HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-2016 ARC Item 1 - Staff Report
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Continued review of a four-story, 114-unit extended stay hotel and associated hotel
amenities and Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1301 Calle Joaquin BY: Shawna Scott, Contract Planner
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Phone Number: 805-781-7574
Email: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1098-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the Architectural Review Commission adopt the draft Resolution (Attachment 1),
which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions, and adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Attachment 10).
SITE DATA
Applicant Intermountain Management,
LLC; Myhre Group Architects
Representative Tim Walters, RRM Design
Group
Submittal Date March 19, 2015
Complete Date August 5, 2015
Zoning C-T-SF
General Plan Tourist Commercial
Site Area 2.84 acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative
Declaration recommended for
adoption (circulated for public
review August 22, 2015).
SUMMARY
The City has received an application for Architectural Review of a 69,293-square foot, four-story,
114-unit extended stay hotel. The ARC conceptually reviewed the project on July 7, 2014, and
provided 14 directional items (refer to Attachment 9). The applicant responded to the ARC’s
directional items, and the ARC continued review of the project on October 5, 2015 and provided 10
directional items for the applicant (refer to Attachment 8). On May 2, 2016, the ARC considered the
Meeting Date: June 20, 2016
Item Number: 1
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 2
applicant’s response to ARC directional items, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
and public comments. Based on ARC’s review of the project and consideration of public comment
regarding the project, the ARC provided three directional items for the applicant and requested
additional information from staff regarding transportation/traffic and water resources. Staff has
reviewed the applicant’s resubmittal, which includes revised elevations and architectural renderings
(Attachment 3).
Staff finds that the revised plans and supporting information do not fully comply with ARC
direction, and is recommending the ARC’s consideration of conditional approval of the project, as
discussed further below.
Staff has prepared an amended Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration that addresses the
comments and questions raised by the ARC during the May 2, 2016 hearing. Staff is recommending
adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC continued the project on May 2, 2016, and provided 3 directional items for the applicant
(discussed in section 3.0 below). The ARC’s role is to review the applicant’s response to ARC
direction and the response’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable
City standards. The ARC is also tasked with the review and adoption of the project’s environmental
document, in this case a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff has amended the Initial Study as
requested by the ARC, and as discussed further below.
2.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
2.1 ARC Directional Items
On May 2, 2016, the ARC reviewed the project plans, and provided three directional items
to be incorporated into plans submitted for final approval. The paragraphs below identify the
directional items and the applicant’s response and staff’s analysis of the applicant’s
submittal.
Directional Item #1: Reduce the height of the structure and provide additional vertical and
horizontal stepping to: provide more visibility of distant ridgelines and hills as seen from
off-site locations; minimize the boxy shape of the structure; and, increase the project’s
compatibility with the size, scale, height, and massing of proximate existing structures and
agricultural operations on Calle Joaquin Road and Los Osos Valley Road (please note some
Commissioners’ comments included a request to lower the structure to three stories and/or
approximately 30 feet in height).
Response to Directional Item #1: The applicant considered increasing the footprint of
the structure to accommodate further reductions in building height; however, as
discussed in the applicant’s response to ARC directional items (Attachment 3), the
applicant has not submitted revised plans addressing this directional item. The applicant
notes that surrounding development in the immediate area includes existing buildings
roughly two stories in height, and the recently approved car dealership to be located
adjacent to the project site (to the northeast, between the project site and the City Farm)
ranges in height from 19 to 36 feet. Four-story development in the area includes
Hampton Inn and Suites, approximately 0.4 mile to the south and Embassy Suites,
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 3
approximately 0.6 mile to the north. The applicant notes that the building elevations
(Attachment 3, Sheets A5 and A6) show a variety of parapet heights ranging from 33
feet, 3 inches to the building’s maximum height, 45 feet (see Figure 1, below).
Figure 1: North Elevation showing variations in parapet height.
Conclusion: The applicant has presented their justification and reasoning for proposing
to maintain the existing height, scale, and mass of the structure (Attachment 3). In order
to comply with direction from the ARC, staff recommends a condition of approval,
which would require a height reduction to provide more visibility of the Irish Hills and
Morro ridgelines and increase compatibility with existing and recently approved
development along Calle Joaquin Road and agricultural operations to the northeast.
Recommended Condition #11 states:
Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans
showing an overall reduction in height for review and approval by the City Community
Development Director. The revised plans shall show:
a. No more than three stories;
b. Maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 35 feet above existing grade;
c. Vertical stepping shall be incorporated into the plans to provide visual articulation.
d. Horizontal setbacks along the third floor shall be provided to minimize massing.
Based on compliance with this condition, as recommended or as modified by the ARC,
the project would be revised in compliance with directional item #1.
Directional Item #2: Provide more visual articulation by adding definition around windows,
such as lintels to create more shadow lines.
