HomeMy Public PortalAbout08. Architectural Commission Appeal - Motel 6Claremont City Council
Agenda Report
File #: 4467
TO: ADAM PIRRIE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2022
RIIR_IFCT-
Item No: 8.
Reviewed by:
City Manager: AP
Finance Director: NB
APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
PLAN REVIEW #22-A07 FOR A PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT 840 SOUTH INDIAN HILL
BOULEVARD - APPELLANT: BHUVNESHWARI CORPORATION DBA MOTEL 6, SAPNESH
AMIN.
SUMMARY
On October 26, 2022, the Architectural Commission, by a 6-0 vote, approved Architectural and Site
Plan Review #22-A07 for a proposed landscape plan for the Motel 6 property at 840 South Indian Hill
Boulevard (the "AC Approval"). The AC Approval is subject to twenty-five conditions (A through Y).
The resolution memorializing the AC Approval is included with this report as Attachment 1.
On November 7, 2022, legal counsel for Bhuvneshwari Corporation, d/b/a Motel 6 ("Motel 6")
submitted an appeal of Motel 6's AC Approval. A copy of Motel 6's appeal is included with this report
as Attachment 2.
Motel 6's appeal asserts objections to two distinct City actions -
(1) The administrative citations the City issued to Motel 6 in April of 2022 relating to the condition
of the landscaping on the Motel 6 property; and
(2) The AC Approval of Motel 6's proposed landscape plan.
The first action (i.e., Code enforcement) was not within the Architectural Commission's purview and is
outside the scope of this appeal. The vast majority (arguably all) of Motel 6's objections in the appeal
before the City Council relate to the first action.
The second action (i.e., the AC Approval) is the only action at issue in this appeal.
CLAREMONT Page 1 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
Staff's response to each concern identified in the appeal and additional reports and information used
by the Architectural Commission in reaching its decision are contained in this report. As set forth in
more detail below, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the
Architectural Commission.
It is important to note that, although there are broader quality -of -life issues occurring on and around
the Motel 6 property, this appeal only relates to Motel 6's landscape plan. The City's Community
Improvement and Police Department personnel are working with Motel 6 on Code enforcement and
law enforcement issues, and the City's Planning Commission and Police Commission are currently
studying the City's options for a new or revised motel ordinance to help the City address broader
health, safety, and welfare issues associated with freeway motels. Those broader issues were
outside the scope of the Architectural Commission's review of Motel 6's application for a landscape
plan and are outside the scope of this appeal.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal of and affirming the
Architectural Commission approval of Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07 (Attachment 7).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
A. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING THE ARCHITECTURAL
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW #22-A07 FOR A
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT 840 SOUTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD; and
B. Find this item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the recommendation, there are the following alternatives
A. Continue the item.
B. Find that significant new evidence has been presented and, by minute motion, refer the matter
back to the Architectural Commission for reconsideration.
C. Grant the appeal and amend one or more of the following: (1) the landscape plan that was
approved by the Architectural Commission; (2) the Architectural Commission's findings; and/or
(3) one or more of the Architectural Commission's conditions of approval. Depending on the
nature and extent of the amendments, this may require the City Council to continue the
hearing to give staff time to prepare a revised resolution.
D. Grant the appeal and reverse the Architectural Commission's decision by determining that the
project does not meet one or more of the required design review criteria for approval, and
specifically identify why the criteria cannot be met. This alternative will require the City Council
to continue the hearing to give staff time to prepare a revised resolution. It will result in Motel 6
needing to submit a new application for an Architectural and Site Plan Review for a landscape
plan that complies with the City's design review criteria, commercial landscaping standards,
and water -efficient landscaping standards.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
This appeal has taken staff time to review the appeal, prepare and review this report, and prepare
CLAREMONT Page 2 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
and circulate the agenda. This additional staff cost is estimated to be $5,000, much of which are legal
fees. These costs will be paid by the applicant/appellant (Motel 6).
ANALYSIS
Background
The Motel 6 property is located at 840 South Indian Hill Boulevard, directly south of the 1-10 Freeway.
It includes a motel (on the northern part of the property) and a tennis club (on the southern part of the
property). It is surrounded by the 1-10 Freeway to the north, single-family residences to the east and
south, and commercial uses (restaurants and a gas station) to the west along Indian Hill Boulevard.
oil '_
t T
�•F r.1`.�A�
Motel 6 Property
The land use entitlements for the Motel 6 property date back to 1969 when the City's Planning
Commission ("PC") approved Conditional Use Permit #1101 for a motel and an adjacent automobile
service station. In 1970, the City's Architectural Commission ("AC") approved a site plan and design
features for the motel, and in 1971, the City's Planning Division approved a landscape plan for the
motel. A copy of the original approved landscape plan for the motel was Attachment B to the
Architectural Commission's Agenda Report. (See Attachment 3.) Among other landscaping, it
required approximately seven trees (Canary Island Pine and Evergreen Pear) and 48 Oleander
shrubs along the eastern property line of the northern motel portion of the Motel 6 property.
CLAREMONT Page 3 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarM
1971 Approved Landscape Plan for Motel (Excerpt depicts eastern property line)
In 1973, the AC approved Site Plan Review #6302 for the tennis club on the southern portion of the
Motel 6 property. Staff was unable to locate the 1973 landscape plan for the areas surrounding the
tennis courts; however, the minutes from the May 23, 1973 AC meeting indicate that the tennis club's
landscape plan required "dense landscaping" along the eastern and southern property lines to screen
the tennis courts and their lighting from adjacent residences. (See Attachment 5.)
Claremont's Commercial Landscaping Standards
In 1978, the City Council approved commercial landscaping standards through the adoption of
Ordinance 78-38. Those standards are codified in Chapter 8.22 of the City of Claremont Municipal
Code. Among other things, those standards require:
• Section 8.22.002 - "All commercial landscaping areas" must "be planted with suitable plants,
shrubs, grass, ground cover and trees as may be required by the Architectural Commission or
the department of community development."
• Section 8.22.004 - "Plantings" must be "replaced as needed in accordance with the approved
landscaping plan" and "modifications to the approved landscaping plan" are "subject to review
and approval by the department of community development or the Architectural Commission."
• Section 8.22.005 - "[W]eeds, trash and debris" must be "removed from the landscaped area."
• Section 8.22.006 - "Failure to maintain any commercial landscaping shall be considered a
public nuisance."
In accordance with the State of California's Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 1881) (Gov.
Code §§ 65591 et seq.), the City Council adopted Water Efficient Landscape Requirements in 2010
through the adoption of Ordinance No. 2010-02. Those requirements are codified in Chapter 16.131
of the City of Claremont Zoning Code. Section 16.131.030 of that Chapter requires that "prior to
installation, a landscape documentation package shall be submitted to the City for review and
CLAREMONT Page 4 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarM
approval of all landscape projects..." and requires "[t]he landscape documentation package shall
include a certification by a professional appropriately licensed in the State of California stating that
the landscape design and water use calculations have been prepared by or under the supervision of
the licensed professional and are certified to be in compliance with the provisions of this chapter and
the guidelines."
Finally, Chapter 16.154 of the City's Zoning Code imposes numerous Environmental Protective
Standards. Section 16.154.060 of that Chapter requires "yards" to "be maintained in a manner which
is compatible with and which does not have a detrimental effect on adjacent or nearby property" and
specifically identifies the following as a "detrimental and/or unsightly condition" - "junk, trash, or
debris" and "[v]egetation that is diseased, dead, or presents a danger to the public."
Condition of Landscapinq on Motel 6 Property
Due in large part to neglect, the condition of the areas designated for landscaping on the Motel 6
property have degraded significantly over the years. The irrigation system has fallen into disrepair or
been turned off, causing most vegetation to die. Motel 6 (or contractors for Southern California
Edison, with Motel 6's permission) have removed and "topped" trees without authorization from the
City. Since at least February of 2021, the areas designated for landscaping along Motel 6's eastern
property line, northern property line, and southern property line, and the areas surrounding the tennis
courts on all sides have been largely bare. The lack of required landscaping has resulted in an
unsightly condition. Trash and debris regularly collect in bare planter areas, and there is inadequate
screening, particularly along the eastern property line that abuts residential properties. This does not
comply with the approved landscape plans for the property (from 1971 and 1973), nor the City's
current landscaping standards and has resulted in numerous complaints from members of the
community.
Photographs of the current condition of Motel 6's landscaping were included as Attachment D to the
Architectural Commission's Agenda Report. (See Attachment 3.)
F
Code Enforcement Actions - Administrative Citations & Pending Appeal
After numerous warnings and years of effort to gain voluntary compliance, in April of 2022, the City
issued administrative citations to Motel 6 primarily for violations of the City's commercial landscaping
requirements. To cure these violations, Motel 6 needed to submit an application for a landscape plan
that complies with the City's current standards for commercial landscaping, including its water -
efficient landscape requirements and the City's architectural review criteria.
CLAREMONT Page 5 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarM
Motel 6 has filed an appeal to challenge the administrative citations the City issued. The City's appeal
process for administrative citations is set forth in Chapter 1.14 of the Claremont Municipal Code. It
requires appeals to be heard by a hearing officer (not the City Council or any City Commission).
Motel 6's appeal was heard by a hearing officer on August 9, 2022, and the hearing officer's decision
is pending.
The administrative citations for Code violations were not within the Architectural Commission's
purview and are outside the scope of this appeal.
AC Approval of Motel 6's Landscape Plan
In April of 2022, Motel 6 submitted an application for Architectural and Site Plan Review of a
landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect (Soltis) for the Motel 6 property ("Version
1.0"). The new plan would re -landscape the property with drought -resistant and low-water usage
trees and plants and require the installation of a new automatic irrigation system with a higher
efficiency level, including drip systems. City staff requested some changes to Motel 6's original
submittal, which Motel 6 agreed to, and its landscape architect incorporated into a revised submittal
("Version 2.0"). For example, Motel 6's original refined submittal (i.e., Version 1.0) would have to use
bamboo along the east property line, but at the request of a neighboring resident, Motel 6 revised its
plan (i.e., Version 2.0) to use Indian Laurel Fig Hedge Shrub (Ficus M. Nitida-Column) instead.
The landscape plan that Motel 6 submitted to the AC for approval (i.e., Version 2.0) is Attachment C
to the AC's Agenda Report. (See Attachment 3.) The plan the AC ultimately approved included
additional changes ("Version 3.0"). The differences between Version 2.0 (Motel 6's revised submittal)
and Version 3.0 (approved by AC) are discussed below.
• Eastern Property Line (next to residences): Version 2.0 required that 20 Indian Laurel Fig
Hedge Shrub (Ficus M. Nitida-Column) in 24-inch box size be used to screen the motel
property from neighboring residences. With proper installation and irrigation, this hedge -row
should grow quickly in height. Version 2.0 called for this screening vegetation to run from the
northeast corner of the property down the eastern property line to the northern edge of tennis
courts (i.e., in the middle of the property). In Version 2.0, the area between the tennis courts
and the neighboring residences (discussed in the next bullet point) would not receive this
screening treatment.
Version 3.0 (approved by AC) extended this screening treatment all the way down the
eastern property line to the southern border of the property. It also required the landscape
areas between the parking stalls and the fence to be widened (which would require the size
of the parking stalls to be reduced) and increased the size of the Indian Laurel Fig Hedge
Shrub (Ficus M. Nitida-Column) from 24-inch box size to 36-inch box size. (See Attachment
1, Condition B.)
• Tennis Court Landscape Areas: City Ventures, a Southern California -based residential
townhome builder, is currently in escrow to purchase the tennis court area of the Motel 6
property to re -develop this area into a residential use. Motel 6 requested that, as a
temporary (interim) condition, the City accept bark mulch for the areas surrounding all of the
tennis courts, including the setback and parkway areas along American Avenue (next to
residences). Version 2.0 would have allowed for this, subject to a condition of approval that
the interim period not exceed 24 months.
CLAREMONT Page 6 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
Version 3.0 (approved by AC) reduced the interim period from 24 months to 12 months and
required that mulch be replenished or replaced after the initial six months. (See Attachment
1, Condition G.)
• Northern Property Line (next to 1-10 Freeway): Versions 2.0 and 3.0 both require four evenly
spaced Water Gum trees to be installed to assist with additional screening of the freeway
views. Pacific Mist Manzanita and Desert Spoon shrubs will be installed between the trees.
• Central Open Space/Pool Area: Versions 2.0 and 3.0 both require new re -design of this central
landscape court surrounding the pool area with a combination of larger format shade trees
south of the pool (three 36-inch box Camphor, one 48-inch box Engelmann Oak), a series of
medium-sized trees east and west of the pool (seven 24-inch box Desert Museum Palo
Verdes, two 24-inch box Eastern Redbuds), and north of the pool (nine 24-inch box Eastern
Redbuds). This central landscape court also includes three semi -circular planter areas with
Waxleaf Privet shrubs to provide privacy to the pool area, Pacific Mist Manzanita shrubs, and
waterwise Kurapia turf for groundcover areas.
Version 3.0 also includes a requirement that the empty swimming pool be filled immediately.
(See Attachment 1, Condition Y.)
• Main Entry: Versions 2.0 and 3.0 both require the main entrance area to be enhanced by
retaining the one large existing Queen Palm tree, adding five, 24-inch box Queen Palm trees,
and removing all existing Ficus trees. The Palm entry focal point would surround all sides of
the porte-cochere as an entry statement to the motel lobby area.
• Parking Areas: Versions 2.0 and 3.0 are the same. With the exception of four existing parking
lot finger tree wells within the easterly parking lot area, all remaining Ficus Trees in the finger
wells throughout the parking lots will be replaced with 24-inch Brisbane Box (Lophostemon
Confertus) trees. Two 48-inch box Englemann Oaks will also be planted within two larger
landscape planter areas in the eastern parking lot area as identified on the attached plan.
• Trash Enclosure (northeast corner of Property: A trash enclosure is currently located on the
northeast corner of the property next to residences. A former property owner modified the
original trash enclosure area by erecting an unpermitted wooden storage structure and
created a smaller trash enclosure area with a six-foot high wood fence. Because the revised
enclosure does not meet City standards and in response to neighboring property owners'
complaints about the odor, noise, cleanliness, and safety of the trash enclosure being directly
across from their backyards, staff initially requested that the owner relocate and construct a
new trash enclosure along the midpoint of the north property line. Motel 6 did not agree to
move the trash enclosure on the basis that it was cost prohibitive to pour new concrete
footings in a different location. As a result, Version 2.0 would have allowed the trash
enclosure to stay in its current location but required the unpermitted storage area to be
removed and the trash enclosure to be re -constructed to the dimensions required by the
City's prior approvals with the new enclosure brought up to date with the current City
standards.
At the AC hearing, several residents reiterated their concerns about the location of the trash
enclosure. Among other concerns, they commented that:
CLAREMONT Page 7 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
o They can smell the trash enclosure from their backyards-,
o Debris blows out of the enclosure into their yards-,
o The enclosure attracts rats and other vermin-,
o The enclosure needs to be emptied frequently, including very early in the morning, and
it is very noisy and disruptive-, and
o People are climbing the trash enclosure to jump over the wall and access their
backyards.
