HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-2016 ARC Item 1 - Staff Report Attachment 07Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
805 781.7170
slocity org
October 21, 2015
lntermountain Management, LLC
Dave Raymond, Director of Construction
2390 Tower Drive
Monroe, LA 71201
Subject: ARCH-1098-2015: 1301 Calle Joaquin
Review of New Hotel
Dear Mr. Raymond :
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of October 5, 2015, continued
action on your project to a date uncertain with the following directional items:
1. Contact and work with Central Coast Grown, City Farm-San Luis Obispo to provide
their site plan within the project plans for consideration of adjacent farming
activities (e.g. tractor routes, dirt roads, structures, and etc.). Central Coast Grown
may be contacted at (805) 769-8344 or P.O. Box 3736, San Luis Obispo, California
93403.
2 . Provide an additional shading analysis, which shall show shading on the winter
solstice from sunrise to sunset. The shading analysis shall assess shading by both
structural elements and landscape trees.
3 . Provide additional information on the landscaping plan, including the location of
specific species, tree height at the time of initial planting and at maturity, and rate
of growth (how many years to reach maturity). Consider including larger trees
upon initial planting efforts. Contact Ron Combs, City Arborist, at (805) 781-7023,
for additional information regarding species that would grow well and survive on
the subject property.
4 . Review and provide additional design modifications to address improving
neighborhood compatibility, such as additional stepping down of the building
(especially as the building approaches the City Farm), to provide a visual transition
from the proposed project to neighboring properties, including current and
anticipated future development.
5 . Address neighborhood compatibility in regard to scale and massing, including
existing and future development and improvements along Calle Joaquin and on the
City Farm.
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 2
6. Provide articulation and openings, including potentially increasing the size of
windows to break up the blank wall planes, especially the wall facing Calle Joaquin
and the wall located toward the middle of the structure.
7. Contact San Luis Garbage and provide their written confirmation that the location
of the trash and recycling enclosure is acceptable.
8 . Provide a third-party visual study demonstrating the appearance of the building
from multiple views including Highway 101. The study should include an
assumption of potential development on neighboring properties.
9 . Include additional dust control mitigation measures considering sensitivity to
neighboring farming activities.
10. Clarify the use of "sand" finished stucco, referenced in condition #3. The use of
spray on stucco may be appropriate above 30 feet.
If you have any questions, please contact Rachel Cohen at (805) 781-7574 .
Associate Planner
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Myhre Group Architects
Philip Stewart, AIA, NCARB
620 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
RRM Design Group
Tim Walters, Principal, Engineering
3765 S. Higuera Street, Suite 102
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
HFP LTD A CA LP
508 Auto Center Drive
Claremont, CA 91711
ATTACHMENT 7
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
October 5, 2015
Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll,
Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie , and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Commissioner Ken Curtis
Community Development Director Michael Codron , Interim Community
Development Liaison Marcus Carloni , Associate Planner Rachel Cohen,
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzel!, City Consultant Shawna Scott, and
Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
The minutes of August 17, 2015, were approved as amended .
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Community Development Director Codron shared his background in working with City of
San Luis Obispo ; encouraged feedback and shared his desire to provide advisory body
members with quality reports , clear recommendations, and overall support; noted
looking forward to implementing changes that will help improve letter correspondence
management.
Chair Wynn welcomed the new Interim-Community Development staff liaison Carloni.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1301 Calle Joaquin . ARCH-1098-2015; Review of a four-story, 114-unit extended
stay hotel and associated hotel amenities and Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental review ; C-T-SF zone; lntermountain Management LLC and Myhre
Group Architects , applicant.
Commr. Soll stated she visited the farm and met with Central Coast Grown Board
President Marx.
Commr. Andreen stated that he spoke with President Marx regarding the project prior to
the hearing.
ATTACHMENT 7
Draft ARC Minutes
October 5, 2015
Page 2
City Consultant Scott presented the staff report , recommending the Architectural
Review Commission to adopt the draft Resolution, approving the project, based on
findings , and subject to conditions, and to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Staff recommended that the Architectural Review Commission continue with the review
of the applicant's proposed signage plan based on the applicant's response to
directional items specific to signage, and staff's subsequent review. Staff
recommended that this continuance be placed on the Architectural Review
Commission's consent agenda on a date to be determined and appropriately noticed.
In response Commr. Andreen's inquiry, City Consultant Scott clarified that the
Commission had discretionary authority to raise issues and direct staff for revisions or
analysis regarding the mitigated declaration; explained that the Commission could vote
to continue the project and request additional information; noting that approving this
project would include approving the mitigated negative declaration. Ms. Scott also
confirmed that the Commission had final approval , with the exception of an appeal ,
whereas it would be reviewed by the City Council.
In response to Commr. Root's inquiry, Ms. Scott explained that a shading study had
been submitted by the applicant; clarified that the parking plan did not identify the Calle
Joaquin access to the San Luis Ranch as an option; indicated that the traffic plan
addressed traffic issues at the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road .
Commr. Root inquired whether there are plans for development in the adjacent and
surrounding parcels.
Assistant Planner Cohen responded stating there is a proposal for a dealership to the
north of this project; noted that there are no plans in the southern lot; stated that the lot
nearest to Alfano Motors is owned by Mr. Alfano, and there is no knowledge of future
development.
In response to Commr. Root , Assistant Planner Cohen clarified that the median
landscape would be coordinated with Cal Trans.
In response to Commr. Nemcik's inquiry, Ms. Scott explained that the adjacent lots were
in the Tourist Commercial Zone , with the exception of the lots zoned Open Space/
Conservation.
In response to inquiry from Chair Wynn, Ms. Scott clarified that City Farm is operating
under the Open Space/Conservation zone .
In response to inquiry from Commr. Ehdaie , Ms , Scott, noted that an EIR was
completed as part of the LUCE update where they looked at the full development (of the
Special Focus Area), and considered communal traffic impacts of the parcels .
