HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Architectural Review Commission
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
September 15, 2014 Monday 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:Commrs. Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy Nemcik,
Allen Root, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle
McCovey-Good
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and city of residence. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items
raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record.
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City
Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the
Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
1.460 Marsh Street.ARC 142-14; Review of a new four-unit multi-family residential
project within the Downtown planning area with a categorical exemption from
environmental review; C-R zone; 460 Marsh Street LLC, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
(30 minutes)
2.1845 Monterey Street.ARC 143-13; Design review of a new 102-unit multi-story
hotel building with adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact; C-T-S zone; West Coast Asset Management, applicant. (Marcus Carloni)
(1½ hours)
Architectural Review Commission
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
3.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
4.Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planners: Rachel Cohen and Marcus Carloni
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a new four-unit multi-family residential project located within the
downtown planning area with a categorical exemption from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 460 Marsh Street BY:Rachel Cohen, Contract Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER:ARC 142-14 FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and
subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant 460 Marsh Street, LLC
Representative Michael Hodge
Zoning C-R (Retail Commercial)
General Plan General Retail
Site Area ~7,000 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development
Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SUMMARY
The proposed project includes the construction of a new, three-story multi-family residential
structure, located near the intersection of Carmel Street and Marsh Street at the western entrance to
downtown. The new structure is contemporary in design and includes four, 2-bedroom residential
units. A mixed-use project at this site was previously reviewed and approved by the ARC in
September 2013.
Staff determined that the project warranted review by the ARC since the individual units exceed the
1,200 square-foot floor area threshold for a “small residential development project” defined in the
Community Design Guidelines (CDG) that typically would be handled through a minor or
incidental review process. Staff finds the overall project consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines through compatibility of the design, scale, and massing to the existing neighborhood.
The applicant is requesting final approval of the project design from the ARC.
Meeting Date: September 15, 2014
Item Number: 1
ARC1 - 1
ARC 142-14 (460 Marsh Street)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and applicable City standards.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site is approximately 7,000 square feet in size and zoned Retail Commercial (C-R).
The site is relatively flat and contains a 1,280 square foot single-story, Craftsman Bungalow
with a large, paved 11 space parking area. The structure is currently being used as an office.
Staff has reviewed the property for its potential designation as a Historic Resource based on the
evaluation criteria within the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The structure was built sometime
between 1915 and 1920 in the architectural style of a Craftsman Bungalow. The structure is an
example of a vintage house that received interior modifications for use as an office, as well as
an exterior modification that included enclosing the front porch and establishing a new front
entry. It has been determined that the structure is not eligible for designation as a historic
resource because it does not exhibit a significant architectural style, is not known to be
associated with a historic person or event, nor does the structure maintain integrity.
The site is identified in the Land Use Element as being in the downtown planning area and is
just south of the downtown core. Site specific details are noted in Table 1 (below):
Table 1: Site details
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: ~7,000 square feet
Width: 50 feet
Depth: 140 feet
Current Use Insurance Office
Topography Elevation: flat
Natural Features: none
Access From Marsh Street
Surrounding Use /
Zoning
North: C-R (Residential Uses)
South: C-R (Residential, Retail Commercial and Office Uses)
East: C-R (Residential and Retail Commercial Uses)
West: C-R (Restaurant Use)
2.2 Previous Review
The site has a history of previous reviews and entitlements.
x September 16, 2013 – The ARC reviewed and approved a new three story residential
building along with the remodel of the existing office structure and a 30% shared and
mixed-use parking reduction (ARC 109-13).
x September 5, 2014 – The Hearing Officer reviewed and approved an Administrative Use
Permit to allow a multi-family residential use in the C-R zone (A 142-14).
ARC1 - 2
ARC 142-14 (460 Marsh Street)
Page 3
2.3 Project Description
The project includes the demolition of the
existing non-historic building and proposes to
construct a 21,000 square-foot multi-family
residential structure with four, 2-bedroom
units, each with its own private 2-car garage
(Attachment 3, Project plans). The overall
structure will have three levels with a roof
deck shared between the four residential units.
The first floor will contain four garages. The
second and third levels will each contain two
units that are accessed by a central stairway
and elevator. Site access is provided on the
southwest side of the property from Marsh
Street.
The project’s contemporary architectural style incorporates traditional materials to blend with
the neighboring buildings. Materials include stucco, metal, brick, and various types of siding;
the neutral color palette consists of browns and blacks. The design also includes glass and metal
roll-up doors for each garage.