In response, Version 3.0 (approved by AC) requires the trash enclosure to be moved from the
northeast corner of the property (next to residences) to the northwest corner of the property
(next to the freeway). (See Attachment 1, Conditions I & J.)
ANIL I - "I ' �"
e
Attachment D to Attachment 3
• Dry Well: Versions 2.0 and 3.0 are the same. A dry well is designed on the north side of the
existing storage shed in the northeast corner of the property (near the existing trash
enclosure) to mitigate existing drainage issue that occurs during rain events.
• Roof -Mounted Lighting: Without permits or other City approvals, former ownership of the Motel
6 property installed roof -mounted area lights throughout the metal mansard roof system on
all three motel buildings. This type of light fixture creates light pollution on the entire property
and has been a source of complaints over the years. Versions 2.0 and 3.0 both include a
condition of approval that the property owner remove all roof -mounted area lights and return
to a parking area lighting system to the freestanding lighting approved in Motel 6's prior
design review approvals. (See Attachment 1, Condition D.)
Attachment D to Attachment 3
• Colored Lighting on Front Entry Porte-Cochere Columns: The owners have also installed blue -
colored bulbs at the front entry porte-cochere columns which are not consistent with Motel
6's design review approvals. The owners initially agreed to return the bulb color to a more
CLAREMONT Page 8 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarM
traditional color within a range of a less saturated or bright color. Versions 2.0 and 3.0 both
include a condition of approval limiting all exterior fixtures to a maximum color temperature
rating of 3,000 Kelvin. (See Attachment 1, Condition D.) This warmer color and narrow
spectrum help reduce dark skies impacts as well as health impacts to humans (Blue light,
light with Kelvin ratings higher than 3,000 Kelvin in evenings can affect human circadian
rhythms). The more traditional color of lighting is also important to improve safety and
accessibility for people with vision impairments (e.g., at night, steps, and contrasting colors
are less visible when the lighting is blue).
Attachment D to Attachment 3
A representative for Motel 6 (Sapnesh "Sam" Amin) and Motel 6's landscape architect (Chris Soltis)
attended the AC's hearing on Motel 6's proposed landscape plan on October 26, 2022 and provided
public comment. The AC approved Version 3.0 of the landscape plan by a 6-0 vote. A copy of the
approval resolution is included in Attachment 1.
Motel 6's Appeal of its AC Approval
On November 7, 2022, legal counsel for Motel 6 (Anju Multani) submitted an appeal of the AC
Approval. A copy of Motel 6's appeal is included with this report as Attachment 2. Section 16.321.020
(C) of the Claremont Zoning Code requires an appeal to "set forth alleged inconsistency or non-
conformity with procedures or criteria set forth in or pursuant to this title" (i.e., the Zoning Code). Staff
recommends the City Council reject the appeal and affirm the decision of the AC on the basis
that the appeal does not meet this threshold requirement.
Staff's responses to the objections raised in the appeal are set -forth in the table below. It is important
to note that Motel 6 did not raise these objections before or during the hearing on the AC approval. In
addition to the procedural defect noted above, staff recommends the City Council reject the
appeal and affirm the decision of the AC because none of these objections are valid bases to
overturn the AC decision.
Appeal (Direct Quotes) City's Response
1. Pa. 1 last : The citations were This is outside the scope of this appeal. The
issued by City with a list of the administrative citations were not within the purview
violations, in a conclusory manner. of the Architectural Commission. Motel 6 has
The verbiage of the alleged separately appealed the administrative citations,
violations was not provided to and that appeal is pending.
Owner. Owner was required to
correct the alleged violations
"immediately."
CLAREMONT Page 9 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
2.
P . 2 first : The citations on the
See response to objection #1 above.
dates they were issued were in
violation of 1.14.030 (A), (B). The
Codes alleged to be violated are
vague and vest discretion in the
City that can be arbitrarily and
capriciously determined.
3.
Pa. 2 first : None of the citations
Section 8.22.003 of the Claremont Municipal Code
listed 8.22.003 as a violation. Yet,
states "[a]II plantings required shall be irrigated by
the City has considered irrigation
an approved sprinkling system." Consistent with
as an issue to be remedied by
this Section, the AC Approval requires Motel 6's
Owner.
landscaping to be irrigated by an approved
sprinkling system. The fact that the City did not
issue administrative citations to Motel 6 for not
having an approved irrigation system does not
eliminate or change this requirement.
4.
P . 2 first : Owner was not
Section 8.22.008 provides an opportunity to
afforded an opportunity of appeal
appeal a nuisance abatement order relating to the
pursuant to 8.22.008.
condition of commercial landscaping. The City has
not issued a nuisance abatement order to Motel 6.
The procedure for appealing administrative
citations is in Chapter 1.14, and the procedure for
appealing the AC Approval is in Chapter 16.321.
Motel 6 has availed itself of both of those appeal
procedures.
5.
P . 2 first : City changes the time
Like the previous objection, this objection is
limits for pursuing an appeal.
referencing the deadline and procedures for an
Owner was informed he has 10
appeal of a landscaping -related nuisance
days to submit an appeal to City
abatement order. (CIVIC § 8.22.010.) As noted
Council, but the Code provides for
above, the City has not issued a nuisance
15 days of the mailing of the
abatement order to Motel 6. See response to
decision. (8.22.010). City has not
objection #4 above. The deadline to appeal the
complied with the provisions of this
AC Approval was 10 days. (CMC § 16.321.010
Code section.
(B).)
6.
P . 2 second : City misled
The City disputes this, but it is outside the scope of
Owner with assurances that
this appeal. See response to objection #1 above.
citations would not be issued as
Owner was working to remedy the
alleged violations.
CLAREMONT Page 10 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
7.
Pci. 2 third IT. City's
The City cannot provide a meaningful response to
communications with Owner were
this objection. The appeal does not disclose which
ambiguous. City's communications
requirements the City purportedly changed, nor
imposed changing requirements.
does it provide the Attachments it references.
(Attachment 13. page 51;
Nevertheless, the City disputes that any of its
Attachment 14, page 65, 66
requirements "changed" or were "ambiguous."
[illegible]
There are many ways Motel 6's landscape plan
could meet the City's requirements for commercial
landscaping (Chapter 8.22), requirements for
water -efficient landscaping (Chapter 16.131), and
architectural review criteria (§ 16.300.060). City
staff worked with Motel 6 and its landscape
architect for many months to assist Motel 6 in
understanding its options.
8.
P . 2 fourth : City considered
The City cannot provide a meaningful response to
biased and unfounded statements
this objection, and it appears to relate to the
from residents. (Attachment 16,
administrative citations (not the AC Approval). If
page 90)
so, then this objection is outside the scope of this
appeal. See response to objection #1 above. The
appeal does not disclose which "biased"
comments that the AC or City staff purportedly
considered. Staff's recommendations and
proposed findings were based on staff's personal
observations of the site (not on statements from
residents).
9.
P . 2 fifth : City indicated it had
The Agenda Report and staff presentation for the
been communicating with Owner
AC did not reference the length of time the City
for over two years. There is no
communicated with the Owner about the condition
evidence to support the claim.
of Motel 6's landscaping. This information had no
(Attachment 18, page 105
bearing on the AC Approval.
10.
Pa. 2 sixth : There was no issue
The administrative citations are outside the scope
of trees indicated in the Citations
of this appeal. See response to objection #1
issued. (CIVIC 1.14.026
above. In addition, the Code Section referenced
in this objection (§ 1.14.026) relates to City -owned
trees (such as City street trees). To staff's
knowledge, Motel 6 did not remove or damage any
City -owned trees - it removed and/or damaged its
own trees.
11.
P . 2 seventh : The letter from
The February 24, 2022 letter referenced in this
City dated 2/24/22 also violates
objection is one of many written warnings the City
CIVIC 1.14.030 (A) and (B)
provided to Motel 6 before resorting to
(Attachment ; 8. page 105) The 6
administrative citations. The appropriate time to
violations listed were to be
raise concerns about those written warnings was
corrected within 14 days to 43
in connection with Motel 6's appeal of the citations.
days. The time frame elected by
The administrative citations are outside the scope
the City had no rationale basis.
of this appeal. See response to objection #1
The issues posed and the dates
above.
for correction imposed an undue
burden and hardship on Owner.
CLAREMONT Page 11 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
12.
P . 2 eighth : A subsequent
See responses to objections #1 and #11 above.
'notice' of violations (which notice
is not in conformance with the
CIVIC was dated March 2, 2022
(Attachment 19, page 107). There
is no clarification of what were the
supplementary violations, and who
reported them to City. The notice
to Owner is inadequate.
13.
Pa. 2 ninth : On March 10, 2022,
See responses to objections #1 and #11 above.
via email, City listed numerous
other claimed violations. This
email violates CIVIC 1.14.026.
(Attachment 21, page 109). Owner
requested clarification of the
ongoing transmissions of ever
increasing violations. (Attachment
21. page 110)
14.
Pa. 2 tenth : On March 10, 2022,
See responses to objections #1 and #11 above.
City sent a communication, noting
other issues of alleged violations.
No Code sections were cited.
Arbitrary dates for compliance
were imposed. (Attachment 22,
page111)
15.
Pa. 2 last : RD, on behalf of
City staff's communications with Motel 6's
Owner, emailed City on 4/5/2022.
contractor (RD Duran) in April of 2022 had no
City did not consider this evidence.
bearing on the AC Approval.
(Attachment 24, page 135) City
claimed the email from RD went
into a spam folder.
16.
P . 3 first : Jerssey Ardila
City staff's communications with Motel 6's civil
communicated with City to get
engineer (Ms. Ardila) had no bearing on the AC
information on how to effectuate
Approval.
corrections. Ms Ardila noted that
she was a civil engineer who was
working on the property together
with RD (Attachment 31, page
157)
17.
P . 3 first : City refused to
The City disputes this. See response to objection
provide guidance on how
#7 above. The City provided guidance that
compliance could be achieved.
resulted in at least two versions of the landscape
plan that complied with the City's requirements
(i.e., Versions 2.0 and 3.0).
18.
P . 3 second : City refused to
The City disputes this, but it is outside the scope of
acknowledge the issues and
this appeal. See response to objection #1 above.
restrictions caused by the
pandemic.
CLAREMONT Page 12 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
19.
P . 3 third : City would not
The landscape plan Motel 6's contractor (RD)
provide guidance on what species
submitted in April of 2022 did not comply with the
of trees were acceptable. Yet,
City's Codes for a variety of reasons. For example,
when a plan was submitted, City
it was not prepared by a licensed landscape
rejected the proposal on the
architect (or any other "professional appropriately
grounds that " ... proposed species
licensed in the State of California"). (CIVIC §
of trees .. is inappropriate." There
16.131.030.) Staff's email notified Motel 6 that "the
as no clarification of why the
proposed species of tree for the east property
species was inappropriate. This
line" (i.e., next to a wall and residences) "is
communication occurred on April
inappropriate." RD's landscape plan proposed
19, 2022 by email. City then
Pinus canariensis (Canary Island Pine) and
imposed new requirements for the
Koelreuteria bipinnata (Chinese Flame) in the
trees.
narrow landscape area between the parking stalls
and the wall on the eastern property line. Canary
Island Pines planted in narrow 3 foot planter areas
have proven problematic throughout the
Claremont area. Issues include adjacent
hardscape damage due to insufficient planter
space. The City did not impose "new"
requirements for trees. As noted above, there are
many ways Motel 6's landscape plan could meet
the City's requirements for commercial
landscaping (Chapter 8.22), requirements for
water efficient landscaping (Chapter 16.131), and
architectural review criteria (§ 16.300.060). City
staff worked with Motel 6 and its landscape
architect for many months to discuss Motel 6's
options. See response to objection #7 above.
20.
P . 3 third : The notice regarding
See responses to objections #1 and #11 above.
these requirements was not in
conformance with CIVIC 1.14.030.
(Attachment 36, page 168)
21.
Pa. 3 fourth : On October 26,
This paragraph appears to be provided as
2022 the Architectural Commission
background information. The appeal does not
held a meeting. The Commission
specify which "further requirements," if any, Motel
imposed further requirements for
6 objects to.
Owner.
22.
P . 3 fifth : SCE removed trees
The City acknowledges that some of the trees
under their authority.
along the eastern property line were removed by
Southern California Edison in February of 2022.
Other trees were removed by Motel 6. Ultimately,
the identity of the person or entity responsible for
removing the trees does not change the fact that
the current condition of Motel 6's landscaping does
not comply with its 1970s landscaping approvals
nor the City's current Code. The AC Approval
would bring the landscaping into compliance.
CLAREMONT Page 13 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
23.
P . 3 fifth : SCE or others
This is a private dispute between Motel 6,
installed cameras on the pole
Southern California Edison, and a neighboring
which intrudes upon the privacy
property owner that is outside the scope of this
rights of Owner
appeal. The City does not have jurisdiction over
Southern California Edison's utility poles.
24.
P . 3 sixth : The Codes, as
The appeal does not identify which Codes or
worded, are vague and overbroad.
ordinances Motel 6 contends are "vague and
They are not clearly or specifically
overbroad." Motel 6's licensed landscape architect
defined. This allows the vesting of
(Mr. Soltis) used the Codes to prepare a
unbridled discretion in the City,
landscape plan that staff supported (Version 2.0),
allowing for interpretation as it
and the AC ultimately approved the plan with
suits the needs of the City.
minor modifications (Version 3.0). The City did not
Manhattan Sepulveda, Ltd. v. City
have "unbridled discretion" - the landscaping
of Manhattan Beach (1994) 22
standards and architectural review criteria are
Cal.AppAth 865 The vagary of the
outlined in Chapters 8.22 and 16.131, and Section
ordinances allows for prejudicial
16.300.060 of the Claremont Municipal Code.
abuse of discretion.
25.
P . 3 seventh : Abuse of
This is a general statement of law with no
discretion is established if the
explanation of how it relates to any of the City's
respondent has not proceeded in
actions. The appeal does not allege that the City
the manner required by law, the
"has not proceeded in the manner required by
order or decision is not supported
law," nor does it allege that the AC's decision
by the findings, or the findings are
approving Motel 6's Architectural and Site Plan
not supported by the
Review "is not supported by the findings" or that
evidence."' (Doe v. University of
the AC's findings are "not supported by the
Southern Califomia(2018)
evidence." If the AC's decision was not supported
28Cal.App.5th 26, 34; see Code
by the findings or if the findings were not
Civ. Proc., §1094.5 (b); Lateef vs
supported by evidence, then the AC would have
City of Madera (2020) 45 CA5th
been required to deny Motel 6's application.
245.
26.
P . 3 eighth : Appellant refers to
Mr. Weiser (legal counsel for Motel 6) did not
and incorporates the constitutional
provide any letters in connection with the AC
arguments raised by Frank Weiser
Approval. He provided at least two letters in
as counsel for Owner in his letter
connection with Motel 6's appeal of its
to City.
administrative citations. The City responded to
those letters in connection with that appeal
process. Mr. Weiser's letters and the City's
responses to them are outside the scope of this
appeal. See response to objection #1.
27.
