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401 Hand Delivered
Re: The Heritage at Garden Creek(73 Broad Street) and City Counsel Resolution 8674
Dear Mayor and City Counsel:
I wrote to you on June 18, 1998, concerning what I believe is a violation of the
explicit language of City Council Resolution 8674 by the Heritage at Garden Creek. I have
attached both my previous letter and the recently received response from Arnold Jonas.
As I stated to Mr. Jonas, I do not believe the Community Development
Department as the authority or delegated discretion to alter the explicit language of Resolution
8674 or the approved plans that require existing palm trees on the north face of the building.
I will be appearing before the City Council tonight to request that this matter be
scheduled for a full public hearing.
Sincerely,
William R. McLennan
RECEIVED
JUL 0 i 1998
SLO CITY COUNCIL
' o-.. �..ro•r-•.a�na� �'i�t i 4 u..�c_a.....aa..� ..���"�'.,1 ..
-
C'
i ry;
ED
m-7 LCTI}:0
C: 7fYWllt�:ffi�••n...'+�G��.•wSQY�U�7.�i:JW%!,�'+.i
l