2.4 Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance
Standard 2
Street Yard Setback 4’ 11” 0’
Other Yard Setback 0 ‘ 0 ‘
Max. Height of Structure(s) 37’ 45’
Building Coverage (footprint) 45.6% 100%
Floor Area Ratio 3.0 FAR 3.0 FAR
Parking Spaces 8 8
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 9/2/2014
2. City Zoning Regulations
Figure 1: Street view (southeast elevation) of the
proposed structure from Marsh Street
Figure 2: Southwest elevation of the proposed structure
ARC1 - 3
ARC 142-14 (460 Marsh Street)
Page 4
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 General Plan and Zoning Regulations
The project is consistent with applicable property development standards of the Retail
Commercial (C-R) zone in terms of height, setbacks, density, and lot dimensions, and staff has
found the project consistent with the following General Plan Policies:
x Land Use Element, 4.2 Downtown Residential, 4.2.1 Existing and New Dwellings –
“Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour
presence which enhances security, and help the balance between jobs and housing in the
community. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be
protected, and new ones should be developed. Dwellings should be provided for a
variety of households, including singles, couples, and groups. Dwellings should be
interspersed with commercial uses. All new, large commercial projects should include
dwellings.”
x Land Use Element 2.9, Downtown – “In Downtown residential areas, the City should
encourage the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing housing. Additional dwellings
may be permitted, in keeping with density limits, provided that the existing character of
the area is not significantly changed.”
3.2 Community Design Guidelines
Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines (CDG) for multi-family housing and infill development. The proposed multi-family
structure maintains a contemporary architectural style and creates an attractive, as well as
functional design that is compatible in the downtown area. Staff believes the contemporary style
of the project is appropriate given the project's location on west Marsh Street in an area with an
eclectic mix of architectural styles. Staff is supportive of the design for the new multi-family
structure and has found the project consistent with the following Community Design
Guidelines:
Site Plan:The proposed three-level building makes efficient use of the available site area by
including the new living spaces above parking. This is appropriate for a project at this
location so close to the downtown core by converting the surface parking lot into a higher
and better use (CDG 2.1(A)).
Building Scale: The maximum height of the proposed structure at 37 feet is much lower
than the maximum allowed building height of 45 feet. The proposed building's design
provides a sense of human scale and proportion. The design utilizes vertical wall
articulation, offsets, recessed windows and entries, and second floor setbacks to relieve the
form and mass of the building (CDG 3.1(B.4)).
Architectural Design Consistency and Compatibility:As stated in Section 2.3, the
proposed structure will be a contemporary design that incorporates materials such as stucco,
metal, brick, and various types of siding. The structure demonstrates consistent use of
materials, colors, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. All elevations are
visually interesting and receive interesting architectural treatments (CDG 3.1 (B.3) and 3.3
(B.1)).
ARC1 - 4
ARC 142-14 (460 Marsh Street)
Page 5
Building Materials and Colors:The project proposes to use materials that are consistent
with the neighborhood and do not appear "thin" and otherwise artificial. The chosen color
palette is used to add interest to the design and emphasize changes in the building’s
materials and surface planes (CDG 3.1 (B.10 and B.12)).
4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution as
conditions of approval/code requirements.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
5.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Reduced Project Plans
Included in Commission member portfolio:project plans
Available at ARC hearing:color/materials board
ARC1 - 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. ARC- -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW FOUR-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA INCLUDING
ADOPTION OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
460 MARSH STREET (ARC 142-14)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on September 15, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARC 142-
14, 460 Marsh Street, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARC 142-14), based on the following findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and will be
compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
2. The project design maintains consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines by
providing architectural interest and an attractive style which complements the character and
scale of the existing neighborhood.
3. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes goals and policies
related to appropriate uses and compatibility between residential uses within the downtown
planning area.
4. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of
the CEQA Guidelines because the project is within City limits, consistent with applicable
City policy, surrounded by urban uses, and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served
by required utilities and public services.
ARC1 - 6
Resolution No. ARC- -14 ATTACHMENT 1
460 Marsh Street, ARC 142-14
Page 2
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size
sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all
conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference
shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed.
Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of
approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as
deemed appropriate.
2. The project shall substantially comply with conditions established under Use Permit A 142-
14.
3. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be
included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall
be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-
mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-
sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure
that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky
Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
4. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building,
which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment.
If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans
submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will
adequately screen them. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed
screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later
improvements.
5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees
with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on
plans.
6. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan.
Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where
possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the
ARC1 - 7
Resolution No. ARC- -14 ATTACHMENT 1
460 Marsh Street, ARC 142-14
Page 3
building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined
by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be
located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and,
if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and
configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and
Community Development Directors.
Transportation
7. Each unit shall provide long-term bicycle parking within each dwelling or accessory
structure (e.g. garages) for the storage of at least two bicycles per unit. Bicycles shall be
parked vertically or horizontally with at least the rear tire resting at floor level.
8. Dimensioned locations and details of the short and long-term bicycle parking shall be
provided on the project’s construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and
circulation needs for users in compliance with manufacturers’ standards. Each parking
space shall include a 2x6 ft. footprint unless noted otherwise by the manufacturer.
a. Approved short-term bicycle rack designs include the inverted “U” or “Peak
Racks”. “Ribbon” type racks are not approved for use in the City.
Building
9. Plans provide for design of proposed building with 0’ clearance to property lines at “North”
and “East” elevations. Please note that exterior wall fire rating is required per Table 602
CBC and clearly show on plans and identify the fire rating.