P . 3 last : All of the above are
Most of the objections in the appeal challenge
grounds for an appeal of the
Motel 6's administrative citations, not the AC
Commission's decision of
Approval. Only the objections to the AC Approval
10/26/2022.
are grounds for appeal.
28.
P . 3 last : Owner has not been
As noted above, the hearing on the administrative
served with any decision from the
citations is still pending. The hearing officer has
hearing officer and therefore
not issued his decision yet.
reserves his right to appeal any
such decision, or proceed to the
appropriate legal forum.
CLAREMONT Page 14 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
Date of Appeal Hearinq
Section 16.321.020(E) of the Claremont Zoning Code requires that an appeal "be forwarded to the
City Council for a hearing at their next available meeting, considering notice requirements, or a later
date if the applicant agrees." (Underlining added.) The pending appeal suspends the action being
appealed (CIVIC § 16.321.020(D)); as a result, the AC Approval and its associated compliance
deadlines will not go into effect until this appeal is resolved.
Motel 6's legal counsel requested the hearing be postponed until, at the earliest, February 14, 2023,
to accommodate her availability. Staff gave this request careful consideration, but the deteriorated
condition of Motel 6's landscaping is having ongoing significant negative impacts on the residents of
neighboring homes and the surrounding community. In addition, at the AC hearing, Motel 6's owner
(Mr. Amin) acknowledged that he has stopped watering the existing landscaping in anticipation of it
being replaced in the very near future. Under these circumstances, staff determined a delay of more
than two months was not appropriate.
Staff made sure Motel 6's legal counsel was aware that the appeal hearing will be after close of
business and that she can appear by Zoom or telephone. If the City Council would like to grant this
request, it has the ability to continue the hearing "by vote of the City Council." (CIVIC § 16.321.020
(E).)
LEGAL REVIEW
The appeal and this staff report have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Chapter 16.321 of the Claremont Zoning Code allows any person aggrieved by any decision, of a
Commission to file an appeal of such action. Appeals of Commission decisions are reviewed by the
City Council.
CEQA REVIEW
The landscape plan is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304(b) (Class 4) for Minor Alterations to Land, in that the
project entails the replacement of existing landscaping with new water -efficient landscaping.
Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of the appeal as
well as the project plans are available for review at the Public Counter at City Hall.
In addition, notice of this meeting was mailed to properties within 700 feet of the subject property. A
copy of this report has been sent to the Appellant and its legal counsel, and other interested parties.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Brad Johnson Alisha Patterson
Community Development Director City Attorney
CLAREMONT Page 15 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
Attachments:
1 - 10/26/22 AC Resolution Approving Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07
2 - Motel 6's Appeal of AC Approval of Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07
3 - AC Agenda Report for Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07
A - Draft Approval Resolution
B - 1971 Landscape Plan
C - Proposed Landscape Plan
D - Photos of Current & Past Conditions
4 - 10/26/22 Staff Presentation on Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07
5 - 10/26/22 Minutes of the Architectural Commission's Hearing on Architectural and Site Plan
Review #22-A07
6 - 1973 Minutes of the Architectural Commission's Hearing on Landscape Plan for Tennis Club
7 - Draft City Council Resolution Denying Appeal and Affirming AC Approval
CLAREMONT Page 16 of 16 Printed on 11/17/2022
powered by LegistarTM
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
#22-A07, PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT 840 SOUTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD —
APPLICANT — BHUVNESHWARI CORPORATION
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2022, the applicant filed a request to re -landscape all existing
landscape areas; and
WHEREAS, 840 South Indian Hill Boulevard contains an existing two-story motel
constructed in 1972; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the Commercial Freeway District (CF). Under the
CF District, motels are a conditionally permitted use and intended to provide for a concentration
of major commercial uses such as hotels, service stations, restaurants, auto sales, and big box
retail uses that are dependent on their exposure to large volume freeway traffic, and uses that
are related to and serve the needs of the motoring public; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2022, a notice of public hearing regarding the Architectural
Commission review of the design of the proposed project was mailed to owners of and
residents of properties located within a 700-foot radius of the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Commission held a public hearing on October 26, 2022,
at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the proposal were heard and said
proposal was fully studied.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CLAREMONT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The Architectural Commission has determined that the proposal is categorically
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15304(b) (Class 4) for Minor Alterations to Land, in that the project entails the
replacement of existing landscaping with new water efficient landscaping. Therefore, no further
environmental review is necessary.
SECTION 2. The Architectural Commission finds that the review criteria of Section
16.300.060.A of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC) can be met in regards to the above -
described project as follows:
A. Conformity with Development Standards - The proposed project is in conformity
with all development standards for the Commercial Freeway (CF) zoning district as
follows:
Setbacks: There are only front and street side yard building setbacks of 10 feet
required in the CF zone. The existing buildings meet the required setbacks
therefore, the proposed project is in conformity with the zone's setback
requirements. The non -conforming parking lot perimeter landscape areas do not
meet the minimum five feet required today, however this is considered a legal,
non -conforming condition that may be retained.
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-11
Page 2
2. Building Height: The existing building heights are below the maximum 30-foot
height allowed for a building or structure in the CF zoning district. This project
only deals with landscaping replacement.
3. Parking: The proposed parking complies with the parking requirements in effect
at the time it was constructed in 1972.
B. General Plan Consistency - The proposed project is consistent with the following
goals/policies of the Claremont General Plan:
1. Pursue Code enforcement actions to advance proper maintenance of homes,
buildings, yards, and neighborhoods in all areas of the City (Policy 2-2.3); in that
the proposed project is the result of code enforcement action taken by the City to
repair damaged trees, landscaped areas, replace solid waste enclosure and
exterior lights that do not comply with City standards, and provide for proper
landscape screening to adjacent land uses such as the single family homes along
Drake Avenue and American Avenue.
2. Enforce property maintenance standards to help ensure neighborhoods are kept
up, recognizing that property taxes generate significant revenue to the City.
(Policy 3-1.7); in that the proposed project is the result of the City requesting the
property owner to bring the property maintenance and landscaping up to
established City standards.
3. Minimize noise from property maintenance equipment, construction activities and
other non -transportation noise sources by enforcing designated construction and
maintenance hours (Policy 6-12.3); in that the project has been conditioned to
respect the noise levels and allowed construction hours in commercial zones
adjacent to single family residential zones.
C. Compatibility of Form with Surrounding Development — There are no new
proposed buildings that will unduly interfere, nor visually dominate the existing
development pattern of the surrounding motel property; however, the augmented
landscape plan is intended to bring the landscaping on the site to a level similar to
other commercial properties in the City.
D. Compatibility of Quality with Surrounding Development — The proposed project
features a well -considered landscape design theme that employs high -quality
materials that reflect the drought conditions the City is currently experiencing and
planning ahead for global warming conditions and the need for more sustainable
landscape designs with lower irrigation requirements.
E. Internal Consistency of Design — The replacement landscaping and required
improved lighting features are internally consistent with the motel use.
F. Privacy — The new landscaping proposed with the project will return privacy screening
to the adjacent residential uses adjacent to the east property line, which was allowed
to deteriorate and be removed over past years.
G. Internal Circulation - The circulation patterns, which have served the motel use for
nearly fifty years, will remain in place and not be altered as part of the project.
H. Sustainability — The proposed landscape and irrigation modifications will enhance
the landscape while substantially reducing water usage for outdoor landscape areas.
A completely new irrigation system, including drip irrigation will replace the existing
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-11
Page 3
inefficient system. Trees and plant materials will be removed and replaced with
drought tolerant materials in consideration of global warming conditions being
experienced across the State. The enhanced landscaping and climate appropriate
plants are intended to thrive and provide larger canopies that will increase shade on
the site and reduce the heat-island effect.
Tree Preservation — Existing mature trees will be removed with this project, however
the majority of these existing trees were pruned and trimmed over many years in an
inappropriate manner that has destroyed their canopy and branch structure. The
large California Redwood and Southern Magnolia trees are high water usage species
with little canopy and are currently dying due to lack or water. Proposed tree species
are anticipated to thrive in the local climate and provide a larger canopy over time.
J. Light and Air — No new structures are being proposed with this project this project
consists of landscaping, irrigation, and lighting replacement.
K. Environmental Protections - The proposed development has been reviewed
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for
the reasons stated above in Section A.
L. Health and Safety - The visual effect of the development from view from adjacent
public streets and neighborhoods will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare. It features a re -designed landscape palette that is
appropriate in design and water usage consistent with the other re -landscaping
projects around the City of Claremont. The new screen hedge -row along the eastern
property line will return a privacy screen once in place for the adjacent single family
homes backyards.
SECTION 3. The Architectural Commission hereby approves Architectural and Site
Plan Review #22-A07 based on the review criteria as outlined in Sections A and B above,
subject to the following conditions of approval:
A. This approval is for the proposed re -landscaping of the existing Motel 6 property
consisting of approximately 6 acres, as depicted on the project plans.
B. The eastern property line parking lot planter area shall be widened to allow for 36 inch
sized Ficus M. Nitida (Indian Laurel Fig) Hedge, spaced five feet on center. The
landscape plan shall be revised to include the entirety of the east property line with the
new 36 inch box hedge row, spaced 5 feet on center.
C. This approval is valid for six months from the date of Architectural Commission action.
If landscape and irrigation permits are not issued, or a time extension has not been
granted during this time frame, this approval shall automatically expire without further
action by the City. The Director of Community Development is authorized to grant a six-
month extension upon written request from the applicant that there were unavoidable
delays.
D. Prior to final approval of the landscape and irrigation installation, the applicant shall
submit a photometric plan indicating the removal of all roof mounted area lights and the
installation of new free standing light standards and pedestrian level lighting fixtures. All
exterior fixtures are limited to a maximum color temperature rating of 3,000 Kelvin. Area
and parking lot lighting shall consist of new decorative light standards not exceeding 15
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-11
Page 4
feet in height. All exterior lighting shall conform to City lighting standards particularly
those relating to light pollution and glare and be purpose oriented lighting fixtures.
E. Within 10 calendar days of this approval, all non-traditional, decorative colored exterior
light bulbs shall be replaced with traditional colored white light bulbs subject to review
and approval of the Community Development Director, or designee. Within 60 days the
sconce porte-co-chere column light fixtures shall be replaced with mid-century modern
light fixtures with functional illumination -oriented lights in a color and intensity acceptable
to the Community Development Director, or designee.
F. All landscape and parking lot areas shall be kept free of weeds, trash, debris on a regular
basis.
G. If demolition work for re -development of the tennis courts does not commence within 12
months of the date of this approval, the applicant shall submit a separate landscape &
irrigation plan for consideration of all existing landscape planters surrounding and
between the courts, including the public parkway along American Avenue. Bark Mulch
during the 12 months shall be maintained in a weed free and trash free condition. Bark
Mulch shall be replenished or replaced after the initial 6 months.
K The applicant shall remove the unpermitted shed located in the northeast corner of the
property and return the area to its originally sized trash enclosure area.
Prior to final inspection of the landscaping, irrigation, and lighting features, plans for a
new trash enclosure shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The new
trash enclosure shall be relocated and constructed at the northwest corner of the parcel.
J. Prior to a final approval of all landscaping, irrigation, and replacement lighting, the
reconstructed trash enclosure and fence/gate system along American Avenue shall be
completed and inspected by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Community
Services staff members assigned to this project.
K. The final landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the State's Model Water
Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO).
L. Ascertain and comply with all requirements of the City's Building Division, including the
submittal of complete architectural, electrical, landscaping plans duly wet stamped and
signed by a licensed architect or designer.
M. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial
conformance with the Architectural Commission approval.
N. Ascertain and comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
O. Pay all applicable permit and development review fees as established by City
ordinances and resolutions.
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-11
Page 5
P. During re -landscaping operations, the applicant shall implement best available control
measures (BACMs) to minimize nuisance levels of construction activity emissions such
as dust, emissions, and off -site impacts. BACMs shall include but are not limited to the
following:
1. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
2. Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
3. Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging
areas.
4. Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt
deposition on any public roadway.
5. Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or dusty
material.
6. Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph.
7. Hydro -seed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain
inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed.
8. Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off -road equipment.
9. Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
10. Encourage carpooling for construction workers.
11. Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
12. Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
13. Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site.
14. Wash or sweep access points daily.
15. Encourage receipt of material during non -peak traffic hours.
16, Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
Q. Ensure the following measures are observed during all construction -related activities for
the project:
1. The hours of construction operation are limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sundays
and federal holidays.
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-11
Page 6
2. Staging areas shall be located away from any existing residences as determined
by the Building Official.
3. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers.
R. During the course of all on -site grading and construction activity, the applicant shall employ
adequate dust control measures in accordance with the California Building Code,
SCAQMD, and City requirements to minimize fugitive dust.
S. Noise sources associated with construction activities shall not exceed the noise levels
as set forth in Section 16.154.020(f) of the Claremont Municipal Code.
T. To ensure compliance with the provisions of this Architectural Commission design
approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work has been
completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an
appointment for such an inspection.
U. Upon final inspection, the City will commence a 30-day lighting level review of all,
exterior lights. If illumination levels, glare, or other applicable issues are found to be
excessive, the applicant will be directed to modify the lighting as necessary to be at an
acceptable level.
V. Noncompliance with any condition of this approval shall constitute a violation of the
City's Municipal Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of
the administrative fines program of Chapter 1.14 of the Claremont Municipal Code.
W. The applicant/owner, by utilizing the benefits of this approval, shall thereby agree to
defend at its sole expense any action against the City, its agents, officers, and
employees because of the issues of such approval. In addition, the applicant/owner
shall reimburse the City et al for any court costs and attorney fees that the City et al may
be required to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation
shall not relieve the applicant/owner of its obligation hereunder.
X. Failure to comply with any of the conditions, including design issues as shown on plans
reviewed and approved by the City of Claremont, may result in failure to obtain a building
final and/or a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's
requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition
of a non -compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred, where the project does not
comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits
were pulled to construct the project.
Y. The existing outdoor swimming pool and spa shall be re -filled immediately with water and
kept filled with water and maintained throughout the year for use by motel guests. Weekly
chemical measurements, additives and cleaning shall be strictly adhered to.
Section 4. The Architectural Commission Chair shall sign this resolution and the
Commission's secretary shall attest to the adoption thereof.
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-11
Page 7
Passed, approved, and adopted this 26th day of October, 2022.
itectural Commission Chair
ATTEST:
rchitectural Co mis on Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss.