In response to inquiry from Commr . Ehdaie , Community Development Director Codron
explained that there is a Calle Joaquin Agricultural Master Plan ; clarified that the area is
intended to be in perpetuity as a long-term farm; noted that the farm currently has a 20-
year term lease with an option to extend [with Central Coast Grown]; pointed out that
ATTACHMENT 7
Draft ARC Minutes
October 5 , 2015
Page 3
the City's Master Plan will eventually incorporate the San Luis Ranch property as part of
the Agricultural Open Space.
Community Development Director Cedron also explained that Central Coast Grown
manages the property on behalf of the City for a dollar a year and, in exchange, they
run a program that is consistent with the Master Plan .
In response to inquiry from Commr. Soll , Ms. Scott stated that the zoning code in this
area establishes a 45-foot height limit, noting that the height limit is 75 feet in the
downtown area and given discretionary review.
APPLICANT:
Applicant representatives Philip Stewart and Robert Camacho, from Myhre Group
Architects, and Chris Dufer, from RRM Design Group, provided a detailed overview of
the project and reviewed the updated site plans and design elements including the front
patio . They stated that the hotel would be in keeping with the design elements of the
area; pointed out that they implemented and addressed feedback from the previous
Architectural Review Commission review and demonstrated continued willingness to
comply with staff recommendations.
The applicant representatives answered Commissioners' questions regarding the flood
plan , landscape , pedestrian , and bike paths. They indicated that it would take 10-15
years for the trees in the landscape to mature ; clarified that some of the grass will be
drought resistant but the majority will be medium water usage ; specified that the grass
will be part of a biofiltration system.
Commr. Andreen requested to see site plan renderings that most closely resembled the
final outcome from Calle Joaquin and 101 freeways ; inquired about the type of tree
specimens that would be used to scale down the size of the building. The Applicant
clarified that that the renderings did not show all of the trees and landscape ; explained
that they had not finalized which trees would be used.
Chair. Wynn inquired about the landscape plan and the size and location of the trees.
The applicant noted , after receiving instructions from Senior Planner, Phil Dunsmore,
direction was provided for planting the trees.
In response to Commr. Andreen inquiries, the applicant indicated that the trees would
eventually reach 50 feet in height, over the next 10-15 years, and that the trees would
be large enough to screen in the building .
In response to Chair Wynn, the applicant stated that utilizing larger trees may be an
option depending on the tree specimen to try and scale down the building.
The applicant responded to Commr. Ehdaie 's inquiries noting that, due to the
narrowness and size of the lot, the building was scaled down . The applicant explained
that there will be sidewalks on all four sides of the project that will connect to the public
sidewalks and confirmed access to long-term bike storage.
ATTACHMENT 7
Draft ARC Minutes
October 5, 2015
Page 4
Consultant Scott clarified that there is a long-term plan for a bike lane on Calle Joaquin .
Chair Wynn recommended adding a condition for the garbage company to review the
garbage location.
In response to Commr. Wynn's inquiries, the applicant clarified that the windows will be
cohesive , adding that there is a possibility to further add articulation to the two large
green walls by adding windows.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Wendy Brown , San Luis Obispo , Treasurer of Central Coast Grown and City Farm
tenant , voiced opposition to the project ; expressed feelings of exclusion from the
previous hearing because City Farm was not notified of the project; shared concerns
over the scale of the building masking the agricultural area; opined that the trees and
landscaping will not disguise the massive building ; recognized that the applicants tried
to make changes according to the Commission 's recommendations but felt this would
have been more effective had City Farm been able to testify at the 2014 hearing; urged
the Commission to limit the adjacent buildings to City Farm to a two-story building, and
advised against adding large trees that might shade the agricultural areas; shared
concerns over the shading study; and stated that the project needs to be further
reviewed by the City Council or the Planning Commission.
Nikki Andersen, San Luis Obispo, City Farm Manager and Educator, voiced opposition
to the project ; stated that it is important to preserve the agricultural heritage of the city;
shared concerns with the lack of transparency and community engagement in regard to
this project; noted that City Farm has not been open to the public due to the adjacent
construction; opined that the project is not consistent with the City which supports long-
term agricultural heritage; expressed concerns with the building damaging the visibility
of the surrounding area , noting it would alter the feeling of City Farm and potentially give
the wrong message to students visiting the farm .
Matthew Bowling, Arroyo Grande , Principle of Organic Farm , voiced opposition to the
project ; stated that he has a small farm near the project and everything his farm grows
needs to be sold; pointed out the short-term effects regarding traffic , noise, and dust
which can negatively affect their organic produce; expressed frustration with people
constantly crossing his property ; stated that he may have to build a fence; noted that he
would like to farm long-term in the area; voiced concerns regarding the hotel damaging
the area ; explained the importance of support to the farming community; explained that
his farm feeds 19 schools in the area and he would like to continue to farm in a safe
place without a large hotel in such close proximity .
Steven Marx , San Luis Obispo, Board President of Central Coast Grown , voiced
opposition to the project; provided renderings of what the hotel would look like from City
Farm; pointed out that the building is largely out of scale with the area ; expressed
concerns regarding the farm workers , farmers, students, and the whole community ,
relating to this piece of land as a food source and having to be subjugated to be in the
ATTACHMENT 7
Draft ARC Minutes
October 5 , 2015
Page 5
shadow of a massing building; stated that Matt Bowling has been resilient and
resourceful, regarding farming and managing the on-going issues of this project.