10. Verify exterior wall opening protective are clearly specified for the openings in the exterior
walls that are required to be fire rated due to location based on fire distance separation per
Table 705.8 CBC.
11. Project is for a 4-unit apartment building; please verify plans clearly show all the
accessibility requirements per Chapter 11A and 11B as applicable to project.
12. Because the building is shown to be three feet from the north and east property lines, the
applicant shall submit a structural design analysis to justify the separation due to deflection
induced by seismic loads or wind loads.
Utilities
13. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the development/subdivision
project. The CCTV inspection shall be submitted for review and approval by the Utilities
Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
ARC1 - 8
Resolution No. ARC- -14 ATTACHMENT 1
460 Marsh Street, ARC 142-14
Page 4
Public Works
14. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the Floodplain
Management Regulations.
15. This property is located in the AO (2’ depth) floodzone. The buildings and building service
equipment shall be elevated or flood-proofed to at least 3’ above adjacent grade.
16. The elevator construction shall be detailed in the building permit plan submittal in
accordance with the Floodplain Management Regulations and FEMA Technical Bulletin
TB4-2010. The garages, storage, and areas of building access shall be “wet” flood-proofed
with flood-resistant materials in accordance with adopted standards.
17. City Benchmark #12 has been corrected from previous publications of the City’s
Benchmark System. The final plans shall include the correct datum reference and elevation.
18. The proposed driveway approach shall be designed to comply with ADA and City
Engineering Standards. The current standard requires a 4’ level sidewalk extension behind
the approach.
19. The proposed driveway shall be designed to comply with city engineering standard 2120
requiring a 16’ minimum width for a two way driveway with more than 6 parking spaces.
Other exceptions to the driveway approach construction, transition dimensions, and
clearances to obstructions shall be specifically approved by the City Engineer.
20. Unless otherwise approved for a waiver or deferral, the existing street light will be relocated
along the frontage of the street due to the close proximity to the proposed driveway and in
accordance with city engineering standards.
21. Work within the former driveway approach for the neighboring property at 450 Marsh is
endorsed. This work may include but is not limited to a sidewalk underdrain, utility work,
utility vault relocations, and the potential relocation of the existing streetlight. If altered,
the entire driveway approach shall be abandoned rather than shortened.
22. Any areas of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The existing section of broken curb
may be patched with a suitable material.
23. This project is located within the Mission Style Sidewalk District. As such, all new sections
of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and/or driveway approach shall comply with the Mission
Style standard. Deviations or deferral from the Mission Style standard shall be approved by
the Public Works Director.
24. The on-site curbing along the driveway shall be constructed as a curb and gutter in
ARC1 - 9
Resolution No. ARC- -14 ATTACHMENT 1
460 Marsh Street, ARC 142-14
Page 5
accordance with the parking and driveway standards. Plans will show a concrete gutter
with less than 1% slope to meet city engineering standards for proposed new 6” concrete
curb lining the driveway. The onsite curb shall be aligned with the final driveway approach
location.
25. An updated drainage report and plan will be required in conjunction with the building plan
submittal. The plan and report shall clarify whether any existing historic off-site drainage
watershed is tributary to the existing open parking lot. If so, the design and analysis shall
quantify the amount of drainage and shall show how the drainage will be intercepted and
directed to an approved outlet.
26. The building plan submittal and drainage report shall show and note compliance with the
Interim Low Impact Development Standards for a Tier 2 project.
27. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the parking and driveway
standards. All vehicles shall be capable of entering the parking garage in one movement.
Vehicles shall be capable of exiting to the street in a forward motion in not more than two
maneuvers. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed metered
parking spaces, signage, and striping for reference. The final plan shall show compliance
with City Engineering Standards and shall show how the replacement and final street
parking will be maximized. Off-site spaces in front of 450 Marsh and 464 Marsh may need
to be adjusted accordingly.
28. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk
diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies
and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan
shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the
diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for
reference. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees.
29. The proposed tree removals shown and noted on civil sheet C1.0 are supported by the City
Arborist and Public Works Department. One 15-gallon street tree may be required for each
35 lineal feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve the tree species, planting
requirements, and whether the street trees shall be planted in tree wells in the sidewalk area
or behind the back of walk in the front yard. Contact City Arborist, Ron Combs, at 781-
7023 for specific questions or requirements and to evaluate any existing trees. The planting
shall conform to City Engineering Standards #8010, #8020, #8130, #8210 (with tree guard),
and #8220.
30. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve
any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees.
A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection
ARC1 - 10
Resolution No. ARC- -14 ATTACHMENT 1
460 Marsh Street, ARC 142-14
Page 6
measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist, Ron
Combs, at 781-7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be
included with the building permit submittal.
31. A concrete vault with a “Water Meter” lid is located in the rear parking lot near the Yucca
tree. The plan shall clarify the scope of any existing utility improvements located along the
rear property line and the proposed disposition, if applicable.