CITY OF CLAREMONT )
I, Carrissa Roque, Administrative Assistant of the City of Claremont, County of Los
Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-
11 was adopted by the Architectural Commission of said City of Claremont at a
regular meeting of said Commission held on October 26, 2022, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSTENSIONS: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioner:
00'm L _
Administrativ�Assistai�
City of Claremont
Bennett, Castillo, Cervera, Neiuber,
Perri, and Spivack
None
None
None
0 'Ilk i' APPEAL OF DECISIONS
CITY OF CLAREMOI\-
�► �+ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN-7
to 207 HARVARD AVENUE, P. O. BOX 886-
�Q CLAREMONT, CA 91711-0880
U (909) 399-5470
APPELLANT INFORMATION
ATTACHMENT 2
HPPEAL OF DrKISIOR6- #22-i)0 h10 EL 6
11-07-21322 /02.33 P1"
ECECr V]E�, 2,000.00 q
b
NOV 0 7 2022
CITY CLERK
CITY OF Gk.F-EMONT
Name of Appellant: Bhuvneshwari Corporation dba Motel 6, Sapnesh Amin
Address: 840 S Indian Hill Blvd, Claremont CA 917' :
Phone Number:
909-621-4831 Date: 11 /07/202c
APPEAL INFORMATION
Application Number: #22-A07
10/26/2022
Appeal of: Staff Decision
Planning Commiss'Or1
Architectural Commission
Please describe the specific decision being appealed and state the reasons for this appeal. Appeals shall set
=orih alleged inconsistency or non -conformity with procedures or criteria set forth in City codes. if additional
:Meets are necessary, piease attach them to tl
Please see attachment regarding appeal
Appellant's Signature
FEES
Project Proponent M
1/2 of the application fee
Fixed Fee Projects
Hourly Fee Projects Continuation of hourly fee (appeal deposit required)
Other Interested Persons Icomf
rn
rn
?,eceived By:
Date: f C's-
L -�
Fixed Fee: Hourly Deposit: 1 I° r. 113
-.r 0 r.5
r-
r- r.
+.i n
ra c:;
CP
� w m
r
r� 3 Ow
RECEIVED
NOV Q 7 2022
CITY CLERK
CITY OF CLAREMONT
LAWOFFICES OF AID JU
N LT.ANI
P.O. Box 6821, Fullerton, California 92834
Telephone: (562) 644-3127; Email: Molt ni(:iw Lei l',►l�ot}.rc►nF
November 7, 2022
Attachment to
rho e d iroln the Decision/Resolution ution of the !Vchitectuial Commission
Dated 10/26/2022
Resolution #22-A07
Property at: 840 South Indian. Hill Boulevard — Motel 6, Claremont, California
Property omen: B `.rneshwari Corporation
Htstoncal ers GIIVe
1. Start nr* on or about April 12, 2022, City of Claremont (iiereina€ler "City") issued
e citations, indicating violaations of Claremont Munictntl.l Code r'Clvl .
A. CAC 6705 for violations of CMC 8.22.002. 8.22.004. 8?2.005. 9.22.006. 16.154.06",
16.131.030. Fine imposed was $100.0(!
3. CAC 6707, issued April 13, 2022, for the same violations noted on CAC 6705. Fine
mvosed was $200.00
C,. CAC 6709, issued April 19, 2022, for the same violations noted on CAC 6705. Fine
imposed was $500.00
The citations at issue concerned landscape and irrigation.
Owner submitted a landscaping plan to City about two months after the issuance of the
citations. City commented on the plans on July 12, 2022.
Citations
The citations were issued by City with a list of the violations, in a conclusory manner.
The verbiage of the alleged violations was not provided to Owner. Owner was required to
correct the alleged violations "immediately."
Basis for a ea?
the citations on the dates they were issued were in violation of 1.14.030 (A), (B).
"-:c Codes alleged to be violated are vague and vest discretion in the City that can be
nitxaniy and capaciously determined.
one or the citations listed 8.22.00 3 as a violation. Yet, the City has considered irrigation
as an issue to be remedied by Owner
Owner was not afforded an opportunity of appeal pursuant to 8.22.00
City changes the time limits for pursuing an appeal. Owner was informed he has 1 to na-, .
to submit an appeal to City C'ounc.iI- lint the Code provides for 15 days of (he maiin�4
the decision. (8.22.010)• City has not complied with the provisions of this Code section.
City misled Owner �N ith assurances that citations would not be issued as Owner was
working to remedy the allege violations.
City's con-imunications with O%�ne:r were ambiguous. City's communications imposee3
changing recitcirenients. (Attachment 13, page 51, Attachment 14, page 65. 66
City considered biased and unfounded statements from residents. (Attachment 16, page
ap)
City indicated it iiad been communicating with Owner for over two _years. There is no
evidence to support the claim. (Attachment 18, page 105
There was no issue of trees indicated in the Citations issued. (CMC 1.14.026
he letter from City dated 2/24/22 also violates CMC 1.14.030 (A) and (B) (Attachment
8. page 105) ,rho 6 violations listed were to be corrected within 14 days to 43 days. The
ime ironic elected by the City had no rationale basis. The: issues posed. and the: dates for
correction imposed an undue burden and hardship on Owner.
A sus Sequent `notice' of violations (which notice is not in conformance with the CTVI[C1
was dated March 2, 2022 (Attachment 19, page 107). There is no clarification of what.
were the supplementary violations, and who reported them to City. The notice to Owner
is inadequate.
On March 10, 2022, via email, City listed numerous other claimed violations. This email
violates CMC 1.14.026. (Attachment 21, page 109). Owner requested clarification of the
ongoing transmissions of ever increasing violations. (Attachment 21. page 110)
On March 10, 2022, City sent a communication, noting other issues of alleged violations.
No Code sections were cited. Arbitrary dates for compliance were imposed. (Attachment
22, page 111)
RD, on behalf of Owner, entailed City on 4/5/?022. Cite did not consider this evidence.
(Attachment 24, page 135) City claimed the email from RD went into a spans folder.
2
Jerssey Ardila communicated with City to get information on how to effectuate
corrections. Ms Ardila noted that she was a civil engineer who was working on the
property together with RD (Attachment 31, page 157) City refused to provide guidance
on how compliance could be achieved.
City refused to acknowledge the issues and restrictions caused by the pandemic.
City would not provide guidance on what species of trees were acceptable. Yet, when a
plan was submitted, City rejected the proposal on the grounds that "...proposed species
of trees ..is inappropriate." There was no clarification of why the species was
inappropriate. This communication occurred on April 19, 2022 by email. City then
imposed new requirements for the trees. The notice regarding these requirements was not
in conformance with CMC 1.14.030. (Attachment 36, page 168)
On October 26, 2022 the Architectural Conmdssion held a meeting. The Commission
imposed further requirements for Owner
SCE removed trees under their authority. SCE or others installed cameras on the pole
which intrudes upon the privacy rights of Owner.
The Codes, as worded, are vague and overbroad. They are not clearly or specifically
defined. This allows the vesting of unbridled discretion in the City, allowing for
interpretation as it suits the needs of the City.
Manhattan Sepulveda, Ltd. v. City of Manhattan Beach (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 865
The vagary of the ordinances allows for prejudicial abuse of discretion.
Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the many:= -
required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings arc
not supported by the evidence.' "(Doe v. University of Southern Califomia(2018
8Cal.App.5th 26, 34; see Code Civ. Proc., §1094.5 (b); Lateef vs City of Madera (2020)
45 CA5th 245.
Appellant refers to. and incorporates the constitutional arguments raised by Frank Weise-
as counsel for Owner in his letter to Cit-.
All of the above are grounds for an appeal of the Commission's decision of 10/26/2022.
Owner has not been served with any decision from the hearing officer and therefore
reserves his right to appeal any such decision, or proceed to the appropriate legal forum.
Very truly yours,
�< W O i i CX- OF ANJL' MULTANI
By: A '
for Appellant
N
ATTACHMENT 3
�0 -% Claremont Architectural Commission
1c
UKSS
Agenda Report
. , . 9 p
File #: 4424 Item No: 3.
TO: ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION
FROM: BRAD JOHNSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2022
Reviewed by:
Finance Director: N/A
SUBJECT:
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW #22-A07, PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT 840
SOUTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD - MOTEL 6
SUMMARY
The property owners of Motel 6 have submitted a landscape plan to replace damaged trees, dead
and dying trees, and previously removed trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. The proposed plan
addresses the majority of the six -acre site. The proposed plan responds to neighbor complaints and
City staff observations of a lack of long-term maintenance and inappropriate pruning activities
throughout the site. In particular, recent and past removals of mature trees along the eastern property
line have resulted in the loss of privacy and screening to the adjacent single-family neighborhood on
Drake Avenue. The landscape architect for this project has taken into account the current drought
conditions of our region and is recommending a variety of replacement drought resistant tree and
planting materials.
Although there are broader quality of life issues occurring on and around the Motel 6 property, this
application only relates to Motel 6's landscaping (and related irrigation and landscaping). The City's
Planning Commission and Police Commission are currently studying the City's options for a new or
revised motel ordinance to help the City address broader health, safety, and welfare issues
associated with freeway motels. They will be meeting as a joint body in the coming weeks to discuss
local regulations to address broader issues in the general area of Indian Hill Boulevard and the 1-10
Freeway. Those broader issues are outside the scope of the Architectural Commission's review of
this application for a landscape plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Commission adopt A RESOLUTION OF ARCHITECTURAL
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND
SITE PLAN REVIEW #22-A07, PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT 840 SOUTH INDIAN HILL
CLAREMONT Page 1 of 6 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by LegistarTM
BOULEVARD - MOTEL 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the staff recommendation, there are the following alternatives:
A. Continue the item for additional information or redesign of the proposal.
B. Approve the project with additional or revised conditions of approval.
C. Express the intent to deny the request, specifically identifying the design review criteria that
cannot be met and continue the matter to a future Commission meeting for adoption of a
denial resolution.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
The staff cost to prepare this report and administer this project is estimated at $2,405, and is
reimbursed by the applicant.
ANALYSIS
Background
After the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit #1101 on October 21, 1969, the
Architectural Commission (AC) approved the site plan and design features of the Rodeway Inn, on
April 29, 1970. The approvals included a motel and an adjacent automobile service station. On
October 28, 1970, the AC considered landscaping, signs, luminaires, color samples, and other details
of the project (A&SPR #6216). Planning Staff recommended at this meeting that the landscape plans
for the motel portion of the site be delayed to allow for additional revisions and refinements. On
January 13, 1971, this motel project was presented again with revisions to the site and site feature
plans, landscape, and signage. Staff again had concerns with the landscape buffer along the east
property line and felt a heavier buffer of landscape was necessary. The AC ultimately delegated the
landscape plan approval to Planning Division staff. Attached as Attachment B is the original
approved landscape plan approved by staff on January 30, 1971. On May 23, 1973, the AC approved
Site Plan Review #6302 approving the Rodeway Inn Tennis Club. The Tennis Club included 11
courts, a deck area, and 27 new parking spaces, and a future clubhouse. Commissioners at that time
had concerns related to adequate landscaping features along the south and east sides of the tennis
courts relative to screening of the proposed court fencing and proposed overhead court lighting
system. Staff was unable to locate a record of the 1973 approvals for landscape plans surrounding
the tennis courts.
The condition of many aspects of the Motel 6's property, including its landscaping and irrigation, has
been in an unacceptable state of disrepair for many years. Throughout this time, the City has been
working with both current and former owners of the Motel 6 property to gain voluntary compliance
with the City's standards. The City's Community Improvement Division recently imposed formal
deadlines for action to be taken to improve the condition of the Motel 6 property, including pavement
resurfacing, painting, and quiet zone signage for the parking area adjacent to the neighbors to the
east. These formal deadlines also included a requirement that Motel 6 bring its landscaping and
irrigation into compliance with the City's standards for commercial landscaping. Because landscaping
along the eastern property line provides critical screening between the Motel 6 and neighboring
residential properties, the lack of appropriate landscaping has been a key source of complaints from
the community. The current ownership purchased this parcel approximately four years ago and is
CLAREMONT Page 2 of 6 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by LegistarTM
now working diligently with the Community Development Department to correct many years of lack of
maintenance.
Neighbors to the east of the motel have filed numerous complaints with the City which included gas
leaf blower noise, outdoor smoking, nighttime light pollution, unpermitted removal of mature trees,
utility -related tree trimming and removal of mature trees, inappropriate topping and pruning of mature
trees, and criminal activities. The complaints about landscaping and outdoor lighting relate to this
application. As noted above, the Planning Commission and Police Commission are currently studying
ways to address other neighborhood issues and will be meeting as a joint body in the coming weeks
to discuss criminal activity and broader quality of life issues in the general area of Indian Hill
Boulevard and the 1-10 Freeway.
Open Space Areas and Landscapinq
The City initially focused mostly on the eastern edge of the parcel due to the increased number of
complaints. On February 17, 2021, Southern California Edison (SCE) recently began removing ten to
twelve large Eucalyptus Trees along this narrow easterly landscape planter and nearby planters.
SCE has taken a more aggressive tree trimming and removal approach over the last three years due
to numerous fire and wildfire related incidents with their overhead transmission lines. Due to a
miscommunication between SCE's contractor, the property management/ownership, and the City,
major tree removals occurred at a time when the City was requesting more screening, not less. Prior
owners of the motel had also removed numerous other trees along the east property line planter
area.
The prior owners attempted to mitigate past tree removals on this east side by raising the height of
their block wall with a topper fence constructed of vinyl fencing material. The northerly two-thirds of
the wall now measures approximately ten feet in height measured from the Motel 6 perimeter
landscape planter. This east property line planter ranges from 3'- 2" to 3' - 6" which is more
appropriate for a shrub screen rather than a tree screen treatment. The proposed landscape plan
calls for a screen material consisting of 20, Indian Laurel Fig Hedge Shrub (Ficus M. Nitida-Column)
24" box size. This hedge -row should grow quickly in height, with proper installation and irrigation, and
is located along this wall between the tennis courts and the trash enclosure to the north (295 linear
feet).
The majority of the existing landscaping is oriented around a large central open space/pool area
surrounded by the three separate hotel building wings. This central landscape area currently includes
five of the seven original Coast Redwoods (24"-32" diameter, 70' tall). However, three of the five
appear to be recently deceased, due to irrigation systems being shut off nearly three months ago.
Three of the original 16 Southern Magnolia trees also currently occupy this central landscaped area.
The Magnolia trees have been inappropriately trimmed and one of the three is also deceased due to
lack of watering. The existing turf has also died due to lack of irrigation. The owners intent to replace
all of the on -site landscaping with more drought resistant and low water usage trees and plants
(Attachment C). The owners will install a new automatic irrigation system with a higher efficiency
level, including drip systems as part of this project.
The landscape architect has proposed a new re -design of this central landscape court surrounding
the pool area with a combination of larger format shade trees south of the pool (three 36" box
Camphor, one 48" box Engelmann Oak), a series of medium sized trees east and west of the pool
(seven 24" box Desert Museum Palo Verdes, two 24" box Eastern Redbuds), and north of the pool,
(nine 24" box Eastern Redbuds). This central landscape court also includes three, semi -circular
CLAREMONT Page 3 of 6 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by LegistarTM
planter areas with Waxleaf Privet shrubs to provide privacy to the pool area, Pacific Mist Manzanita
shrubs, and waterwise Kurapia turf for groundcover areas.
The landscape planter at the main entry to the hotel originally included two Willow Pittosporum trees
which were later replaced with Queen Palm Trees. The proposal is to enhance the main entrance
area by retaining the one large existing Queen Palm tree, adding five, 24-inch box Queen Palm trees,
and removing all existing Ficus trees. The Palm entry focal point would surround all sides of the porte
-cochere as an entry statement to the motel lobby area.