Mr. Marx pointed out that there is a 20-year long lease between Central Coast Grown
and the City; noted that the City's General Plan states that it should "preserve the
signature agricultural entrance to the southern portion of the city;" expressed
disappointment in the lack of notification on behalf of the City, which has allowed this
project to continue without the input from City Farm ; stated that the Architectural Review
Commission did not give adequate consideration to the issues stated in the Community
Design Guidelines; expressed appreciation to the Commissioner that visited the site;
noted that the Commission would benefit from their input ; explained that construction of
this building would be in violation of the General plan; opined that the building will be
visually distracting and it would overshadow the eucalyptus groves; stated that the
project is in violation of the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Master plan ; pointed out
statements made by Chair Wynn at the previous hearing, stating that the community will
have concerns about the development of a large building.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Wynn inquired about the General Plan, the Land Use and Circulation Element,
the Master Plan, the San Joaquin Plan, and if any other prior documents limit the
proposal.
Ms. Scott clarified that there are no documents that would limit the approval of this
building; noting that the Commission has discretionary review of the design and the
negative declaration.
In response to inquiries from Chair Wynn regarding City noticing responsibilities, Interim
Community Development Liaison Carloni explained that the notifications of public
hearings are sent to adjacent neighbors , tenants , and registered businesses within a
300-foot radius of the project site ; stated that a notice is also displayed at the property
and published in the newspaper.
Planner Cohen pointed out that City Farm was added to the City's noticing list after it
was acknowledged that they did not receive a hearing notice for the conceptual review
hearing ; stated that they were notified of the current hearing , and they will continue to
receive notices of all public hearings within 300 feet.
In response to inquiry by Commr. Ehdaie , Assistant Planner Cohen pointed out that City
Farm owners became aware of the previous hearing after reading the newspaper.
In response to inquiry by Commr. Root , Ms. Scott explained that the "Right to Farm
Letter" is a mitigation measure which provides the hotel ownership to be aware of their
neighbor's right to farm and is meant to assist in land-use conflicts.
ATTACHMENT 7
Draft ARC Minutes
October 5, 2015
Page 6
Commr. Andreen identified that , under the California Environmental Quality Act, the
mitigated negative declaration requires to look if the mitigation is sufficient to reduce the
impact to less than significant; asked what "significant" meant in this context and what
measures or documents the Commission had to reach that conclusion. Ms. Scott
clarified that the conclusion must be based on substantial evidence in the records ,
review of the plans, renderings, simulation, public testimony, and staff presentations.
In response to inquiry by Commr. Nemcik, Ms. Scott explained that there is no specific
solar study requirement from the California Environmental Quality Act; noted that staff
looked to see if shading would result in conversion or if it would impair the agricultural
area; pointed out that the applicant submitted a solar study; stated that staff also looked
at greater lengths of shading based on sun angle; concluded that, based on the
placement of this structure, there is adequate distance between the structure and the
farm.
Chair Wynn concurred with Ms. Scott's findings on the project not physically
overshadowing the adjacent area; noted that the tall trees on the western boundary
would , in fact, overshadow the agricultural land.
Ms. Scott clarified that standard dust control measures are required; indicated that
mitigated measures could be modified to further mitigate the impact of dust getting on
the produce.
Commr. Andreen , voiced concerns that the language from the Land Use and Circulation
Element had not been adequately considered; noted that it was unfortunate that City
Farm was not involved earlier in the process; affirmed that the aesthetic impacts are
significant and did not feel comfortable making a decision based on the evidence that
was provided.
Commr. Nemcik, concurred with Commr. Andreen , on the lack of imagery necessary to
make a finding .
Commr. Soll stated that , after visiting the site, the view from the ground provides a
different perspective ; voiced concerns over the size of the building and the
Commission's ability to mitigate ; expressed concerns regarding neighborhood
compatibility; opined that this project does not meet Community Design Guidelines.
Chair Wynn pointed out that this project is allowable in the zone .
Commr. Root expressed feeling too overwhelmed to make a decision without clear
findings ; noted being lost in the same language ; noted direct conflict between the
screening of the hotel by the trees and the additional shading this would create to the
farming land ; stated not feeling comfortable making a decision without further input.
In response to Commr. Soll's inquiry, Chair Wynn explained that, during the first
hearing , he stated that people would be nervous about a tall, long building being
developed, but noted that the applicant modified the original design ; noted that the
current building is substantially better than the one on the initial concept review ; noted
that his current concerns have to do with the aesthetic and the negative declaration and
ATTACHMENT 7
Draft ARC Minutes
October 5 , 2015
Page 7
pointed out that the current building meets design guidelines but, given the new
information that wasn't available during the first hearing , it changes the review .
Commr. Root concurred that all of the issues that were brought up at the previous
hearing were addressed; voiced concerns regarding the large walls lacking articulation;
expressed concerns against using colors and shades that match the surrounding
geography, advised toward using compatible colors but not mimic the surroundings;
stated that, architecturally, the building is consistent with the surrounding area.
Commr. Ehdale indicated that the design and the architectural style of the current
building is better than the first one presented and compatible with the design guidelines;
voiced concerns that City Farm was not notified and were not a part of the design
process ; stressed the importance of stakeholders being involved and providing
feedback. Also , noted concerns with compatibility with the adjacent parcels and the
neighborhood.
Chair Wynn expressed that he would like to continue this project to a date uncertain to
allow staff the opportunity to provide additional aesthetic visualizations that meet the
California Environmental Quality Act requirements to show that the aesthetic impacts
have been mitigated to a less-than-significance level.
Staff could also be looking at additional measures for additional dust control that can be
tied to crop production times of the adjacent neighbor, shading , and specificity in the
landscaping plan ; explained in the interest of transparency that the farm also provided
their site plan to be aware of production times and location .
Commr. Soll stated that the building looks better but the scale and mass issues from the
2014 hearing were not addressed ; expressed concerns with moving forward without
addressing the mass and scale issues, and neighborhood compatibility based on the
design guidelines.
Commr. Andreen concurred with the scale and mass issues and suggested the building
should transition down on the side of the farm ; noting that, if the farm is to succeed , the
building should transition down .
Chair Wynn advised staff to clarify the location for the trash enclosure and explain
conditions 3 and 16 .
Commr. Andreen inquired about the explanation of ARC1-82 -Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts.