Fire
32. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 and Appendix D of
the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less
than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13’ 6”. Access roads shall be
designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and
shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
33. Address Numbers: Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such
a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers
shall be a minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background.
34. Fire Department Access to Equipment: Rooms or areas containing controls for air-handling
systems, automatic fire-protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements
shall be identified for use by the Fire Department and shall be located in the same area. A
sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating “Fire Sprinkler Riser” and
“Fire Alarm Control Panel”. Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room separate from
other parts of the building with exterior door access. This requirement applies to all
commercial buildings, including multi-family residential buildings.
35. Knox Box: A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room
with a key to the room.
36. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be installed in
accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA 13R
system and a wet standpipe system will be required for this project, however if the applicant
intends to use Type VB construction for a 3 story building as indicated, a full NFPA 13 fire
sprinkler system will be required. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to installation. Fire Main and all associated control valves shall
be installed per NFPA 24 Standards and City Engineering standards. The Fire Department
Connection shall be located along a fire apparatus access. Plans shall show location of
backflow protection device and FDC on site plan.
37. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or
demolition shall be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the CFC.
ARC1 - 11
Resolution No. ARC- -14 ATTACHMENT 1
460 Marsh Street, ARC 142-14
Page 7
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of September, 2014.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ARC1 - 12
C-R C-D
C-R
C-R
R-4C-R
C-R R-4
C-S
R-3-H
C-D
R-3
C-D
R-4
C-S
R-3-H
MAR
S
H
HIGU
E
R
A
CARMEL
PACIFI
CBEACH
VICINITY MAP File No. 142-14
460 MARSH ST.¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 13
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 14
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 15
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 17
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 18
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 19
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 20
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 21
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 22
Meeting Date: Sept. 15, 2014
Item Number: 2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a new 102 -unit multi-story hotel building with adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
PROJECT ADDRESS:1845/1865 Monterey Street BY:Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone Number: 781-7176 e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARC 143-13 FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Draft Resolution (A ttachment 1) which approves the project,
based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant West Coast Asset Management
Representative George Garcia,
Garcia Architecture + Design
Zoning C-T-S & C/OS-5 (Tourist Commercial
Special Considerations &
Conservation/Open Space)
General Plan Tourist
Site Area 1.93 Acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration ER
143-13 recommended for adoption
SUMMARY
The proposed project is a redevelopment of the subject location with a multi-story 102-unit hotel above
subterranean and at-grade parking. The project meets all property development standards of the Zoning
Regulations as well as the setback/height requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 [see sections 2.3 and 3.1
below]. Additionally, staff finds the scale, massing, articulation, color/materials, and contemporary
design of the proposed hotel to be compatible with the project site and the Montere y Street (Tourist-
Commercial corridor) neighborhood as well as adjacent residences to the east , consistent with the
Community Design Guidelines and Ordinance No. 1130 [see section 3.0 below]
An initial study has been prepare d by staff in accordance with the Califor nia Environmental Quality
Act (Attachment 10, Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 143-13) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) is recommended for adoption [see section 4.0 below].
ARC2 - 1
r rrrrrrrrr
ARC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its 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, since the
Commission will be taking final action on the project.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site (two abutting parcels) consists of approximately 2 acres of under-developed land in
the Tourist Commercial – Special Considerations (C-T-S) zone with Conservation/Open Space
zoning at the rear of the property along the creek corridor. The project site is currently developed
with Pappy McGregor’s Restaurant (1865 Monterey Street) and a single story Tudor Revival style
structure (1845 Monterey Street) which has been used as a residence and for commercial uses over
time (this structure is proposed to be demolished). Behind the two structures is a large paved
parking area which slopes downward to San Luis Obispo Creek at the rear of the property. The
creek is bordered by extensive riparian vegetation. (See Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet SV1.0
for an existing site plan)
The project site is surrounded by Tourist Commercial zoned land (north, west, south) with a Low-
Density Residential neighborhood (San Luis Drive) located east of the project site across the creek.
2.2 Project Description
A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 3, Project Plans):
1. Redevelopment of the subject location with a 102-room hotel including parking, guest
lounge, meeting space, fitness center, and managers unit.
a. 4-story building encompassing 60,368 square feet in gross building area and
55,529 square feet in gross parking area.
b. Main entrance, hotel lobby, and outdoor terraces fronting Monterey Street
(Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A8.0).
c. Demolition of existing Tudor Revival style building (1845 Monterey Street) and
retention of Pappy McGregor’s restaurant (1865 Monterey Street).
Site Size 1.93 Acres (62,353 sq. ft. C-T-S) & (21,920 sq. ft. C/OS-5)
Present Use & Development One SFR to be removed and one commercial building and
associated parking to remain
Land Use Designation Tourist Commercial (C-T) with Special Considerations and
Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5)
Access Monterey Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Hotels (C-T-S zoning)
South: Hotels (C-T-S zoning)
East: San Luis Creek and Single-family residences (R-1)
West: Hotels (C-T zoning)
ARC2 - 2
ARC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 3
d. Tree removals. No removal of heritage trees. Removal of small native/non-
native trees (largest native is a 10-inch Coast Live Oak along the southern
property line). Both the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager have
reviewed the removals and concurred that the proposed landscape plan,
including both landscape trees and trees within the creek restoration area,
provide adequate mitigation.