With the exception of four existing parking lot finger tree wells within the easterly parking lot area, all
remaining Ficus Trees in the finger wells throughout the parking lots will be replaced with 24"
Brisbane Box (Lophostemon Confertus) trees. Two 48" box Englemann Oaks will also be planted
within two larger landscape planter areas in the eastern parking lot area as identified on the attached
plan. A dry well is designed on the north side of the existing storage shed in the northeast corner of
the site to mitigate existing drainage issue that occur during rain events. Along the northern property
line planter along the 1-10 Freeway, four evenly spaced, and Water Gum trees will be installed to
assist with additional screening of the freeway views. Pacific Mist Manzanita and Desert Spoon
shrubs will be installed between the trees.
Other Issue Areas
City staff identified and discussed with the property owners several extraneous property compliance
issues worth noting. These issue areas include the following: Trash enclosure condition; Tennis court
landscape areas; American Avenue exposure; and existing exterior lighting bulbs and fixtures, which
have been modified over time without receiving approval from Planning Staff.
A past property owner has modified the original trash enclosure area by erecting an unpermitted
wooden storage structure and created a smaller trash enclosure area with a six foot high wood fence.
Because the revised enclosure does not meet City standards, staff requested that the owner re-
locate and construct a new trash enclosure along the midpoint of the north property line. This request
was made to be sensitive to the adjacent residential property owners to the east. The property owner
has not been willing to accept the added cost of this request. Staff is requiring at a minimum that the
enclosure be re -constructed in the area of the unpermitted storage building to meet current City
standards.
City Ventures, a Southern California based residential townhome builder is currently in escrow to
purchase the tennis court area of this parcel to re -develop this area into a residential use. The motel
owner has requested that the City accept bark mulch for the areas surrounding all of the tennis
courts, including the setback and parkway areas along American Avenue. Staff considers this request
reasonable at this time, based on the due diligence being pursued by City Ventures for a new project
which would necessitate their own landscape plan on this acreage. A condition of approval is
proposed for a period not to exceed 24 months to allow for the bark mulch to exist as an interim
solution.
Currently a wood fence/gate facing American Avenue exists to prevent access to the dirt area
between the tennis courts and an SCE easement east of the courts. This existing fence is
unattractive and should be replaced with a higher quality fencing system. The owners have proposed
a four -foot -high chain link fence/gate system. Staff has added a condition of approval that this be
vinyl coated chain link as an interim condition for the same 24-month period.
CLAREMONT Page 4 of 6 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by LegistarTM
Past ownership of the site installed roof mounted area lights throughout the metal mansard roof
system on all three motel buildings. Staff was not able to identify any permits allowing this type of
light fixture which creates light pollution on the entire property and has been a source of complaints
over the years. Staff is requesting through a condition of approval that the property owner remove all
roof mounted area lights and return to a parking lot and area lighting system that includes
freestanding decorative light standards as proposed and approved in past years. The owners have
also installed blue colored bulbs at the front entry porte-cochere columns which are not consistent
with past approvals throughout the City of Claremont. The owners have agreed to return the bulb
color back to a more traditional color within a range of a less saturated or bright color. Staff has
included a condition of approval limiting all exterior fixtures to a maximum color temperature rating of
3,000 Kelvin. This warmer color and narrow spectrum help reduce dark skies impacts as well as
health impacts to humans (Blue light, light with Kelvin ratings higher than 3,000 in evenings can
affect human circadian rhythms).
Staff Comments
Staff is supportive of the proposed landscape plan finding that it does a good job of adding a quick
growing privacy screen back to the east property line to once again protect the privacy of neighbors
along Drake Avenue. Staff is disappointed that major mature California Redwood trees and Southern
Magnolia trees have been allowed to die and must now be removed but notes that both species have
high water requirements and are not suited for the local climate. The landscape architect has chosen
replacement tree species that are more drought appropriate, more appropriate for future drought
conditions and the acceptance that reducing water usage for outdoor landscaping is a paramount
issue for major portions of California.
The following are items that staff would encourage the Commission to consider as they review this
project for final approval:
• Consider whether or not the request by the neighbor for a new screen wall of 20 Indian Laurel
Fig (Ficus Microcarpa Nitida) shrubs in a 24" box size is appropriate for the most problematic
landscape issue area.
• Consider a requirement to either move the existing trash enclosure area away from the
existing adjacent residential neighbors or return the trash enclosure to its original size and
upgraded to current standards and dimensions.
• Consider the appropriateness of allowing shredded wood mulch throughout all landscape
areas surrounding the existing tennis courts and a vinyl coated chain link fence for a period of
24 months while the owner concludes escrow with a proposed townhome developer.
CEQA REVIEW
The project proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304(b) (Class 4) for Minor Alterations to Land, in that the
project entails the replacement of existing landscaping with new water efficient landscaping.
Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
The agenda and staff report for this item have been posted on the City website and distributed to
interested parties. If you desire a copy, please contact the City Clerk's Office.
CLAREMONT Page 5 of 6 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by LegistarTM
Submitted by:
Brad Johnson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
A - Draft Approval Resolution
B - 1971 Approved Landscape Plan
C - Proposed Landscape Plan
D - Photos of Current & Past Conditions
CLAREMONT Page 6 of 6 Printed on 10/20/2022
powered by LegistarM
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
#22-A07, PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AT 840 SOUTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD —
APPLICANT — BHUVNESHWARI CORPORATION
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2022, the applicant filed a request to re -landscape all existing
landscape areas; and
WHEREAS, 840 South Indian Hill Boulevard contains an existing two-story motel
constructed in 1972; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the Commercial Freeway District (CF). Under the
CF District, motels are a conditionally permitted use and intended to provide for a concentration
of major commercial uses such as hotels, service stations, restaurants, auto sales, and big box
retail uses that are dependent on their exposure to large volume freeway traffic, and uses that
are related to and serve the needs of the motoring public; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2022, a notice of public hearing regarding the Architectural
Commission review of the design of the proposed project was mailed to owners of and
residents of properties located within a 700-foot radius of the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Commission held a public hearing on October 26, 2022,
at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the proposal were heard and said
proposal was fully studied.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CLAREMONT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The Architectural Commission has determined that the proposal is categorically
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15304(b) (Class 4) for Minor Alterations to Land, in that the project entails the
replacement of existing landscaping with new water efficient landscaping. Therefore, no further
environmental review is necessary.
SECTION 2. The Architectural Commission finds that the review criteria of Section
16.300.060.A of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC) can be met in regards to the above -
described project as follows:
A. Conformity with Development Standards - The proposed project is in conformity
with all development standards for the Commercial Freeway (CF) zoning district as
follows:
1. Setbacks: There are only front and street side yard building setbacks of 10 feet
required in the CF zone. The existing buildings meet the required setbacks
therefore, the proposed project is in conformity with the zone's setback
requirements. The non -conforming parking lot perimeter landscape areas do not
meet the minimum five feet required today, however this is considered a legal,
non -conforming condition that may be retained.
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-
Page 2
2. Building Height: The existing building heights are below the maximum 30-foot
height allowed for a building or structure in the CF zoning district. This project
only deals with landscaping replacement.
3. Parking: The proposed parking complies with the parking requirements in effect
at the time it was constructed in 1972.
B. General Plan Consistency - The proposed project is consistent with the following
goals/policies of the Claremont General Plan:
1. Pursue Code enforcement actions to advance proper maintenance of homes,
buildings, yards, and neighborhoods in all areas of the City (Policy 2-2.3); in that
the proposed project is the result of code enforcement action taken by the City to
repair damaged trees, landscaped areas, replace solid waste enclosure and
exterior lights that do not comply with City standards, and provide for proper
landscape screening to adjacent land uses such as the single family homes along
Drake Avenue and American Avenue.
2. Enforce property maintenance standards to help ensure neighborhoods are kept
up, recognizing that property taxes generate significant revenue to the City.
(Policy 3-1.7), in that the proposed project is the result of the City requesting the
property owner to bring the property maintenance and landscaping up to
established City standards.
3. Minimize noise from property maintenance equipment, construction activities and
other non -transportation noise sources by enforcing designated construction and
maintenance hours (Policy 6-12.3); in that the project has been conditioned to
respect the noise levels and allowed construction hours in commercial zones
adjacent to single family residential zones.
C. Compatibility of Form with Surrounding Development — There are no new
proposed buildings that will unduly interfere, nor visually dominate the existing
development pattern of the surrounding motel property; however, the augmented
landscape plan is intended to bring the landscaping on the site to a level similar to
other commercial properties in the City.
D. Compatibility of Quality with Surrounding Development — The proposed project
features a well -considered landscape design theme that employs high -quality
materials that reflect the drought conditions the City is currently experiencing and
planning ahead for global warming conditions and the need for more sustainable
landscape designs with lower irrigation requirements.
E. Internal Consistency of Design — The replacement landscaping and required
improved lighting features are internally consistent with the motel use.
F. Privacy — The new landscaping proposed with the project will return privacy screening
to the adjacent residential uses adjacent to the east property line, which was allowed
to deteriorate and be removed over past years.
G. Internal Circulation - The circulation patterns, which have served the motel use for
nearly fifty years, will remain in place and not be altered as part of the project.
H. Sustainability — The proposed landscape and irrigation modifications will enhance
the landscape while substantially reducing water usage for outdoor landscape areas.
A completely new irrigation system, including drip irrigation will replace the existing
inefficient system. Trees and plant materials will be removed and replaced with
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-
Page 3
drought tolerant materials in consideration of global warming conditions being
experienced across the State. The enhanced landscaping and climate appropriate
plants are intended to thrive and provide larger canopies that will increase shade on
the site and reduce the heat-island effect.
Tree Preservation — Existing mature trees will be removed with this project, however
the majority of these existing trees were pruned and trimmed over many years in an
inappropriate manner that has destroyed their canopy and branch structure. The
large California Redwood and Southern Magnolia trees are high water usage species
with little canopy and are currently dying due to lack or water. Proposed tree species
are anticipated to thrive in the local climate and provide a larger canopy over time.
J. Light and Air — No new structures are being proposed with this project this project
consists of landscaping, irrigation, and lighting replacement.
K. Environmental Protections - The proposed development has been reviewed
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for
the reasons stated above in Section A.
L. Health and Safety - The visual effect of the development from view from adjacent
public streets and neighborhoods will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare. It features a re -designed landscape palette that is
appropriate in design and water usage consistent with the other re -landscaping
projects around the City of Claremont. The new screen hedge -row along the eastern
property line will return a privacy screen once in place for the adjacent single family
homes backyards.
SECTION 3. The Architectural Commission hereby approves Architectural and Site
Plan Review #22-A07 based on the review criteria as outlined in Sections A and B above,
subject to the following conditions of approval:
A. This approval is for the proposed re -landscaping of the existing Motel 6 property
consisting of approximately 6 acres, as depicted on the project plans.
B. The existing trees identified for retention on the project plans shall be retained and
preserved in place in the new landscaping for the project. These trees include the four
existing Ficus Trees located in the easterly parking lot area which provide a second layer
of screening to the adjacent neighborhood to the east.
C. This approval is valid for six months from the date of Architectural Commission action.
If landscape and irrigation permits are not issued, or a time extension has not been
granted during this time frame, this approval shall automatically expire without further
action by the City. The Director of Community Development is authorized to grant a six-
month extension upon written request from the applicant that there were unavoidable
delays.
D. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan indicating the removal of all roof mounted
area lights and the installation of new free standing light standards and pedestrian level
lighting fixtures. All exterior fixtures are limited to a maximum color temperature rating
of 3,000 Kelvin. Area and parking lot lighting shall consist of new decorative light
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-
Page 4
standards not exceeding 15 feet in height. All exterior lighting shall conform to City
lighting standards particularly those relating to light pollution and glare.
E. Within 10 calendar days of this approval, all blue colored and other non-traditional,
decorative colored exterior light bulbs shall be replaced with functional illumination -
oriented lights in a color and intensity acceptable to the Community Development
Director, or designee.
F. All landscape and parking lot areas shall be kept free of weeds, trash, debris on a regular
basis.
G. If demolition work for re -development of the tennis courts does not commence within 24
months of the date of this approval, the applicant shall submit a separate landscape &
irrigation plan for consideration of all existing landscape planters surrounding and
between the courts, including the public parkway along American Avenue. Bark Mulch
during the 24 months shall be maintained in a weed free and trash free condition. Bark
Mulch shall be replenished or replaced after the initial 12 months.
H. The applicant shall remove the unpermitted shed located in the northeast corner of the
property and return the area to its originally sized trash enclosure area.
Prior to final inspection of the landscaping, irrigation, and lighting features, plans for a
new trash enclosure shall be submitted to the City for review and approval either in its
current location or midway along the northern property line.
J. Prior to a final approval of all landscaping, irrigation, and replacement lighting, the
reconstructed trash enclosure and fence/gate system along American Avenue shall be
completed and inspected by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Community
Services staff members assigned to this project.
K. The final landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the State's Model Water
Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO).
L. Ascertain and comply with all requirements of the City's Building Division, including the
submittal of complete architectural, electrical, landscaping plans duly wet stamped and
signed by a licensed architect or designer.
M. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial
conformance with the Architectural Commission approval.
N. Ascertain and comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
O. Pay all applicable permit and development review fees as established by City
ordinances and resolutions.
P. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall install
protective fencing around the four existing trees to be retained on the site.
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-
Page 5
Q. During re -landscaping operations, the applicant shall:
1. Implement best available control measures (BACMs) to minimize nuisance levels of
construction activity emissions such as dust, emissions, and off -site impacts.
BACMs shall include but are not limited to the following:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
b. Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
C. Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging
areas.
d. Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt
deposition on any public roadway.
e. Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or dusty
material.
f. Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph.
g. Hydro -seed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain
inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed.
h. Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off -road equipment.
Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
Encourage carpooling for construction workers.
k. Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
M. Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site.
n. Wash or sweep access points daily.
o. Encourage receipt of material during non -peak traffic hours.
P. Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
R. Ensure the following measures are observed during all construction -related activities for
the project:
a. The hours of construction operation are limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sundays
and federal holidays.
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-
Page 6
b. Staging areas shall be located away from any existing residences as determined
by the Building Official.
c. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers.
S. During the course of all on -site grading and construction activity, the applicant shall employ
adequate dust control measures in accordance with the California Building Code,
SCAQMD, and City requirements to minimize fugitive dust.
T. Noise sources associated with construction activities shall not exceed the noise levels
as set forth in Section 16.154.020(f) of the Claremont Municipal Code.
U. To ensure compliance with the provisions of this Architectural Commission design
approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work has been
completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an
appointment for such an inspection.
V. Upon final inspection, the City will commence a 30-day lighting level review of all,
exterior lights. If illumination levels, glare, or other applicable issues are found to be
excessive, the applicant will be directed to modify the lighting as necessary to be at an
acceptable level.
W. Noncompliance with any condition of this approval shall constitute a violation of the
City's Municipal Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of
the administrative fines program of Chapter 1.14 of the Claremont Municipal Code.
X. The applicant/owner, by utilizing the benefits of this approval, shall thereby agree to
defend at its sole expense any action against the City, its agents, officers, and
employees because of the issues of such approval. In addition, the applicant/owner
shall reimburse the City et al for any court costs and attorney fees that the City et al may
be required to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation
shall not relieve the applicant/owner of its obligation hereunder.