Interim Community Development Liaison Carloni , clarified that the evaluation of
environmental impact page is referencing the land use and circulation elements and the
open space elements.
Ms. Scott explained that, sometimes, there are quantifiable thresholds that must be
identified when reviewing environmental impacts such as air quality and sometimes
ATTACHMENT 7
Draft ARC Minutes
October 5 , 2015
Page 8
[thresholds are] more subjective and based on evidence like aesthetics unless there is
something in place such as an ordinance to help mitigate impacts .
The Commission discussed issues with height requirements , dust impacts on crops,
and site constraints of having a long, narrow lot.
Chair Wynn stated that the visual studies will help understand the scale and mass;
reiterated that, ultimately, everyone will be nervous about a building that is very big and
very long.
Commr. Root stated not being concerned with visualization because the building will
only be visible for a few seconds from the road but noted concerns with the
neighborhood compatibility.
Commr. Andreen advised that the building should be modified in a way that lessens the
long view.
The applicant clarified that the color palate will not mimic surrounding areas , but it is
intended to be compatible; offered to show a simulated video of the view obstruction
from the 101 freeway.
Ms. Scott pointed out that , for a quarter mile traveling northbound, views from Cerro
San Luis and the Morros will be blocked.
Chair Wynn advised that further visual analysis be done by a professional.
Community Development Director Codron stated that views are not protected from one
property to the next; explained that this parcel is not in the vista although the 101
highway is a scenic highway; explained further review is recommended regarding
environmental review and what the threshold is.
Commr. Andreen explained that one of the design guidelines, regarding open space
areas and areas where the public congregates , is to protect views of the public ; stated
that open space areas where the public gathers applies to a place like City Farm ; noted
that open space area has a higher view protection.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Root to continue to a date
uncertain and ask that the applicant work with staff and neighbors to achieve the
following recommendations: including more visuals and before and after renderings;
include additional measures for dust control ; review shading during alternative times
including shading of landscaping ; provide more specificity of landscape, including tree
size and planted sizes; requested that City Farm provide their site plans to the
applicant; find measures to better address neighborhood compatibility in terms of scale;
evaluate potential transition down on the vertical articulation stepping down toward the
farm side of the building ; review trash enclosure location with San Luis Garbage;
provide clarification on condition 3 regarding hand-troweled versus sand finish
appearance, potentially allowing a sprayed-on finish above 30 feet where it will be less
ATTACHMENT 7
Draft ARC Minutes
October 5 , 2015
Page 9
visible; include language considering articulation in openings, based on findings and
subject to conditions.
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSED:
ABSENT:
Commrs. Nemcik , Soll , Ehdaie, and Wynn
None
None
Commr. Cutis
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
Marcus Carloni provided an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.
3. Commission:
Commr. Andreen, suggested that additional training is needed to better understand the
mitigated declaration and the California Environmental Quality Act.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sarah Reinhart
Recording Secretary
ATTACHMENT 7
CITY OF
SHn LUIS OBISPO
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Item Number: 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 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
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1098-2015
RECOMMENDATION
BY: Shawna Scott, Contract Planner
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Phone Number: 805-781-7574
Email: rcohen@slocity.org@
FROM: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
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 8). Staff recommends that the ARC continue review of the
applicant's proposed signage plan based on the applicant's response to directional items specific to
signage, and staffs subsequent review. Staff recommends that this continuance be placed on the
ARC's consent agenda, on a date to be determined and appropriately noticed.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Representative
Submittal Date
Complete Date
Zoning
General Plan
Site Area
Environmental
Status
SUMMARY
Intermountain Management, LLC
Myhre Group Architects
Tim Walters, RRM Design Group
March 19, 2015
August 5, 2015
C-T-SF
Tourist Commercial
2.84 acres
Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommended for adoption
(circulated for public review
Au st 22, 2015).
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 5). The applicant has now submitted plans for
final review (Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans).
ARC1-1
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 2
Staff has reviewed the applicant's resubmittal, which includes a revised site plan and elevations,
architectural renderings, and additional information regarding lighting, signage, materials, grading
and drainage, solar access, circulation, and landscaping. Staff finds that the revised plans and
supporting information comply with ARC direction as well as the City's Community Design
Guidelines, and applicable City regulations, and is recommending approval. Staff has prepared an
Initial Study, which resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 8). Staff is
recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The ARC continued the project on July 7, 2014, and provided 14 directional items (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.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site is currently vacant and is located within the Tourist Commercial zone within the
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Special Focus area ( C-T-SF), per the General Plan Land Use
Element 1
• The parcel was created by a previous subdivision, was graded, and supports drainage
easements. The nearly level project site does not support any significant vegetation and no trees
are present. The project site is bordered to the southeast by Calle Joaquin Road and U.S.
Highway 101.
Site Size
Present Use & Development
Land Use Designation
Access
Surrounding Use/Zoning
2.2 Project Description
1) Site Plan
2.84 acres
Vacant
Tourist Commercial
Calle Joaquin
Northwest: C-R, C/OS-20 & C-S-PD; vacant, auto dealerships,
Prefumo Creek Commons
Northeast: C-T-SF & C/OS-20; vacant, City Farm
Southwest: C-T-SF, C-S, & C-S-S; vacant, auto dealerships, Motel
6, Bear Valley Center, AAA Insurance Center, America's Tire
Southeast: C/OS-20; Calle Joaquin, U.S. Highway 101, Bob Jones
bike path (southeast of U.S. Highway 101)
The project consists of a 69,293-square foot, four-story, 114-unit extended-stay hotel on a
2.84-acre parcel accessed from Calle Joaquin. The structure is setback approximately 90 feet
1 Special Focus Areas are defined in the Land Use Element as areas that present opportunities to develop customized
land use approaches or special design implementation to enhance their appearance and achieve their respective
development potential.