Response to Directional Item #2: The applicant added 4-inch built-up trim bands
around the windows set in a three-coat stucco locations to enhance the perceived
thickness of the walls at opening locations, which will provide as much of a deep-set
profile that can be achieved in wood-framed construction while allowing the built
assembly to be properly water and weather-proofed (see Attachment 3 Sheet A9, and
Figure 2, below).
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 4
Figure 2: Proposed window details.
Conclusion: As noted above, the applicant has added additional detailing around the
windows to provide additional articulation in a manner consistent with the overall
architectural style of the building in compliance with directional item #2.
Directional Item #3: Provide a more unified exterior wall color scheme, and minimize the
use of colors to provide visual articulation.
Response to Directional Item #3: The applicant’s proposed color palette utilizes warm
earth tones intended to be complementary to the surrounding area. To meet this
directional item, the applicant proposes to reduce the variation between the proposed
light and dark green shades (see Attachment 3 Sheet A9 and Figures 3 and 4 below).
Figure 3: Previous color scheme.
Figure 4: Revised color scheme.
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 5
Conclusion: The applicant has provided an adjustment to the proposed green shades to
better unify the proposed color scheme. Proposed color samples will be available for
view at the hearing to better articulate the differences in the shades, which may not be as
clear in the printed graphics. As shown in the above graphics, visual articulation is
provided by proposed vertical and horizontal stepping, incorporation of stone, window
recession and treatments, and integrated landscaping. The applicant’s proposed
adjustment addresses directional item #3.
2.2 General Plan / Community Design Guidelines
An analysis regarding the project and General Plan Policy and the Community Design
Guidelines is provided in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the previous staff report (Attachment 8, pg
11). In response to the ARC’s request to reduce the height of the structure, staff is
recommending condition #11, which would lower the structure from four to three stories and
maintain vertical and horizontal articulation throughout (see response to directional item #1,
above).
2.3 Signage and Flags
Based on the ARC’s direction received at the May 2, 2016 hearing, the applicant will submit
their proposed signage plan to the ARC at a later date.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Public Draft Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption
(Attachment 10). Based on review by the ARC, additional information and clarification was
requested regarding transportation/traffic and water supply. Where applicable, this information has
been incorporated into the Initial Study/MND, and does not constitute a substantial revision, as the
additional information does not include any new avoidable significant effects, and the new
information merely clarifies and supports impact determinations identified in the document.
3.1 Aesthetics
The Initial Study/MND assumes a “worst-case scenario”, which consists of the four-story
development with varied parapet heights as proposed by the applicant and as shown in
presented photo-simulations (Attachment 5). The ARC may approve or modify staff’s
recommended condition to reduce the height of the structure to three stories (maximum),
which would further reduce potential impacts to aesthetic resources, would not result in a
change to the impact significance determination identified in the Initial Study/MND (less
than significant with mitigation), and would not require an additional revision to the
IS/MND.
3.2 Transportation / Traffic
The following information is presented in the Initial Study/MND (Section 16), and based on
review of this information, further clarification is not warranted. Staff will be available to
respond to any additional questions regarding transportation/traffic at the public hearing.
Staff review of the project included preparation of a Transportation Impact Analysis Report
(Omni Means 2014), which was conducted by a Public Works Department-approved
transportation engineer. The analysis was not limited to the proposed hotel development,
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 6
and included analysis of traffic impacts resulting from full build-out of the project site and
three adjacent C-T zoned lots. The intent of this study was to 1) determine how build-out of
these four lots would affect congestion and traffic movement in the area, including Calle
Joaquin Road/Los Osos Valley Road and the Highway 101 / Los Osos Valley Road
intersections, and 2) identify if off-site improvements would be required to maintain
acceptable levels of congestion and safe intersection movements. Based on this analysis, the
development of all four lots would not result in a project-specific impact under existing plus
project (Year 2016) conditions. Additional trips generated by the development of all four
lots would degrade level of service, but not below the City’s LOS D threshold; therefore, the
Public Works Department determined that no mitigation is required to alleviate peak hour
congestion.
Under cumulative conditions (including build-out identified in the City’s General Plan),
additional traffic resulting from the development of all four lots would increase delays and
traffic congestion at the Calle Joaquin/Los Osos Valley Road intersection and along the Los
Osos Valley Road corridor and U.S. 101 interchange by the year 2035. The project would
not result in project-specific adverse effects, but would contribute to the cumulative
degradation of LOS at the Los Osos Valley Road/Calle Joaquin Road intersection under
worst-case conditions. City recommended mitigation for this cumulative impact includes
upgrading the traffic signal at the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin
Road, construction of a second left-turn lane on the Calle Joaquin approach to Los Osos
Valley Road, and modification of lane usage on the westbound approach of Calle Joaquin
where the project is located. These mitigation measures would apply to all four lots;
therefore, design of the improvements is required prior to initial development of the lots, and
fair share contribution would be required from each of the lot developers at the building
permit stage.