2. Total of 141 at grade and subterranean parking spaces (Attachment 3, Project Plans,
Sheets AS1.0 and AS1.1).
a. Shared-use parking reduction (approved by Use Permit). Parking shared between
the Pappy McGregor’s Restaurant and the proposed hotel (a 12 space reduction).
b. Retention of 10 existing paved parking spaces located in the C/OS-5 zoned
portion of the site (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet AS1.0 callout 30).
3. Contemporary design incorporating cement plaster and composite wood siding with
alternating wood detailing on the entrance façade (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet
A8.1 view 07).
Table 2.2: Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yard setback 10 feet 10 feet
Side Yard Setbacks
East (C-T)
West (C-T)
South (C/OS-5)
0 feet
0 feet
20 feet
0 feet
0 feet
20 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 44.5 feet + 9 feet for Arch
Projections
45 feet + 10 feet for Arch Projections
Coverage (buildings & paving) 54% 75%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.85 2.5
Parking Spaces
Vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
141
7
7
153 (138 w/ shared-use parking reduction)3
7
7
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans
2. City Zoning Regulations
3. 12 space shared-use parking reduction approved through the Use Permit process
2.3 Background
The project site is located within a Special Considerations overlay zone which is governed by
Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series). The Special Considerations overlay was established at this
location to address land use compatibility between commercial uses and residential uses adjacent to
San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes, but is not limited to, requirements related to lowered
height and additional setback from the creek and Conservation/Open Space boundary and a
structure’s relationship to the creek (e.g. lighting, glazing/openings/balconies, vegetation screening,
and grading/drainage). See Attachment 4, Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
Projects with a Special Considerations overlay require approval of an Administrative Use Permit
before a use may be established (Zoning Regulations Section 17.56.010.A). The Administrative
ARC2 - 3
ARC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 4
Hearing Officer approved the Use Permit on August 18, 2014 finding the project to be consistent
with the requirements of Ordinance No. 1130.
2.3.1 Use Permit Appeal
On August 28th an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s approval of the Use Permit
was received and the project is now in the process of being scheduled for review by the
appellant body. The appeal is related to “openings facing the creek” and the “size and mass” of
the proposed structure (Attachment 6, Use Permit Appeal).
The project is moving forward with design review by the ARC while the appeal of the Use
Permit is pending review by the appellant body. This staff report (section 3.0 below) will
discuss the appeal items and requirements in Ordinance No. 1130 that are related to design.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Site Plan:The building envelope is established by the Zoning Regulations’ property
development standards relative to height, setbacks, coverage and floor area ratio (see Table 2.2
above) as well as the setback and height requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 1130 which are
more restrictive than the requirements of the Zoning Regulations:
Ordinance No. 1130 Condition #1: “All new structures approved after adoption of this
ordinance shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the relocated C/OS-5 boundary. The
setback area may be occupied by landscaping, fencing, and pedestrian walkways and like
features as determined by the Planning Commission. No new facilities for parking, active
recreation or noise generating equipment may occupy the creek setback area.”
Ordinance No. 1130 Condition #9:“Building height shall be restricted as follows: Within 50
feet of the revised C/OS-5 boundary, maximum height shall be 25 feet. Beyond 50 feet from the
revised C/OS-5 boundary, maximum height shall be 45 feet.”
The project complies with the property development standards of the Zoning Regulations and,
despite Ordinance No. 1130’s allowance for possible relief from the setback/height standards1, the
project more than complies with the setback/height requirements of Ordinance No. 1130; no
exceptions are requested (see Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A6.0).
The property continues to take access from the two existing driveways off of Monterey Street (one
is a shared driveway with the Pappy McGregor’s restaurant, and the other accesses the main porte-
cochere entrance to the proposed hotel). Consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and
Ordinance No. 1130, parking is shared between on-site uses2 and is located interior to the site with
the majority of the parking spaces enclosed by structure (i.e. subterranean parking garage or at
1 Ordinance No. 1130 Condition #12: In special circumstances and by making findings for a variance, the Planning
Commission may vary the height and setback standards established by this ordinance.
2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.1.C.2c: The City strongly encourages shared parking arrangements…
ARC2 - 4
ARC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 5
grade beneath the hotel structure)3&4. Parking is proposed to be set back 20feet from the C/OS
boundary, which is approximately 90 feet from the top of creek bank or 145 feet from the easterly
property line. A combination of walls, fencing, and vegetation have been provided or required
(Mitigation Measure AES 1, Attachment 1 Section 2), which will buffer both light and noise from
the creek and residences to the west (across the creek).