Y. Failure to comply with any of the conditions, including design issues as shown on plans
reviewed and approved by the City of Claremont, may result in failure to obtain a building
final and/or a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's
requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition
of a non -compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred, where the project does not
comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits
were pulled to construct the project.
Section 4. The Architectural Commission Chair shall sign this resolution and the
Commission's secretary shall attest to the adoption thereof.
Passed, approved, and adopted this 26th day of October, 2022.
Architectural Commission Chair
Architectural Commission Resolution No. 2022-
Page 7
ATTEST:
Architectural Commission Secretary
CO
LLJ
S i N pK
U ti� byd-4-Yc a n� [tL Q V i♦ Q�N 3 e 3 JN � F
i,utJkrY3r�btiM��FazYzQ
hhIlvYtu"�riil
lLu�khd±"d �iw�gA1g<4d u<uougO��°133r° 1zki�kS1Np�3d`0:o<7e'd8&Fgo8b��'�d ��tl
"•��:3<LLi='Lu tvydr,E£!
3yyYya4l1(.. ��•r°,° "`l/ir,- � 'pS4'83SNN3tlp_�. d� tO1 N,tl13' tr�4m �yr������F` ' 9i�I°II 0. dHos�f lduIlI ��Z�azs_� 1�pX� �c-g��i���I.''.I
7
n�III'4 niaS„
1iIFlIIi a�Ybsy %IllII�II x`
'1i1��eH3390v
iiIII'IiW
'a N l S 3 d
y It
i2l
`a'kk
�wB Roo- �f
17413k v IU 4
2 f'Ak!I� p
get
ycyl'!11
.
�14qAAVe° sa.}F�I Iljl1,IIoo"azAW4ofiI l�'l.dfa
P. H
a �II�IIi S. Hrt
I
� baI�I
o s
_ In
&Ma
wm-
;IIfi(IIIII
�I�1}IIII
:
I�(
1
_o i
k Y
j
t.
7.3,f_.._
0
2
§ �
<
d`�wNno Lg �.
% O«
<_
•
an�ne�N��m'#e! :)|�.•(
;
913ow !§§z |
!SH
Mill
1BBO01B�kO1
��u
2
§§
|
,
!
|);|!
�
• §
M
],;•,HIM
;
;!!!
c!'1
�•
m f s
VO `1NOW3NV-1D
N
w$$ a
ONVA31f1O9 IIIH NCIGNI 'S 0178
g
w F
o
J
((�
�/�J
m
9131OW
Zzz
a
®
a
s
F
y
Iwo,
rom
g
EL
Z
J. .0—.9
�t
IN
o
F
me
0
o
N
=
ltlfiO3,
8
w
NIH'
4 3f
_ www �wwwww
w/'OOOOi�i�
�iOiwiwiwiwiwi�,Oi ♦�♦
a■i■�ii���iii��►imp
_-
o.❖.❖.❖
o•.o❖
►d❖'
-
♦w
��OOOOOi
9
Gil'/•i,�L ��1�, i1 � �. 'I'
tv
lad
Z-`WA r;r fir
14. JK-
W-,:%"
IV I LAIMAI&-,
Kv,
Fix
Ac 0i
ke.
Ap�
APR
lo,
Nor
40
40
0211712022 08:52
y&�{ J� � � �
� �� � /� � 2
,���r£�r2,2 �
.� <, � ag
. ƒa2«i
�� »� � d��22� /� ?
-» :
,� a� / \� <� � �` °- , 2
\ »* \
�
aim
1
Alif.
AL&I•
Aft
&LO ,
..+
r
v
�T. J
404 AN
• r
dP
v t
�f.unmuumm...,.,......n.,.�w,
� W.
jj IIIII I II[ _--
A
v_
F I r7m
let —
Lot ems`-•-
I
P
motet,
N
•rt 4� � 1 �a '-._ I _ `��� Gam:
IN
I�
Motel ndscape Plan
Architectural Commission
October 26, 2022
loop—
M ntp I A Pa rrp l
to'; L. 833-495
'*806
AL
kk—
Sao
r.
Id
V
1 � 1
B60
JJ1
a8b J41
� {_
Ir—, 1
I 1
J
3
• 6.1 Acre Site
• CF Zoning District
• Dependence on Fwy
Exposure
Motel 6 landscape Plan
• Submittal Required by Cit
• Loss of Trees &other plat
• Broader Quality of Life Is,-;
• 1969 & 1970 Approvals
• 1973 Tennis Courts AC A
• Code Enforcement/Coma
Pr
422-A07 I Oct 26, 2022
Other Community Complaints
• Use of Gas Powered Leaf Blowers (Noise/Dust)
• Obtrusive Nighttime Lighting Spillage over Property Lines
• Noise associated with motel guests in east parking lot
• Proposed Development of Tennis Courts to Townhomes
• Code Enforcement/Community Improvement Focus
oa SED DRAW —P & DRY
W -GDETER RUN C—
SELO Tut CA -CM bkl—
AT ,HEFT -2
U 5TwG 31OMGE , D
RL-1— .. BE A — .- 1.
--L.1 S . C— Of --T -
ex=
DI
t.
i i T77-1
4 TALL CRAM —FENCE
9 DfTA& AT S "T L-.'
SHRUB LEGEND
$Sorm
a
z < z I.-:
80
W,3 2
-i Lu
uJ
iaaoU
CONCEPTUAL
PLANTING
PLAN
TREE LEGEND
SYM.
BOTANI ML NAME
COMMON NAME
SLZE
QTY.
W UCOLS
CERCIDIUMX'DESERTMUSEUM'
DESERT MUSEUMPALOVERDE
24"BOX
9
M./L.
CERCIS CANADENSIS
EASTERN REDBUO
24" BOX
M. L
CINNAMOMUMCAMPHORA
CAMPHOR TREE
36"BOX
3
5
M./L
M.
COCOS PLUMOSA
QUEEN PALM
24" BOX
UGUSTRUM JAPONICUM'TEXANUM'
WAXLEAF PRIVET
1S GAL
7
M./L.
LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS
BRISBANE BOX
24" BOX
13
M./L.
QUERCUS ENGELMANNII
ENGELMANN OAK
48" BOX
3
M./L.
TRISTANLA LAUTINA
WATER GUM
24" BOX
4
M. L.
0
FICUS MICROCARPA NITIDA
IHDIAN LAUREL FIG
24" BOX
I
M./L
O
FICUS M. NITIDA-COLUMN HEDGE
INDIAN LAUREL FIG
24" BOX
20
M./L.
EXISTING TREES- THIN OUT CROWNS TO REESTABUSH BRANCHING
SHRUB LEGEND
SYM_
BOTANICAL NAME
COMMON NAME
SIZE
QTY.
WLICOLS
ARCTOSTAPHYLCIS'PACIFIC MIST
PACIFIC MIST MANZANITA �5'O.C.
SGAL
837 SF
L.
ARCTOTHECA CALENDULA
CAPE DANDELION
FLAT
4797 SF
M./L
"
CERASTIUM TOMENTOSUM
SNOW -IN -SUMMER
FLAT
4861 SF
M./L
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
S GAL
32 EA
L
KURAPIA GRASS
+=3=.
3' THICK D.G -DESERT GOLD
12.768 SIP
LAYER 0-3" SHREDDED WOOD MULCH
APPLY TO ALL PLANTING AREA
40.827 S
LOCAL BOULDERS
We 1,50
EA
1X4 BEND -A -BOARD, BROWN
453 LF
landscape Plan
• Central Courtyard
:l 3 :mot ! ,
s .r "• •,�. sir � k � � �
e--r=
-A07 I Oct 26, 2022
G40—
�
oL1 �n
E
W M11PI4�d111p �IpMN spy -�
Z
Q
Z
Q
Ui
U
Of
Q I
10
Neighborhood Issues with Motel 6
• Privacy Screening along Motel East Property Line 2117122
- - 4
Mid-
-44-160,60 ARM
nt'�o
r�lo
oL1 �n
1897
-A07 I Oct 26, 2022
Neighborhood Issues with Motel 6
• Regrowth of Inappropriate Trimming
Neighborhood Issues with Motel 6
• Trash Enclosure & Pool
Ile V,
low
VFW
-A07 I Oct 26, 2022
Ont IM
199
East Property Line Interface
0o a� co w :•
jib-
C CO
w
Title I Date
Neighborhood Issues with Motel 6
• Additional Wall Topper Vinyl Fencing 2015
PROPOSED DRAIN SUMP t DRY
WELL TO DETER RUN OFF
SEE DETAIL CATCH BASIN
AT SHEET L-2
EXISTING STORAGE SHED
RECONSTRUCT TO BE A TRASH ENCLOSURE AND TO
CURRENT STANDARDS a CITY OF CLARFIAONT STANOARDS
s1%% do, 1%i�
o�� MNA � 4�
PROI
m4x I I L1\
Title I Date
n., _ Iw:
L 1,.
• Existing Trash Enclosure Location/Condition
• American Ave Parkway and Setback Area Landscape
• Wood Fence Facing American Ave
• Flood Lights Mounted Mansard Metal Roof Perimeter
Y�t'Cp
IR97
American Avenue facing fence
Neighborhood Issues with Motel 6
• Miscellaneous Light Standards & Area Lights
*ft6
-A07 I Oct 26, 2022
0
nt��o
uw Igo
�e,7 -
Title I Date IR97
'v .. .. - , 1: * ". " . .
ATTACHMENT 5
Architectural Commission Minutes
October 26, 2022
Page 3
Professional Building; seconded by Commissioner Castillo; and, carried on a
roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
Commissioner— Bennett,
Spivack
NOES:
Commissioner - None
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner - None
ABSENT:
Commissioner— None
Castillo, Cervera, Neiuber, Perri, and
Chair Neiuber noted that this decision can be appealed within ten calendar days.
3. Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07. Proposed Landscape Plan at 840 South
Indian Hill Boulevard — Motel 6
This item starts at 00:27:08 in the archived video.
Community Development Director Johnson presented a PowerPoint presentation and
answered Commissioner questions regarding: A) the trash enclosure; B) lighting; C)
types of trees/landscaping; D) irrigation; and E) parking areas.
The project applicant provided additional information regarding the trash location and
lighting. The applicant also answered Commissioner questions regarding the lighting
and the relocation of the trash enclosure.
Chris Soltis, Landscape Architect, spoke about the catch basin and answered
Commissioner questions regarding: A) the lighting; B) relocation of the trash
enclosure; C) the location of a Southern California Edison transformer; D) water use;
and E) trees/landscaping.
Chair Neiuber invited public comment.
Darvin Gomez spoke to the plan not including enough attention to the tennis court
area and believes the plan should include screen bushes along the eastern boundary
of property near the homes on Drake Avenue. He also suggested further landscaping
along America Avenue and urged the City to require more landscaping in that area.
Mr. Gomez also spoke about the tennis courts potential sale and future development.
Ramon Cota spoke about his property's location near the dumpster area and the
rodent issues associated. He understands the expense, but the upkeep of property
and business must be handled by the responsible party.
Virginia spoke about the need to move the trash enclosure due to the smell and rat
problems. She shared concerns about the length of time new landscaping will need to
grow and provide coverage. She believes more screen cover is needed. She proposed
that the property be torn down and allow the police department to build a police station
at the location.
Jim Keith shared concerns about the removal of trees, how they were removed, and
the time it will take for new trees and landscaping to grow to a height that will provide
Architectural Commission Minutes
October 26, 2022
Page 4
screening. He also shared concerns about how the existing landscaping died and the
way it was watered. Mr. Keith also addressed inconsistencies in Discover Claremont
that lists features and amenities such as a pool that are not currently available at Motel
6.
Joe shared his support for his neighbors and urged the Commission to consider the
requests to move the trash enclosure. Feels that it is a shame that the property has
been neglected and said it should be maintained. He reiterated Mr. Keith's statements
that the trees died due to the water being shut off. Joe shared hope that future Ficus
trees will not be cut down by the owner or Edison.
Bryan Trunik, via Zoom, expressed concerns for rats, rodents, and cockroaches next
to the garbage area, which spills into neighboring backyards and properties. He
explained that the existing trash area was never built to code and that he provided
Community Development Director Johnson with the Los Angeles County codes. He
also mentioned that the trash is picked up multiple times a day making a lot of noise at
varying hours of the day, sometimes very early. He asked that trash enclosure be
relocated away from residential homes and built to code. Mr. Trunik also expressed
screening concerns due to height of the proposed landscaping, the existing Eucalyptus
and Ficus trees, and the maintenance of the new landscaping. Additionally, he spoke
to the problem of crime and the need for more detail in the proposed landscape plan.
Heather Gomez, via Zoom, shared concerns about privacy, security, and lighting. She
shared an incident where motel guest was looking directly into her backyard and
detailed problems with motel residents throwing things over fence onto her property.
Also, people have attempted to jump the fence onto her property as well. She requests
an amendment to extend the wall -top privacy screen further south along Drake
Avenue beyond what is proposed to create an additional barrier for security and
privacy. Reiterated concerns from other speakers regarding compliance from property
owners. Asked what the oversight will be for enforcement of current owner's
compliance for enforcing proposed plan.
David Shearer, Director of Claremont Heritage via Zoom, suggested that property is
historic because it was designed by David Underwood. Mr. Shearer spoke to the
former beauty of the landscaping and offered that revisiting the previous landscape
design might address current resident concerns. He also shared that this historic
property deserves attention and ability to shine.
There were no additional requests to speak.
Community Development Director Johnson shared additional information relating to
questions and concerns from public comment regarding increasing landscaping on
eastern side, water use, the empty swimming pool, and adjustments to the mulch
refresh timeline. He also indicated that three fines were issued by the City to the
property owner and that the property owner's attorney filed appeals that have not yet
been concluded. He then explained that the property is one of City's highest priority
code enforcement cases and will continue to be in the months and years to come and
will be handled by Community Improvement Staff. One of the conditions of approval
Architectural Commission Minutes
October 26, 2022
Page 5
for the plan being presented tonight is if demolition of the tennis courts does not occur
within 24 months, an entirely new landscape plan will need to be submitted for court
area.
Community Development Director Johnson answered Commissioner comments
regarding the fines or consequences for code violations, the amount of fines, the
tennis courts and clubhouse, the historical significance of the building, and clarification
of any existing and proposed electrical transformers.
Chris Soltis, Landscape Architect, was asked to answer additional Commissioner
questions regarding Ficus hedge size, growth, scouring, and water run-off.
The project applicant addressed water use and current drought -related restrictions for
use of sprinkler systems. He also noted that, since this landscape plan is already in
the works, he did not want to waste water irrigating a soon to be removed landscape.
Commissioner Bennett shared concern for the eastern boundary of the property and
the problems with rodent and pest control that are impacting neighboring residents. He
also indicated that the landscaping of the property needs more attention, especially
along the east property line.