ARC1-2
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 3
from the edge of Calle Joaquin, and separated by landscaping and parking areas (Attachment
3, Revised Project Plans).
2) Building Layout
The building footprint will be 18 ,390 square feet, and hotel room types will include:
a. studio and accessible studio (40 units);
b. double queen and accessible double queen (54 units);
c. one bedroom and accessible one bedroom (13 units); and
d. two bedrooms and accessible bedrooms (7 units).
Hotel amenities will include:
a . outdoor swimming pool, fire pits , and barbeque patio within an approximately 5,000-
square foot fenced enclosure;
b. guest laundry room ;
c. fitness room;
d . breakfast buffet room with tables and serving areas and breakfast patio; and
e. meeting/multi-purpose room.
3) Architectural Features, Materials and Colors
Proposed building includes the following architectural features , materials and colors:
a. an extended, generally rectangular form that includes wall offsets along all
elevations, and covered entryways (project renderings are shown below in Figure 1 );
b. stucco-finished walls in varying muted colors (tans and greens);
c. stone veneer;
d. flat roofing of varying heights with fiberglass cornice and metal parapet cap ;
e . aluminum framed windows with varying pane sizing and framing ; and
f. wood framed canopy and trellises stained to match the window frames and metal
cornice.
Figure 1: Perspective view looking west towards the project
4) Signage
Refer to section 3 .3 .2 (Signage and Flags).
5) Parking and Hardscape
117 parking spaces would be located along the northwestern, northeastern , and eastern sides
of the building (refer to Table 1 below). The parking lot would consist of asphalt paving,
and permeable pavement parking stalls.
ARC1-3
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 4
6) Landscaping
The project includes 48,455 square feet of landscaped area. Landscaping includes : a variety
of trees (ranging in height from 20 to 80 feet at maturity); shrubs and groundcover; turf
areas; shade-tolerant shrubs; and bio-infiltration and vegetated swales. The landscaping plan
incorporates predominantly native, drought-tolerant species (Attachment 3, Revised Project
Plans, Sheet Ll).
T bl 2 Zo • R I f a e : nm!! egu a ions
Item Proposed 1
Setbacks 18-foot street yard
Max. Height of Structure 45 feet
Building Coverage 15 percent
117 vehicular spaces
Parking Spaces 6 motorcycle spaces
8 bicycle spaces
Notes : 1. Applicant's project plans
2. City Zoning Regulations
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 ARC Directional Items
Ordinance Standard 2
10-foot street yard
45 feet
75 percent
118 vehicular spaces
6 motorcycle spaces
8 bicycle spaces
On July 7, 2014, the ARC reviewed the conceptual designs of the project, and provided 14
directional items to be incorporated into plans submitted for final approval (Attachment 5).
The paragraphs below identify the directional items and the applicant's response and staff's
analysis of the applicant's submittal.
Directional Item #1 : P rovide more information in future project plans to show how common
outdoor use areas, s uch as th e pool and patio on the north side, are protected from nois e
and prevailing winds.
Response to Directional Item #1: The conceptual project site plan showed the proposed
pool and patio on the northern side of the hotel. This location exposes the outdoor use
area to noise from U.S. Highway 101, and prevailing winds typical for the area. The
revised design of the project shows the pool, patio , and b arbeque area moved to the
southwest side of the hotel building (Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans , Sheet S 1 ).
The pool is shown to the southeast of the patio. A noise attenuation wall , treated with
veneer and screened with landscaping, is proposed along the outer boundary of this
outdoor use area, which would attenuate noise generated by the highway, consistent with
the Acoustic Study prepared for the project (Attachment 8, Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Attachment 7 (Acoustic Study). Detailed elevations of the noise
attenuation wall and pool enclosure are provided in Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans,
Sheets S2 , S3 , and S4 .
Conclusion: Staff finds the revised design addresses ARC 's directional item #1 by using
the structure to block prevailing winds, and by incorporating a landscaped noise
attenuation wall to reduce noise exposure in the outdoor use areas.
ARC1-4
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 5
Directional Item #2 : Consider further reductions in the total amount of on-site parking
provided and utilize permeable paving and other hardscapes where feasible.
Response to Directional Item #2: The original project included 116 rooms and 130
parking spaces (an excess of approximately ten vehicular parking spaces). The current
plans include 114 rooms and 117 parking spaces (i.e. one space per room, and three
spaces for the Assembly Area). 21 ,699 square feet of permeable pavers are proposed,
consistent with this directional item (refer to Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans , Sheet
Sl and the Stormwater Management Plan sheet).
Conclusion: Staff finds the revised design addresses ARC 's directional item #2 by
reducing parking to the minimum spaces required by Zoning Regulations, and by
incorporating permeable paving.
Directional Item #3: Provide additional offsets in the building footprint.
Response to Directional Item #3: The original project site plan showed a generally
rectangular structural footprint with subtle horizontal off-sets (Attachment 4 , Staff
Report+ Plans, July 7, 2014, Sheet 2). The applicant has shifted the overall footprint to
the southern side of the lot and proposes greater footprint offsets via an "L" shaped
footprint with the building wrapping around the pool/patio area.
Conclusion: The revised plans provide greater footprint offsets compared to the
originally proposed project; therefore , staff finds that the revised project complies with
directional item #3.
Directional Item #4 : Provide a consistent and cohesive architectural style.
Response to Directional Item #4 : The revised plans incorporate a more consistent and
cohesive architectural style (Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans , Sheets AS , A6 , A 7,
and A8). The project style incorporates natural-appearing exterior features including
stucco and stone that incorporate the colors of the surrounding landscape. Architectural
details, including use of muted colors and stone , are consistently provided on all sides of
the building. The wood framed canopy and trellises will be stained to match the window
frames and metal cornice. Proposed balconies , variations in window framing and
treatments , and store-front entries are angular and appear compatible when viewed
across the wall plane.