3.2 Design: Neighborhood Compatibility. The proposed hotel will be located in the upper
Monterey Street tourist-commercial corridor. The area is typified by hotels and motels ranging
from one to three stories in height. Existing structures in the area, similar to the height of the
proposed hotel, include the Holiday Inn Express (1800 Monterey Street), San Luis Creek Lodge
(1941 Monterey Street), Quality Suites Central Coast (1631 Monterey Street), and the
Lamplighter Inn and Suites (1604 Monterey Street). The structures directly adjacent to the project
site (north and south) are two stories in height with the three-story Holiday Inn Express directly
across Monterey Street (west). The applicant has provided visual simulations which illustrate the
proposed hotel’s compatibility within the existing context (Attachment 7, Visual Simulations).
The four-story height and façade articulation of the proposed hotel fits appropriately within the
scale and design of existing hotels in this Tourist-Commercial corridor.
Material, Articulation, Massing. The contemporary design incorporates cement plaster, composite
wood siding, and alternating wood detailing. Consistent with the Community Design Guidelines,
the building incorporates significant articulation5 and material change throughout all elevations6.
Material and color changes take place at locations of wall plane change and the earthy grey/brown
and white color palette is compatible with the project site and the existing colors found in the
surrounding area7 (Note: the black color is much lighter than appears in the color renderings, a
color board will be provided at the ARC hearing).
The use of deep roof overhangs add to the buildings articulated façade while also serving to cap
the vertical height of walls and incorporate a varied roof line appearance, providing interest and
shadow lines. Consistent with Ordinance No. 1130, the proposed hotel’s outdoor spaces are
focused toward Monterey Street, away from adjacent residential uses along San Luis Drive8.
These stepped outdoor spaces provide a tiered roofline which steps down the massing of the
structure as it approaches Monterey Street, similar to many of the adjacent hotels. Consistent with
3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.1.C.2b: Buildings in parts of the City that are more suburban and auto-oriented
in character should not face large parking lots located between the building and the street, but should instead face
major on-site open space and streetscape elements provided for pedestrian use.
4 Ordinance No. 1130 Condition #7: “Noise generating uses such as parking and active outdoor recreation uses should be
located on the interior of the site, using buildings to buffer.”
5 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.1.B4: Form and mass. Horizontal and vertical wall articulation should be
expressed through the use of wall offsets, recessed windows and entries, awnings, full roofs with overhangs, second
floor setbacks, or covered arcades.
6 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.1.B3: Design consistency. Designs should demonstrate a consistent use of
colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. Elevations which do not directly face a street
should not be ignored or receive only minimal architectural treatment. Each building should look like the same
building from all sides.
7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.1.B12: Colors. …Colors should be compatible with the existing colors of the
surrounding area but need not duplicate existing colors.
8 Ordinance No. 1130 Condition #7: Noise generating uses such as parking and active outdoor recreation uses should be
located on the interior of the site, using buildings to buffer.
ARC2 - 5
ARC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 6
the Community Design Guidelines, the design incorporates a weather protected main entrance
(porte-cochere) to the building that is designed as an important and obvious architectural focal
point9 with an alternating wood element designed to mimic the natural form of a tree.
Balconies. The design also incorporates the use of balconies throughout all elevations. In
particular, balconies used at the rear elevation (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A8.1 view 04
“view from east”) were cited as a concern in the appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s
Use Permit approval (Attachment 6, Use Permit Appeal). This concern is based on Ordinance No.
1130 Condition #2 which reads “building openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the
creek shall be minimized”.
As stated in the Use Permit analysis (Attachment 5, Use Permit Staff Report), the project has been
designed with only 26% of all hotel rooms facing the creek, and only 29% of all exterior door &
window glazing along the creek facade. Guest room balconies along this façade are approximately
five feet deep; a minimal area adequate for getting some fresh air, but not large enough to entice
gathering. Also, as indicated in “material, articulation, massing” above, all common hotel guest
areas, including lobby, lounge, and outdoor spaces are oriented toward Monterey Street and away
from San Luis Obispo Creek, consistent with Ordinance No. 1130 Condition #7. Furthermore, the
proposed east facing balconies are approximately 234 feet from the nearest residence (Attachment
8, Distance Study) and are separated by significant vegetation, including evergreen trees. The
applicant has provided photographs taken from a flying drone (looking toward San Luis Drive) set
to the height of various levels of the proposed balconies. The photographs illustrate significant
vegetation blocking overlook views toward San Luis Drive residences (Attachment 9, Drone
Photographs).
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (Attachment 10, Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 143-13) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) is recommended for adoption. The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures,
potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and geology/soils
will be less than significant. A summary of the potential impacts and recommended mitigation
measures is provided below:
Aesthetics: Potential glare from vehicles utilizing the existing lower surface parking lot
Mitigation: Vegetation and fencing to screen vehicle head lights that may be facing
eastward.
Air Quality: Temporary impacts from construction of the project
Mitigation: Project routed to APCD and their recommendations are incorporated as
mitigations.
9 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 3.1.B8: Entries. Building entries should be important and obvious elements in the
design of a façade. 3.1.B8a: Each entry should be protected from the elements and should create an architectural focal
point for the building.