Commissioner Cervera agreed with Commissioner Bennett's comments regarding the
owner's responsibility to maintain landscaping and trees. He shared concerns with the
tree removal that has already occurred and wants to see the property owner re-
establish landscaping along the entirety of the eastern property line. He then noted the
need to further improve storm water catchment on the site to avoid a burden to the
storm drain system.
Commissioner Perri proposed a review of the site plan to address lighting and
widening and moving the trash enclosure.
Commissioner Spivack agreed with her fellow Commissioners regarding the loss of
trees and the need to widen tree planter areas, relocate the trash enclosure, resolve
the lighting issues, and address the lack of landscaping on the eastern side of the
property. She shared concerns about the height of wall being lower on eastern side of
property adjacent to the tennis courts. This provides opportunity for people to jump
over the wall. She also suggested that mulching be done at least every six months and
wanted to make sure that the Ficus hedge proposed by architect be approved by
Edison.
Commissioner Castillo agreed with her fellow Commissioner's comments and believes
that the trash enclosure should be moved. She would like to add Ficus trees along
entire eastern boundary of property and do more than mulch along American Avenue.
She shared concerns about when or if a developer will purchase tennis courts and
clubhouse area. She stated it is a shame that the neighbors have had to deal with
these problems and that the proposed housing developer should work out the
landscaping improvements as part of their negotiations. Ms. Castillo suggested this
item be continued in order to get a new plan that encompasses more solutions.
Architectural Commission Minutes
October 26, 2022
Page 6
Chair Neiuber agreed with his fellow Commissioners and suggested that the
Commission make additions to existing plan/resolution rather than continuing the item
to a later meeting and noted that the neighbors have waited long enough these
problems to be addressed. He then clarified that if the tennis court area was not
redeveloped within 24 months, a new and separate landscape plan would need to be
prepared. He also proposed approving the project with several conditions of approval
to be added to the resolution.
After further discussion regarding the proposed added conditions, the consensus of
the Commission was to revise the resolution to include following conditions:
• Widen the planter on the east side of property to allow larger 36-inch hedge
trees to be planted and extend this hedge landscaping for the entire length of
the eastern property border, including the area adjacent to the tennis courts.
• Move the trash enclosure from current location adjacent to homes and place it
further west, preferably at the northwest corner of the property.
• Refill the currently empty swimming pool as soon as possible.
® Remove all non -code compliant lighting fixtures and replace with code
compliant lighting as described in Condition of Approval D.
• Revise Condition of Approval G to require full landscaping within 12 months and
replenishment of temporary bark mulch cover after 6 months.
Commissioner Castillo moved that the Architectural Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2022-11 of the Architectural Commission of The City of
Claremont, California, Approving Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07,
Proposed Landscape Plan at 840 South Indian Hill Boulevard — Motel 6 as
amended; seconded by Commissioner Perri; and, carried on a roll call vote as
follows:
AYES: Commissioner— Bennett, Castillo, Cervera, Neiuber, Perri, and
Spivack
NOES: Commissioner - None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner - None
ABSENT. Commissioner— None
Chair Neiuber noted that this decision can be appealed within ten calendar days.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS - NONE
REPORTS
This item starts at 02:48:07 in the archived video.
Commission
Commissioner Comments
Chair Neiuber shared that the electrical boxes around the City look great.
Architectural Commission Minutes
October 26, 2022
Page 7
Commissioner Castillo let the Commission know that there is a possibility of a Phase 2 for
more art being added to utility boxes and transformers in the City.
Chair Neiube'r shared that the motel building is not on the local register, but that any building
of a certain age or associated with a certain architect, architectural movements, historical
events, etc. may be considered historic, even if not on a register.
Staff
Briefing on Council Meetings
Principal Planner Veirs reported on items of interest from the previous City Council meetings.
Briefings on Other Items
There were no items to report.
Upcoming Agendas and Events
Principal Planner Veirs described items expected to come before the Commission at the
November 9, 2022 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Neiub r adjourned the meeting at 10:01 p.m.
Chair`_
ATTEST:
oama", thiv,
Administrativ Ass taut
ATTAQHMENT 6
• M S OF THE ARCHITECTURAL CCMMISSION
COUNCIL C A10ER
CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA
INay.23, 1973
The regular meeting of the Architectural Commission was, called to order by Acting
Chairman Makow at 7:40 p.m.
PRESENT: Acting Chairman Makow, Commission Members 'Fig,
Schoen, Esterline, LaBarbera)
V
ALSO PRESENT: Associate Planner Stambler.
ABSENT: Commission Members Abbott, Tipping
LATE ARRIVALS: None
EARLY DEPARTURES: None
MINUTES OF MEETING Minutes approved as mailed.
OF MAY 9, 1973:
SIGN REVIEW. 815 W. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. APPLICANT - COUNTRY CLUB BARBER SHOP
Associate Planner Stambler stated that this sign has been resubmitted because the
previous staff report contained an error with regard to the size of the signs
adjacent to this sign and the copy has been changed, specifically, the word "Shop"
has been changed to "Salon". The applicant has provided justifications which were
not included in staff report last time. The style of lettering and colors are the
same. Staff is concerned with the size of the sign and recommends 2 1/2 feet instead
of three feet and also recommends a reduction in the amount. of copy. These points were
mentioned to the applicant. However, he wanted to come back with the sign as is.
W. Makow said the sign was denied because of it's being oversized, poorly executed
and not in conformance with the surrounding signs. He asked the Commissioners if they
feel the same way about the graphics, to say "Salon" instead of "Shop"?
Mr. LaBarbera stated he spoke with the applicant and felt that the copy "Men's Hair
Styling" refers to a specialty and he could see justification for it. The applicant
is now specializing in styling and has a place in back of his shop partitioned off
with special chairs. Seeing it again, I have no,objection to the graphics. They will
be in line with the other signs. The adjacent signs are 2 1/2 feet and 3 feet and
his sign will only•be"3" more on the top and bottom. I -even made some measurements
myself.
Mrs. Schoen said the graphics are the problem in that it looks amateurish.
Associate Planner Stambler said if you cannot make a decision, we can ask the
applicant to submit a better rendering of what is intended.
Mr. Makow asked what the colors are.
Associate Planner Stambler answered, red, white and blue as submitted previously.
Mr. Makow said he is very confident there are other more effective solutions to the
graphics on this sign. Do you know who prepared this particular sketch?
Associate Planner Stambler said she did not know. There was a sign company working
with the applicant at the time of the last meeting. However, when the applicant came
in with the sketch, he did not have a sign company. Now, I believe he does have one.
Mrs. Schoen said if you have a poorly executed sign, this reflects on the business,
in the same way a good looking sign also reflects the quality of his business.
Associate Planner Stambler said many times people do not know what an adequate
rendering is.
Mrs. Goldberg said she just cannot tell from the sketch and graphics on the sketch what
the sign is going to look like. I do not understand from the rendering what the letter
style is.
Mr. Makow said if it was done by a.professional sign maker, it would still not be good,
because it would be crowded. If they are solid letters, rather than line letters, they
will have a different look.
W. LaBarbera made a motion and Mr. Esterline seconded the motion to table the item.
The application was unanimously tabled.
i
A.C..- 5/23/73
Page 1 of 10
Mr. Esterlin d he is d •ig to vote against the moti 'e are asked to accept
a rendering � is incomT,.Lete and which has been put ,,efore staff can review
it. This renders an injustice to other applicants who come here with prepared material.
Mr. LaBarbera said your comments are very well taken. The applicant, however, was
unfortunately mislead somewhere else. In all fairness to the applicant, I think it is
proper under the circumstances to approve this. I am satisfied that it is a proper _
rendering.
Mrs. Goldberg'said she feels the applicant would have been here initially but for an
unfortunate error, and that we should consider the application at this time. It does
make more work for us and double time. I do feel this is the second time this sign
has cane up before us and if we can get the matter approved, this is the procedure we
-should follow.
The motion.failed.
Mr. Esterline moved to table the matter until the next.meeting with the request the
applicant provide a complete rendering along the lines we discussed here.
Mrs. Schoen seconded.
Mr. Makow said the Commission does not have an objection to the size nor the general
graphics. The applicant should submit a rendering of the sign that is more complete
so that it can be reviewed by staff. It will help us judge better.
The question was called and the motion passed.
/V O JL,, j Ool, 6 / 1 ? / -7 3
Mr. —LaBarbera -suggested that he have the sign maker bring an exact sign rendering in
and show the size of each letter and the size of the can and the spacing exactly what
it is going to look like, and you will have a better chance for it. If you need any
advice, stop by the Planning office and they can show you how it should be presented.
Mr. Makow acknowledged the presence of Mr. Walter Methner, representing Marie Callender's,
and explained the action taken by the Commission.
Mr. Methner said the reason he wanted more height was for the pedestal. He likes the
pedestal shorter. Mr. Callender does not like signs. I am disappointed that you
rejected my sign. If you will give me permission to put it up for three months, I
will take it down if you do not like it. He then asked if he could come in with a
new pedestal.
j
Dtr. Makow said the procedures of this Camuission.are if you have a substantial change
from your original presentation, you can bring it in any time.
Mrs. Goldberg said it is a very handsome sign.
Mr. Methner said he would come in with a better sign he was sure the Commission would
approve.
I ARCHITECTURAL $ SITE PLAN REVIEW #6302, APPLICANT - RODEWAY INN TENNIS CLUB•,
840 S. INDIAN HILL BLVD., TENNIS COURTS
Associate Planner Stambler described the request for approval of a tennis club as an
addition to the Rodeway Inn complex. The proposed club will be located on the vacant
property that is south of the Rodeway Inn and east of the Beef 'n Barrel Restaurant
and the Mobil Service Station. The plan indicates 11 courts, a deck area and 27
new parking spaces. The courts are in two rows, one with four courts and the other ,
with seven. A landscaped walkway is situated between the two rows, with two small
seating areas. These seating areas will- be textured concrete. The applicant states
they would want a 12 foot fence. They feel a black chain link would be very attractive.
The material for the decks is redwood. The paved area between Courts 8 and 9 Has
intended to be an entrance from American Ave. However, not it will be an enclosed
practice area.
Mr. Makow asked if the whole thing is going to be enclosed, and whether the number of
parking spaces provided is adequate.
Associate Planner Stambler said yes to both questions. She stated that many users
will be motel guests and .would not require an additional space.
A.C. - 5/23/73 Page 9 of 10
Mrs. Goldbe ted thei is a lot of concrete and thA sties have not been
estioned the amount of setback and lanab ping. She asked how
preserved. Sk
wide is the area between the courts and American Ave.
1,
i`
i
i
Mr. Makow said he believes it is pretty good size width wise.. They can have nice
shrubs. The drawing is not to scale, but the area is 15 feet wide.
Mrs. Goldberg said she thinks they should have a solid fence 12' high. The chain
link would not screen the lights at night.
Mr. Makow said if the plants grow up, they will screen most of the fence. Do you
have details of the lighting.
Associate Planner Stambler said not yet, but that Director Hightower has talked to the
architect about the lighting. The hours of operation are not after 10 p.m. A condition
of use is that the two parcels have to be tied together into one. They would have to
go through a rerecordation procedure.
Mr. Makow said it doesn't really have to do with us and we feel we should not make
it a condition. You will not give them a permit unless they do tie the parcels
together. We stay away from those areas which are in the jurisdiction of other bodies.
Mr. Makow asked Mrs. Goldberg -what she thought about tieing it to any condition if we
move to approve the application.
Mrs. Goldberg said if you want to put it in, we can treat it as superfluous.
Mr. LaBarbera suggested the application be approved as submitted with all the conditions
set forth in the staff report.
Mr. Makow stated he is having great concern over the parking situation. These courts
are intended for use by private members as well as for motel guests. A business the
size of the motel, one or two courts would be plenty. If the applicant desires more
courts and wants to invest money in them„ he=c-an-tle—i-t later-. This may be an extensive 73
tennis club, and I think 27 extra parking spaces are not adequate. I really think we
are going to have a lot of parked cars on American Ave.
Mr. LaBarbera said the spillover would be into the motel complex and restaurant. If
the two were ever divided, the proposal would have to be reviewed again.
Mr. Makow said it will not come up to us again. With regard to the planters, I know
the staff will not approve little junipers and other plants. He asked staff if it
is too much of a burden on staff to tell the applicant he must have -five gallon
rather than one gallon plants.
Associate Planner Stambler responded, no, but it always helps if the applicant is aware
in advance of the Commission's concern that there be dense landscaping.
Mr. Makow said he has a strong concern about the planting on the south and east side
of the tennis courts.
Mrs. Goldberg moved and Mr. Esterline seconded that the tennis courts be approved, w �T-k
The motion passed unanimously.
REPORTS
Associate Planner Stambler reported on two letters, one from City Attorney lin. G.Bergman
and the other a letter from Mr. Keith F.,Mul.rooney, City Manager on the Council's
review of the appeal by Mr. Makow regarding the use of. redwood headers in lieu of
concrete curbs. She stated that the Commission should think about the possibility
of a Code revision and that staff would prepare a recommendation for the Commission
to review, probably at the next meeting.
ADJOUR'v ffNTT
On motion made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned a 10:40 M.