Conclusion: The original project considered during conceptual review showed elements
from several architectural styles (i.e. Art Deco, Spanish Juliette , and Prairie) (see
Attachment 4 , Staff Report + Plans, July 7, 2014). Staff finds that the revised project
eliminates architecturally incompatible elements, and incorporates a consistent style and
design theme on all structure elevations, in compliance with directional item #4.
Directional Item #5: Use quality architectural materials and d etailing which are authentic
to the s elected style.
ARC1-5
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 6
Response to Directional Item #5: The colors and materials board shows the use of
stucco, simulated stone veneer, Coronado stone, and Mountain Strip stone. Permadize®
metal features include burgundy metallic aluminum (windows , coping, downspouts, and
storefront-style main entrance) and medium bronze balconies, roof, canopies, and
railings. Permadize® is manufactured with metallic-like particle texturizers , which are
advertised to add increased resistance to abrasion, chalking, and fading.
Conclusion: Staff finds that the proposed materials and detailing are compatible with
and authentic to the architectural style of the building, consistent with directional item
#5.
Directional Item #6: Show the depth and materials of veneers, architectural features, and
details on wall planes.
Response to Directional Item #6: The revised plans show focused details of the main
entry, entrance patio, pool area, and wall planes (Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans ,
Sheets A5, A6, A7, and A8). The plans show the relative depth and appearance of trim,
balconies, and stone veneer.
Conclusion: The revised plans reduce the amount of ground to roof stone veneer, and
incorporates the use of protruding trim to separate wall treatments (i.e. between stone
veneer and stucco). Proposed fourth-floor balconies extend out from the wall plane on a
defined ledge above the third-floor windows. Additionally, the plans show trellis
features that highlight the main entrance, as well as other minor entries, that complement
the overall architecture. Staff finds the revisions to comply with directional item #6.
Directional Item #7: Comply with maximum building height standard of 45 feet above
grade.
Response to Directional item #7 : The revised building elevations illustrate the structure
within the 45-foot height limit (Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans, Sheets S2 and A5).
Conclusion: Compliant with ARC direction, the applicant has reduced the overall height
of the structure to comply with maximum height regulations. Staff recommends that that
applicant submit plans clearly demonstrating that the 45-foot height limit is measured
from existing average natural grade to ensure compliance (see Condition 11).
Directional Item #8 : Incorporate measures to reduce the overall mass of the structure, such
as stepping (especially the wall facing the highway), variation in roof heights, and clarified
depth and dimensions .
Response to Directional Item #8: The revised plans show vanat10ns in vertical
elevations, including the dimensions of each wall plane. The southeastern facade facing
U.S. Highway 101 is approximately 35 feet in height, and roof heights vary from
approximately 35 to 45 feet. Plan elevations show dimensions and variations in both
horizontal and vertical elements (Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans , Sheets S2, AS,
and A6).
ARC1-6
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 7
Conclusion: The revised plans do not show a reduction in structural area; however, the
proposed revisions show modifications to the form of the structure through varying
parapet/roof lines, setting back the upper story with the use of balconies and a change to
the footprint of the entire structure to reduce the appearance of a solid , rectangular form
as seen from U.S. Highway 101. Staff finds that although the massing has not been
reduced that the modifications made to the wall planes, shape of the structure and
varying upper level setbacks are consistent with ARC directional item #8.
Directional Item #9: Add step massing to the entry feature to herald it more. Consider the
idea of creating a porte cochere (covered passageway).
Response to Directional Item #9: The proposed entry feature on the northeast side of
the structure includes store-front designed windows and doorways, and a wooden trellis
covered passageway. The trellis is angled slightly upwards , and is approximately 11 feet
in height with stone veneer pole bases. This feature extends approximately 30 feet from
the structure wall . The plans (east elevation) show stepped massing along the northern-
facing elevation (Attachment 3 , Revised Project Plans, Sheets S2, A5 , and A6).
Conclusion: The originally proposed project included an entry feature that appeared to
blend into the building, and was not readily distinguishable as the main entry. The
revised plans do not include stepped massing as part of the design for the main entrance;
however they do include additional features highlighting the front entrance to the hotel ,
including incorporation of a wooden trellis, landscaped and paved entry walkway , and
patio . A paved design feature is proposed within the access road , in front of the building
entry (Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans, Sheet S 1 ). Staff finds this entry feature is
heralded by these elements , consistent with directional item #9 .
Directional I tern #I 0: Look at possibly dividing the building space into s eparate structures
or adding horizontal offsets to the building footprint.
Response to Directional item #10: The rectangular configuration of the lot, and
presence of 30-foot drainage easement (15 feet along both the northern and southern
property lines), and parking and circulation requirements constrain the development
footprint; therefore , the applicant has not provided plans showing the building divided
into separate structures . Horizontal offsets are shown, including an offset of the
northwestern section of the structure. Additional offsets of varying depths are shown on
all sides of the structure (Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans, Sheets S2, A5, and A6).
Conclusion: The original project site plan showed a generally rectangular structural
footprint with subtle horizontal off-sets (Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans , Sheet 2).
As noted above , the site is generally constrained by the lot configuration, necessary
drainage easements, and required access improvements. While the applicant was unable
to provide a feasible design that includes more than one building, staff finds that
directional item #10 is addressed by providing greater footprint offsets including an "L"
shaped footprint to the east. Additional offsets are provided along all elevations , and
include wall treatments including stone and colored stucco to better distinguish the
variation.
ARC1-7
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 8
Directional Item #I I : Incorporate quality, authentic materials into the project design .
Response to Directional Item #11: Please refer to responses to Directional Items #5
regarding building and accentuating materials.
Directional Item # 12: Provide additional landscap e screening near noise attenuation
barriers.
Response to Directional Item #12: The proposed landscape plan shows landscaping
surrounding the noise attenuation barrier (pool and patio perimeter wall) (Attachment 3,
Revised Project Plans , Sheets Ll and A6).