ARC2 - 6
ARC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 7
Biological Resources: Project adjacent to San Luis Obispo Creek - potential construction
related effects
Mitigation: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required, creek restoration and
enhancement plan required, and dedication of the conservation/open space portion of the
site as perpetual biological open space
Cultural Resources: Not a culturally sensitive site but due to the proximity to the creek and the
demolition of a structure from the 1920's historic material may be uncovered during grading.
Mitigation: Archaeologist present during demolition and ground disturbing. Report any
findings to the City.
Geology/Soils: Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study/Structural Feasibility Analysis
concludes that the project is structurally feasible and the site is well-suited for the project but a
final report is needed.
Mitigation: provide final geotechnical engineering investigation and comprehensive design
level report based on final design of the project.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as
conditions of approval and/or code requirements.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines
and/or Ordinance 1130.
6.2. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity map
3. Project Plans
4. Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 series)
5. Use Permit Staff Report (A 143-13) August 18, 2014
6. Use Permit Appeal (A 143-13)
7. Visual Simulations
8. Distance Study
9. Drone Photographs
10. Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 143-13)
Included in Committee member portfolio: Project Plans
Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board
ARC2 - 7
RESOLUTION NO. ####-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW 102-UNIT HOTEL WITH ASSOCIATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (ER 143-13), AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
1845/1865 MONTEREY STREET (C-T-S AND C/OS-5 ZONES; ARC 143-13)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on September 15, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARC 143-13, West
Coast Asset Management, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly
considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation
and recommendations by the staff at said hearings.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project as prepared by staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the
City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARC 143-13), based on the following findings:
1.The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing
in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning designation,
requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series), and will be subject to conformance with all
applicable building, fire, and safety codes.
2.Consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project is compatible in scale,
siting, detailing, and overall character with buildings in the Monterey Street neighborhood.
3.Consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project incorporates articulation,
massing, and a mix of color/finish materials that are compatible with the neighborhood.
4.As conditioned, the project is consistent with the height/setback and design requirements of
Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series).
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission hereby
adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 143-13) of Environmental Impact finding
that it adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts with incorporation of the
following mitigation measures and monitoring programs:
ARC2 - 8
Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 2
1845/1865 Monterey Street, ARC 143-13
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure AES 1: A combination of vegetation and fencing shall be utilized as required to
effectively screen headlights facing eastward towards San Luis Creek from the uncovered parking
area that will be retained and improved.
¾Monitoring Plan, AES 1: The Architectural Review Commission shall review the preliminary
planting and fencing plan and provide direction to the applicant. Final plans shall be reviewed
Community Development Planning staff and the City’s Natural Resources Manager as part of
the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for
consistency with City standards prior to department sign off and issuance of permits.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the
Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not
exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
¾Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines
shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance
with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10
business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified
Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
¾Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to
monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off
site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development
and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
ARC2 - 9
Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 3
1845/1865 Monterey Street, ARC 143-13
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3
minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds
over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-
control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and
landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any
soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after
initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered
until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved
surface at the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and
top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved
roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible.
Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such
persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any
grading, earthwork or demolition.
¾Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control
program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site.
Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The
name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and
ARC2 - 10
Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 4
1845/1865 Monterey Street, ARC 143-13
APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912
for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
¾Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement
the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California
Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor
vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for
operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In
general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in
Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel
regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the
State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these
more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet
mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD.
Specific standards and conditions will apply.
¾Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control
program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site.
Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The
name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The
applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
ARC2 - 11
Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 5
1845/1865 Monterey Street, ARC 143-13
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The project shall incorporate the following erosion control measures for
work in and around the riparian corridor:
a.No heavy equipment shall enter flowing water.
b.Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the
riparian corridor.
c.Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d.All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be
cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times
during construction.
e.All spoils shall be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent
seepage of sediment in to the drainage/creek system.
¾Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans
and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be
reviewed by the City’s Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the City’s
Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued
compliance with the above mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure BIO 2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek
restoration and enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek
bank and replacement with appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
¾Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: Final plans shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resources Manager
as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications to the creek
restoration and enhancement plan as necessary to ensure that an appropriate mix of plantings, in
type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized while working within the
creek corridor.
Mitigation Measure BIO 3: That portion of the site which lies within the C/OS-5 zone shall be
dedicated as a perpetual open space easement.
¾Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: Prior to the issuance of Building Permits an open space easement,
written to the satisfaction of the City’s Natural Resources Manager, shall be recorded on title.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CULT 1: A qualified archaeologist shall be present during any demolition or
ground disturbing activities in the project area.
¾Monitoring Plan, CULT 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building
plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically
inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CULT 2: In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are
encountered during excavation (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash
ARC2 - 12
Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 6
1845/1865 Monterey Street, ARC 143-13
deposits, historic features, and human burials), work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist
makes determinations on possible significance, recommends appropriate measures to minimize
impacts, and provides information on how to proceed in light of the discoveries. All specialist
recommendations shall be communicated to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department prior to resuming work to ensure the project continues within procedural parameters
accepted by the City of San Luis Obispo and the State of California.