ATTEST:' /
_ Y ram Ma ow, Acting Chairman
kArchitectural Commission
A.C. - 5/23/73 Page 10 of 10
ATTACHMENT 7
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA,
DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND AFFIRMING THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW #22-A07 FOR A PROPOSED
LANDSCAPE PLAN AT 840 SOUTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD — APPLICANT &
APPELLANT — BHUVNESHWARI CORPORATION DBA MOTEL 6, SAPNESH AMIN
WHEREAS, Bhuvneshwari Corporation, d/b/a Motel 6 ("Motel 6") filed an application for
Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07 to re -landscape all existing landscape areas on its
property located at 840 South Indian Hill Boulevard (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in the City's Commercial Freeway District (CF)
where motels are a conditionally permitted use; the CF District is intended to provide for a
concentration of major commercial uses such as hotels, service stations, restaurants, auto
sales, and big box retail uses that are dependent on their exposure to large volume freeway
traffic, and uses that are related to and serve the needs of the motoring public; and
WHEREAS, the northern part of the Property contains a two-story motel constructed in
or around 1972, and the southern part of the Property contains a tennis club constructed in or
around 1973; and
WHEREAS, in or around 1971, the City's Architectural Commission ("AC") approved a
landscape plan for the motel portion of the Property, and in or around 1973, the AC approved
a landscape plan for the tennis club portion of the Property; and
WHEREAS, there are residential neighborhoods directly to the east and south of the
Property; and
WHEREAS, among other things, the 1970s landscape plans for the Property require
dense landscaping along the eastern and southern property lines to screen the motel and
tennis club uses from surrounding homes; and
WHEREAS, over the years, most of the landscaping on the Property has been
damaged, died, and/or been removed, including the landscaping along the eastern and
southern property lines that was required to screen the Property from surrounding homes; and
WHEREAS, approval of Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07 will allow Motel 6
to re -landscape the Property in a manner that complies with the City of Claremont's current
standards for commercial landscaping (set forth in Chapter 8.22 of the Claremont Municipal
Code ["CMC"]) and water efficient landscape requirements (set forth in Chapter 16.131 of the
CMC) and will replace landscaping needed to screen the motel and tennis club from
surrounding homes; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2022, the AC held a public hearing on proposed
Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07; in advance of that hearing, courtesy notices were
mailed to owners of and residents of properties located within a 700-foot radius of the Property;
and
WHEREAS, at the AC's October 26, 2022 meeting, all persons wishing to comment in
Resolution No. 2022-
Page 2
connection with Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07 were heard, and the proposal was
fully studied; and
WHEREAS, at the AC's October 26, 2022 meeting, Motel 6's owner (Sapnesh "Sam"
Amin) testified that Motel 6 recently stopped irrigating the Property and allowed the existing
vegetation (including several large California Redwood trees) to die in anticipation of the
Property being re -landscaped in the very near future; and
WHEREAS, after considering the staff report, staff presentation, the Applicant's
presentation, and all written and verbal public comment, the AC voted 6-0 (with one vacancy)
to approve Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07, subject to conditions of approval, and
the AC's decision is memorialized in AC Resolution No. 2022-11 (the "AC Approval"); and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2022, the City Clerk received an appeal of the AC Approval
from legal counsel for Motel 6; and
WHEREAS, per Section 16.321.020(D) of the CMC, Motel 6's appeal automatically
suspended the AC Approval; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 16.321.020(E) of the CMC, Motel 6's appeal
was forwarded to the City Council for a hearing at the City Council's next available meeting
(i.e., November 22, 2022); and
WHEREAS, legal counsel for Motel 6 requested the appeal hearing be postponed until,
at the earliest, February 14, 2022 to accommodate her availability; however, because Motel 6
is no longer irrigating the Property, the condition of its landscaping is declining rapidly and is
having ongoing significant negative impacts on the residents of neighboring homes and the
surrounding community; as a result, staff determined that under these unique circumstances,
postponing the appeal hearing by more than two months was not appropriate; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing on Motel 6's
appeal of its AC Approval; in advance of that hearing, courtesy notices were, again, mailed to
owners of and residents of properties located within a 700-foot radius of the Property; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council's November 22, 2022 meeting, all persons wishing to
comment in connection with the appeal of the AC Approval were heard, and the appeal and
underlying proposal were fully studied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the full record for this appeal, which
includes, without limitation, AC Resolution No. 2022-11, Motel 6's appeal, the staff report
(including its attachments), the staff presentation, the Applicant's presentation (if any), and any
and all written and verbal public comment on the AC Approval and Architectural and Site Plan
Review #22-A07.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CLAREMONT CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein.
Resolution No. 2022-
Page 3
SECTION 2. The City Council affirms the Architectural Commission's determination that
the AC Approval is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304(b) (Class 4) for Minor Alterations to Land, in
that Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07 entails the replacement of existing
landscaping with new water efficient landscaping and returning certain other parts of the
Property to compliance with prior approvals and City Codes. Therefore, no further
environmental review is necessary.
SECTION 3. Subject to the conditions of approval set forth below in Section 5 and
based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council affirms the Architectural
Commission's determination that the review criteria of Section 16.300.060(A) of the Claremont
Municipal Code (CIVIC) can be met in regards to the AC Approval as follows:
A. Conformity with Development Standards - The AC Approval is in conformity with
the standards for commercial landscaping in CIVIC Chapter 8.22, the standards for
water efficient landscaping in CIVIC Chapter 16. 131, and all development standards
for the Commercial Freeway (CF) zoning district as follows:
1. Setbacks: There are only front and street side yard building setbacks of 10 feet
required in the CF zone. The existing buildings meet the required setbacks
therefore, the proposed project is in conformity with the zone's setback
requirements. The non -conforming parking lot perimeter landscape areas do not
meet the minimum five feet required today; however, this is a legal, non-
conforming condition that may be retained.
2. Building Height: The existing building heights are below the maximum 30-foot
height allowed for a building or structure in the CF zoning district. The AC
Approval only deals with landscaping replacement. It makes no changes to
building heights.
3. Parking: The proposed parking complies with the parking requirements in effect
at the time the existing uses were approved and constructed in the early 1970s.
B. General Plan Consistency - The AC Approval is consistent with the following
goals/policies of the Claremont General Plan:
1. Pursue Code enforcement actions to advance proper maintenance of homes,
buildings, yards, and neighborhoods in all areas of the City (Policy 2-2.3) — Motel
6 submitted an application for Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07 in
response to code enforcement action taken by the City to replace trees that were
damaged and/or removed (particularly along the eastern and southern property
lines next to homes), bring landscaped areas (which are currently largely bare)
into compliance with current commercial landscaping and water efficient
landscaping standards, replace a solid waste enclosure and exterior lights that
do not comply with City standards nor prior approvals, and provide for proper
landscape screening to adjacent land uses such as the single family homes along
Drake Avenue and American Avenue.
2. Enforce property maintenance standards to help ensure neighborhoods are kept
up, recognizing that property taxes generate significant revenue to the City.
(Policy 3-1.7) — Over many decades, the condition of the Property has fallen into
Resolution No. 2022-
Page 4
disrepair. The AC Approval will restore the property maintenance and
landscaping to established City standards.
3. Minimize noise from property maintenance equipment, construction activities and
other non -transportation noise sources by enforcing designated construction and
maintenance hours (Policy 6-12.3) — The AC Approval has been conditioned to
respect the noise levels and allowed construction hours in commercial zones
adjacent to single family residential zones.
C. Compatibility of Form with Surrounding Development — There are no new
proposed buildings that will unduly interfere, nor visually dominate the existing
development pattern of the surrounding motel property; however, the augmented
landscape plan is intended to bring the landscaping on the site to a condition similar
to other commercial properties in the City.
D. Compatibility of Quality with Surrounding Development — The AC Approval
features a well -considered landscape design theme that employs high -quality
materials that reflect the drought conditions the City is currently experiencing and
planning ahead for global warming conditions and the need for more sustainable
landscape designs with lower irrigation requirements.
E. Internal Consistency of Design — The replacement landscaping is internally
consistent with the motel use. In addition, requiring Motel 6 to replace unpermitted,
roof -mounted lighting with ground -mounted lighting that complies with the Property's
prior lighting approvals.
F. Privacy — The new landscaping proposed with the project will return privacy screening
to the adjacent residential uses along the eastern and southern property lines, which
has deteriorated and been removed over past years.
G. Internal Circulation - The circulation patterns, which have served the motel use for
nearly fifty years, will remain in place and not be altered as part of the project.
H. Sustainability — The proposed landscape and irrigation modifications will enhance
the landscape while substantially reducing water usage for outdoor landscape areas.
A completely new irrigation system, including drip irrigation will replace the existing
inefficient system. Trees and plant materials will be removed and replaced with
drought tolerant materials in consideration of global warming conditions being
experienced across the State. The enhanced landscaping and climate appropriate
plants are intended to thrive and provide larger canopies that will increase shade on
the site and reduce the heat-island effect.
Tree Preservation — Existing mature trees will be removed with this project; however
the majority of these existing trees were pruned and trimmed over many years in an
inappropriate manner that has destroyed their canopy and branch structure. The large
California Redwood and Southern Magnolia trees are high water usage species with
little canopy and are currently dying due to lack or water. The proposed tree species
are anticipated to thrive in the local climate and provide a larger canopy over time.
J. Light and Air — This project does not propose any development that will impinge on
neighbors' existing access to light or use of prevailing winds for natural ventilation, or
cast a shadow over an existing solar energy system (active or passive).
Resolution No. 2022-
Page 5
K. Environmental Protections - The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see Section 2
above) and for compliance with CIVIC Chapter 16.154's environmental protection
standards. Implementation of this project will help return the Property to compliance
with CIVIC Section 16.154.060, which requires "yards" to "be maintained in a manner
which is compatible with and which does not have a detrimental effect on adjacent or
nearby property" and specifically identifies the following as a "detrimental and/or
unsightly condition" — "junk, trash, or debris" and "[v]egetation that is diseased, dead,
or presents a danger to the public."
L. Health and Safety - The proposed project will improve the visual effect of the Property
from view from adjacent public streets and neighborhoods and that visual effect will
not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. It
features a re -designed landscape palette that is appropriate in design and water
usage consistent with the other re -landscaping projects around the City of Claremont.
The new screen hedge -row along the eastern property line will return a privacy screen
once in place for the adjacent single family homes backyards.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies Motel 6's appeal of the AC Approval
on each of the following independent bases:
A. With respect to the AC Approval, Motel 6's appeal does not "set forth" any "alleged
inconsistency or nonconformity with procedures or criteria set forth in or pursuant to this
title" (i.e., the Zoning Code), as required by CIVIC Section 16.321.020(C). Instead, the
appeal focuses almost entirely on Code enforcement activities that were outside the
purview of the AC, were not considered by AC in connection with the AC Approval, and
are not a valid basis for an appeal to the City Council pursuant to CIVIC Chapter 16. 321,
such as the notices of violation and administrative citations the City issued to Motel 6.
The procedure for an appeal of the City's administrative citations is set forth in CIVIC
Chapter 1.14. Motel 6 has filed such an appeal separately, and it is currently pending.
B. The objections Motel 6 raised in its appeal letter (which, again, largely relate to Code
enforcement activities that were outside AC's purview) do not provide any valid basis to
reverse the AC Approval. As set forth above in Section 3, the City Council affirms the
AC's findings on Architectural and Site Plan Review #22-A07.
SECTION 5. Based on the review criteria outlined above and substantial evidence in
the record, the City Council hereby affirms the AC's approval of Architectural and Site Plan
Review #22-A07, subject to the following conditions of approval:
A. This approval is for the proposed re -landscaping of the existing Motel 6 property
consisting of approximately 6 acres, as depicted on the project plans.
B. The eastern property line parking lot planter area shall be widened to allow for 36 inch
sized Ficus M. Nitida (Indian Laurel Fig) Hedge, spaced five feet on center. The
landscape plan shall be revised to include the entirety of the east property line with the
new 36 inch box hedge row, spaced 5 feet on center.
Resolution No. 2022-
Page 6
C. This approval is valid for six months from the date of Architectural Commission action.
If landscape and irrigation permits are not issued, or a time extension has not been
granted during this time frame, this approval shall automatically expire without further
action by the City. The Director of Community Development is authorized to grant a six-
month extension upon written request from the applicant that there were unavoidable
delays.
D. Prior to final approval of the landscape and irrigation installation, the applicant shall
submit a photometric plan indicating the removal of all roof mounted area lights and the
installation of new free standing light standards and pedestrian level lighting fixtures. All
exterior fixtures are limited to a maximum color temperature rating of 3,000 Kelvin. Area
and parking lot lighting shall consist of new decorative light standards not exceeding 15
feet in height. All exterior lighting shall conform to City lighting standards particularly
those relating to light pollution and glare and be purpose oriented lighting fixtures.
E. Within 10 calendar days of this approval, all non-traditional, decorative colored exterior
light bulbs shall be replaced with traditional colored white light bulbs subject to review
and approval of the Community Development Director, or designee. Within 60 days the
sconce porte-co-chere column light fixtures shall be replaced with mid-century modern
light fixtures with functional illumination -oriented lights in a color and intensity acceptable
to the Community Development Director, or designee.
F. All landscape and parking lot areas shall be kept free of weeds, trash, debris on a regular
basis.
G. If demolition work for re -development of the tennis courts does not commence within 12
months of the date of this approval, the applicant shall submit a separate landscape &
irrigation plan for consideration of all existing landscape planters surrounding and
between the courts, including the public parkway along American Avenue. Bark Mulch
during the 12 months shall be maintained in a weed free and trash free condition. Bark
Mulch shall be replenished or replaced after the initial 6 months.
H. The applicant shall remove the unpermitted shed located in the northeast corner of the
property and return the area to its originally sized trash enclosure area.
Prior to final inspection of the landscaping, irrigation, and lighting features, plans for a
new trash enclosure shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The new
trash enclosure shall be relocated and constructed at the northwest corner of the parcel.
J. Prior to a final approval of all landscaping, irrigation, and replacement lighting, the
reconstructed trash enclosure and fence/gate system along American Avenue shall be
completed and inspected by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Community
Services staff members assigned to this project.
K. The final landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the State's Model Water
Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO).
Resolution No. 2022-
Page 7
L. Ascertain and comply with all requirements of the City's Building Division, including the
submittal of complete architectural, electrical, landscaping plans duly wet stamped and
signed by a licensed architect or designer.
M. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial
conformance with the Architectural Commission approval.
N. Ascertain and comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
O. Pay all applicable permit and development review fees as established by City
ordinances and resolutions.
P. During re -landscaping operations, the applicant shall implement best available control
measures (BACMs) to minimize nuisance levels of construction activity emissions such
as dust, emissions, and off -site impacts. BACMs shall include but are not limited to the
following:
1. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
2. Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
3. Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging
areas.
4. Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt
deposition on any public roadway.
5. Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or dusty
material.
6. Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph.
7. Hydro -seed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain
inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed.
8. Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off -road equipment.
9. Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
10. Encourage carpooling for construction workers.
11. Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
12. Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
13. Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site.
14. Wash or sweep access points daily.
Resolution No. 2022-
Page 8
15. Encourage receipt of material during non -peak traffic hours.
16. Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
Q. Ensure the following measures are observed during all construction -related activities for
the project:
The hours of construction operation are limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. No construction activity is allowed on Sundays
and federal holidays.
2. Staging areas shall be located away from any existing residences as determined
by the Building Official.
3. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers.
R. During the course of all on -site grading and construction activity, the applicant shall employ
adequate dust control measures in accordance with the California Building Code,
SCAQMD, and City requirements to minimize fugitive dust.
S. Noise sources associated with construction activities shall not exceed the noise levels
as set forth in Section 16.154.020(f) of the Claremont Municipal Code.
T. To ensure compliance with the provisions of this Architectural Commission design
approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work has been
completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an
appointment for such an inspection.
U. Upon final inspection, the City will commence a 30-day lighting level review of all,
exterior lights. If illumination levels, glare, or other applicable issues are found to be
excessive, the applicant will be directed to modify the lighting as necessary to be at an
acceptable level.
V. Noncompliance with any condition of this approval shall constitute a violation of the
City's Municipal Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of
the administrative fines program of Chapter 1.14 of the Claremont Municipal Code.
W. The applicant/owner, by utilizing the benefits of this approval, shall thereby agree to
defend at its sole expense any action against the City, its agents, officers, and
employees because of the issues of such approval. In addition, the applicant/owner
shall reimburse the City et al for any court costs and attorney fees that the City et al may
be required to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation
shall not relieve the applicant/owner of its obligation hereunder.
X. Failure to comply with any of the conditions, including design issues as shown on plans
reviewed and approved by the City of Claremont, may result in failure to obtain a building
final and/or a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's
Resolution No. 2022-
Page 9
requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition
of a non -compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred, where the project does not
comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits
were pulled to construct the project.
Y. The existing outdoor swimming pool and spa shall be re -filled immediately with water and
kept filled with water and maintained throughout the year for use by motel guests. Weekly
chemical measurements, additives and cleaning shall be strictly adhered to.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the
adoption thereof.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November, 2022.
Mayor, City of Claremont
ATTEST:
City Clerk, City of Claremont
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorne , ity of Claremont