Conclusion: Staff finds the proposed landscape plan consistent with directional item
# 12 , because it provides screening along the noise attenuation wall.
Directional Item #13: Use natural earth tones for building colors and limit the use of pure
white in the palette.
Response to Directional item #13: The proposed colors and materials board shows the
use of earth-tone colors compatible with the surrounding landscape, including shades of
green and tan. Pure white is not proposed; a light tan color is identified for stucco trim
and accents. A color board will be available at the ARC hearing.
Conclusion: Staff finds the proposed color board consistent with directional item #13 ;
the use of pure white has been eliminated, and the color scheme includes shades of green
and tan, compatible with the natural surrounding landscape.
Directional Item # 14: Provide a colors and materials board with actual samples reflecting
the direction by the Architectural Review Commission.
Response to Directional Item #14: The applicant has provided a colors and materials
board, which will be available at the ARC hearing, in compliance with directional item
#14.
3.2 General Plan
3.2.1 Conservation and Open Space Element
U.S. 101 and Los Osos Valley Road are designated in the Conservation and Open Space
Element (COSE) as having view corridors of "high scenic value" southwest of the site , and
"moderate scenic value" northeast of the site. The project site is not located within a specific
"cone of view" as identified by the COSE (refer to Figure 2 below).
ARC1-8
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 9
Cltyo~
san LLUS OBISPO Conservation and Open Space
THE GENERAL PLAN
FIGURE 11: SCENIC ROADWAYS AND VISTAS
Fi gu r e 11 :
Scen ic Roadways
a nd V istas
-C!:j'
="'""-fV\ Cl:lr~ M ~I~'
=fft:Jolerlf.ll!;oer;l:wJ;ie
"TT'T /f~jh ~k l(.t!Je
-~=~-··· .. 0 ~ o.s 1.5
Figure 2: COSE Scenic Roadways and Vistas. The star indicates the approximate location of the project
site.
Policy 9 .2.1 of the COSE ("Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways")
mandates that new development projects not wall off scenic roadways and block views , and
indicates that development projects in the view-shed of a scenic roadway shall be considered
by the ARC. Pursuant to COSE Program 9.3.6 view blockage along scenic roadways is
considered a significant impact and requires consideration during environmental review .
An initial study was conducted to review the project and determined that based on the size
and location of the proposed structure , existing views of prominent hillsides would be
retained as viewers travel along U.S. 101. Highway 101 Northbound motorist would
experience partially blocked views of Cerro San Luis Mountain (located approximately 1
mile to the northwest) and Bishop Peak (approximately 3 .25 miles to the north) for
approximately 0.25 mile (approximately 13 seconds), and the project's approximately 90-
foot setback from Calle Joaquin would retain primary views of Cerro San Luis. As seen
from the southbound lanes of Highway 101, views of the Irish Hills (approximately 1/3 a
mile to the west) are partially blocked by existing trees adjacent to the highway, and the
foreground of the western extent of the hills (as seen from this section of U.S. 101) would be
partially blocked for approximately 0.4 mile (approximately 22 seconds). B ased on the size
and location of the proposed structure , a majority of existing views of prominent hillsides
would be retained as viewers travel along U.S . 101. Due to the location of the C-T zoned
lots, including the project site, and orientation of the lots towards U.S. Highway 101 , the
development would block views of the agricultural lands to the north of the site for
ARC1-9
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 10
approximately 13 seconds, and once drivers pass existing development on Calle Joaquin and
the proposed hotel development, views of the City Farm would be clearly visible.
Mitigation measures are established for lighting, landscaping, mechanical equipment and
color and materials to ensure that scenic views are not impacted (Attachment 8, Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section 1 Aesthetics). Proposed setbacks, variations
in vertical and horizontal elevations, use of muted and earth tone exterior colors, and
landscaping will help blend the structure with the natural backdrop and proximate urban
development near the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange and U.S. 101 corridor.
3.2.2 Land Use Element Special Focus Area
The Land Use Element (LUE) identifies the project site and three adjacent lots as the Calle
Joaquin Auto Sales "Special Focus Area", and the project site is subject to LUE Policy 8.11
specific to this area 2
. The proposed project is an allowable use within the Tourist
Commercial designation.
Property to the northeast is Conservation/Open Space and designated for agricultural
development. Currently the property is managed by City Farm and supports irrigated row
crops and stormwater management. Implementation of the proposed project would not
directly impact solar access on the adjacent Open Space lot, which provides a riparian and
agricultural buffer to the north and northeast. The County Agricultural Commissioner's
Office reviewed the project, did not identify any significant concerns regarding land use
compatibility and noted that, "The proposed project appears to be adequately buffered from
adjacent ag [sic} land based on the building location, room orientation, and landscaping
represented on the plan. Development on remaining lots should be similar. Disclosure of the
County's Right-to-Farm Ordinance is recommended" (Attachment 7, County Agricultural
Commission's Office Letter).
The applicant provided a shadow study (see Attachment 3, Revised Project Plans, Sheet
SH), which demonstrates that due to the distance between the building and the northern
property line (180 feet), shadows cast by the building would not extend beyond the northern
property boundary; although landscape trees along the northern boundary would cast
shadows to the north, beyond the property boundary, during a portion of the day. The effects
would be minimal, as the light would be filtered and the shadow would not be constant. In
addition, the project is set back approximately 90 feet from the northeast property line, and
one lot (also zoned C-T), is located between the proposed project lot and the City Farm ,
creating an approximately 290-foot buffer. The project incorporates perimeter landscaping,
bioswales, and permeable pavement, which provides a transition from the hotel structure and
vacant and agricultural land to the north. The project does not include any features that
would restrict connectivity to the Dalidio Ranch area.