Based on consultation with Public Works, the applicant has submitted a design schematic
showing intersection striping and improvements at the Los Osos Valley Road and Calle
Joaquin intersection (Attachment 3, Los Osos and Calle Joaquin Intersection Striping
06.30.2015) and an engineer’s cost estimate to implement the improvements (RRM Design
Group 2015), consistent with City recommended mitigation for this intersection under
cumulative conditions. These improvements show reconstruction of the existing intersection
and roadway approach, sidewalks, removal of one ornamental tree adjacent to the roadway,
driveway improvements serving adjacent lots, a relocated utility pole, curb and gutter
improvements, signage, and striping. The construction of these improvements would occur
within an existing developed and paved area, and would be subject to all City ordinances
and standard requirements in place for resource protection, as summarized in the Initial
Study/MND.
In addition, the current and future applicants would be required to contribute to the City’s
Transportation Impact Fee program, in addition to the Los Osos Valley Road interchange
sub-area fee program. This additional fee mechanism was developed by the City to assess
planned area development to contribute its fair share to the cost of proposed interchange
improvements.
Based on implementation of these mitigation measures, potentially significant cumulative
impacts would be less than significant.
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 7
3.3 Water Supply
As documented in the Initial Study/MND (Section 9), the proposed project would result in a
water demand of 49 acre-feet per year (afy), based on a water duty factor of 0.43 afy per
unit. Recycled water is intended to be used for landscape irrigation.
The following information has been added to the Initial Study/MND, which further supports
the City’s determination of adequate water supply to serve the project:
The Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) estimated that upon build-out of the City,
including the project site, city-wide water demand would increase to 7,815 afy. The current
draft of the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Planning Commission Draft May 2016)
incorporates mandated water conservation targets in response to the severe drought
conditions. The City’s 2015 interim target gallons per capita per day (GPCD) was 120, and
the actual 2015 GPCD was 92; as noted in the Draft Plan, the City met and surpassed 2015
interim water use reduction targets.
The City’s water supply includes the Salinas and Whale Rock reservoirs (6,940 afy, safe
annual yield), Nacimiento reservoir (5,482 afy), and recycled water, which exceeds
projected demand. Regarding future and continued water supply, conceptually, the City will
use its contractual water supply from Nacimiento Reservoir first, with Whale Rock and
Salinas used as needed to meet the City’s overall potable water demand. In 2016, this
contractual water supply was increased from 3,380 acre-feet to 5,482 acre-feet annually,
with the additional 2,102 acre-feet as a secondary water supply for use during water
shortages. The City assumes it will continue to use these water supplies in this coordinated
manner, to supply a projected 7,493 afy of water by 2035, including 5,482 afy of contractual
water, 1,611 afy of supplier-produced surface water, and 400 afy of recycled water.
The Draft Plan includes an assessment of water supply reliability, and considers single and
multiple dry water years, and includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan including actions
required during a short-term water supply emergency, including drought. Under a multiple
dry year scenario, which assumes compliance with water conservation mandates (which was
successfully accomplished in 2015), demand ranging between 6,314 afy (year 2020) and
5,329 afy (year 2035) would not exceed supply (12,622 afy). Assuming water demand
during a normal (non-drought) year, the estimated demand (7,779 afy in 2035) would not
exceed normal year supply (12,772 afy). This indicates the City’s water resources are
reliable during extended drought periods, and the City is confident in the reliability of its
multi-source water supply portfolio. In addition, while it is not a requirement that Urban
Water Management Plans address climate change, the City is concerned about the potential
long-term effects of climate change on its water supply. While the City has secured an
adequate water supply to serve the projected build-out of the City, and uses conservative
water projection methods, the City continues to focus on securing supplemental water
sources and promoting conservation to strengthen its multi-source water supply to withstand
potential long-term effects of climate change.
Therefore, based on review of the current Urban Water Management Plan (2011), draft
Urban Water Management Plan (2016) and review by the City Utilities Department, existing
water supply is available to serve the project, and use of municipal water for the project
would not deplete groundwater resources.
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 8
3.4 Conclusion
The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse
gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and
transportation and traffic will be less than significant (refer to Attachment 10, Initial Study,
for the complete environmental document).
4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the Conditions of Approval.
5.0 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
5.2 Continue the project to a date uncertain with directional items.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Applicant Response Letter, Revised Project Plan Set
4. Applicant May 2, 2016 project plan set
5. Third-party photo-simulations and shading study
6. Correspondence from City Farm
7. Directional Items, Minutes, and Staff Report, May 2, 2016 ARC hearing
8. Directional Items, Minutes, and Staff Report, October 5, 2015 ARC hearing
9. Minutes, July 7, 2014 ARC hearing
10. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, as revised (included in the ARC packet
digitally on a CD and can be found online at: http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-
bodies/agendas-and-minutes/architectural-review-commission)
Provided to Commissioners: 11x17 Plan Set, Transportation Impact Analysis Report (on the CD
as part of the Initial Study), 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (on the CD and online at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=10753)
Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board, Applicant Animated Visual Simulations