2 Land Use Element Policy 8.1 l(Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area) discusses the land use designation of the subject site
and states that "These four vacant lots are suitable for commercial mixed use and other uses described under the
Tourist Commercial designations. Portions of the site may be appropriate for use as auto sales, depending on market
demand. Development of this area must address preservation of and transition to the agricultural parcels/uses to the
northwest; connectivity to the Dalidio Ranch area ; viewshed preservation; and treatment as a gateway to the City
visible from Highway I 01 ."
ARC1 -10
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 11
3.3 Community Design Guidelines
3.3.1 Signage and Flags
T bl 2 s· R I f a e : 1gn egu a ions
Item Proposed Ordinance Standard (Sign
Regulations)
Number of signs Three Two
Max. cumulative area (sf) Wall mounted signs: 300 sf 200
North and south elevations: 43 25 feet above grade, highest feet above grade, above fourth
Max. Height floor windows point of the second story,
East elevation: 33 feet above unless applicant's request for
grade, above third floor windows exception is granted
North and south elevations: above Signage is only allowed on wall
main ground floor entry doors planes supporting a public
Wall sign location East elevation (highway-facing): entrance; an exception may be
granted by the community no public entry. development director1
Channel lettering Hazardous glare prohibited
Illumination Internally illuminated Shielded light source
Daytime : teal and red Dark background with light
Night: white and red lettering
Monument Sign Size: 20 square feet Maximum size: 24 square feet
Height: 5 feet Maximum height: 6 feet
Flag pole One flag pole One flag pole allowed
30 feet in height 45-foot height limit
I "' Except10n may be granted zn circumstances where the purpose and zntent of these regu latwns zs mazntmned
and where the orientation of the public entrance to a building is such that the sign would not have sufficient
visibility from the public right-of-way to provide for adequate identification of the business or use"
Staff recommends that the ARC continue review of the applicant's proposed signage plan
based on the applicant's response to directional items specific to signage, and Staff's
subsequent review. Staff recommends that this continuance be placed on the AR C's consent
agenda, on a date to be determined and appropriately noticed. Recommended directional
items include:
a. Provide an exhibit showing the monument sign, complete with stone base , and
showing dimensions , colors (day and night), materials, and method of illumination
and treatment. Consider providing push through or some varied dimension to the
lettering .
b. Clearly identify dimensions of all signage lettering including height and depth.
c. Avoid use of white lighted lettering during night-time hours.
These items are identified as Conditions of Approval No . 12 (Attachment 1, Draft
Resolution).
ARC1 -11
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 12
4.0 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 8). 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. A summary of the potential impacts and recommended
mitigation measures is provided below:
Aesthetics: The project site is visible from U.S. Highway 101 at the southern gateway into the City.
Impacts of lighting, colors and materials, landscaping and mechanical equipment were identified in
the initial study.
Aesthetics Mitigation : Comply with City ordinances for landscaping and lighting standards, and
incorporate features that reduce window glare.
Air Quality: The project would generate construction-related emissions exceeding San Luis Obispo
County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) thresholds, and may create a dust nuisance.
Air Quality Mitigation : Comply with SLOAPCD recommended mitigation to reduce emissions
below identified thresholds.
Biological Resources : Project is located approximately 200 feet from Prefumo Creek and would
result in potential construction-related and operational impacts.
Biological Resources Mitigation: Implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, construct
permanent hydrocarbon filters into parking lot design, and implement lighting and landscaping
standards to minimize light intrusion into riparian area .
Cultural Resources : No resources were documented during site surveys; however, standard
regulations apply in the event of an unexpected discovery.
Cultural Resources Mitigation: Comply with resource protection standards in the event of a
discovery.
Geology and Soils : Project site would potentially be affected by seismic activity (no faults on
property) and expansive soils, grading activities may result in erosion and down-gradient
sedimentation.
Geology and Soils Mitigation: Comply with recommendations identified in geotechnical report,
comply with existing building regulations, and implement erosion and sedimentation control plan.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Project is located within the Airport Land Use Plan Aviation
Safety Area Slb. The project was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission, and site-specific
standards were identified to ensure compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation: Comply with density limitations, Federal Aviation
ARC1 -12
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 13
Agency notification required, avoid any uses that would interfere with air traffic, record avigation
easement, provide disclosure regarding air traffic to owners and occupants.
Hydrology and Water Quality: Project site is within a 100-year flood zone, and is subject to
Floodplain Management Regulations. Project may result in construction-related and operational
impacts to water quality.
Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation: Comply with the City's Waterway Management Plan and
implement drainage and pollutant control measures.
Noise: The project site is affected by noise generated by traffic on U.S. Highway 101, potentially
exceeding thresholds identified in the City Noise Ordinance.
Noise Mitigation: Construct noise attenuation wall (as proposed), incorporate internal noise
attenuation measures into construction plans.
Transportation and Traffic: Project-specific and cumulative traffic impacts including congestion.
Site access and drainage improvements must meet City Public Works standards.
Transportation and Traffic Mitigation: Implement mitigation identified by Public Works, including
fair share contribution to off-site road improvements, payment of impact fees, obtain Encroachment
Permit and construct access improvements.
Utilities : Project would contribute to demand for a sewer main capacity upgrade.
Utilities Mitigation: Applicant will contribute fair share fees to the City.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the directional items provided
above, and the Conditions of Approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
6.2 Continue the project to a date uncertain with directional items.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Revised Project Plans
4. Staff Report+ Plans, July 7, 2014, July 7, 2014 ARC meeting
5. Minutes from July 7, 2014 ARC meeting and the letter to applicant with directional items
6. Applicant's proposed signage plan
7. County Agricultural Commission's Office Letter
8. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (the full ARC report and attachments are
available on the City 's website http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directorv/community-development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-
ARC1 -13
ATTACHMENT 7
ARCH-1098-2015 (1301 Calle Joaquin)
Page 14
folder-807
Provided to Commissioners: Full size project plans
Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board
ARC1 -14
NOTE: Attachments not attached; refer to Attachments to June 20, 2016 staff report.
ATTACHMENT 7