¾Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building
plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically
inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Geology & Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a
comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project.
Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and
structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address
site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining
wall design parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic
loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer.
¾Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical
analysis as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or
construction permits.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval
to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Department
1.Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working
drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of
project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to
where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials,
landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural
Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2.Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. Plans shall clearly note that all
stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth hand-troweled or sand finish
appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
3.Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include
the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window
features.
ARC2 - 13
Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 7
1845/1865 Monterey Street, ARC 143-13
4.The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be
included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be
clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-
mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building
shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the
submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed
downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards
contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
a.A photometric plan shall be provided per Zoning Regulations Section 17.23.030.3
5.Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal
of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly
show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers
or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit
shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-sight
diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition
applies to initial construction and later improvements.
6.A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The
plan shall include landscaping along the north and west sides of the trash enclosure.
Landscaping in this area shall have a minimum height of three feet to effectively screen the
trash enclosure.
a.Any proposed landscape lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building
permit and plans shall clearly indicate lighting to utilize a narrow cone of light (no
brighter than approximately 15 watts) for the purpose of confining the light to the
object of interest.
7.The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on
all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans
shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined
by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the
front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back
flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using
a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community
Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be
subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors.
8.The proposed rooftop signage (Sheet A7.1 view 02) shall be removed.
9.The proposed green-screen living wall shall comply with the requirements of Zoning
Regulations Section 17.16.050 (Fences, Walls and Hedges).
Engineering Division
10.The underlying property line(s) shall be merged or adjusted prior to building permit issuance.
ARC2 - 14
Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 8
1845/1865 Monterey Street, ARC 143-13
11.Any proposed or required easements shall be recorded prior to permit issuance. Any required
common driveway or shared parking agreements shall be approved and recorded prior to
building permit issuance.
12.Work or construction staging within the public right-of-way requires an encroachment permit
from the Public Works Department. All work within the public right-of-way shall be subject to
the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of permit issuance. Any curb, gutter, and
sidewalk work shall comply with the standards for the Mission Style district as extended to
upper Monterey Street.
13.The existing, proposed, and/or altered driveway approaches shall be shown to comply with
current ADA and City Engineering Standards. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb,
gutter, and sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
final inspection approvals.
14.This property and project is located within a mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as
shown on the most current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The project shall comply with
the Floodplain Management Regulations. The final plans and drainage report shall show and
reference the mapped Floodzone. The project shall comply with the mapped zone unless a
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is processed through FEMA. If proposed, a Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) or LOMR (Determination Document) shall be approved prior to
building permit issuance.
15.Work within the channel or riparian areas shall be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo and
other pertinent regulatory agencies prior to demolition, grading, or construction permit issuance.
The new pipe outlet to San Luis Creek shall be approved by all agencies having jurisdiction
prior to building permit issuance.
16.The final plans and drainage report shall show and note compliance with the Floodplain
Management Regulations, Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, and Post
Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board per their Resolution R3-2013-0032.
17.The building plan submittal shall include a preliminary Operations and Maintenance manual for
all proposed BMP’s. A final or updated manual shall be provided to the city prior to final
inspection approvals. A private stormwater conveyance agreement shall be recorded in a format
provided by the city prior to final inspection approvals.
18.Wiring to the new building shall be underground. Undergrounding of wiring shall be completed
without a net increase of utility poles within the public right-of-way. If PGE, ATT, and Charter
plans are not available at the time of plan review and permit issuance, they shall be listed on the
cover sheet of the plans as a deferred submittal item. Deferred submittal items shall be
reviewed by the architect of record or engineer of record for compliance with the respective site
designs and shall be forwarded to the city for review and approval.
19.The building plan submittal and/or demolition plans shall include a detailed tree inventory and
summary of trees to remain and trees to be removed. The plans shall include a report from a
ARC2 - 15
Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 9
1845/1865 Monterey Street, ARC 143-13
certified arborist with recommendations for tree preservation measures for all on-site and any
off-site trees needing specific protections during construction.
20.The existing 24” Norfolk Island Pine located on the 1865 Monterey property shall be retained
unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist and Community Development
Director. A tree removal proposal will require a report from a certified arborist with a summary
of why the tree can’t be saved.
21.The two existing Deodara Cedar trees located in the front yard setback shall be retained and
incorporated into the final site plan unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist
and Community Development Director. A tree removal proposal will require a report from a
certified arborist with a summary of why one or both of the tree(s) can’t be saved. If approved
for removal, compensatory evergreen tree(s) shall be incorporated into the front yard setback
area.
22.Two 15-gallon Zone 1 street trees shall be planted in the public sidewalk area along the project
frontage. Street tree species and plantings shall be installed per City Engineering Standards and
approved by the City Arborist. Trees shall be planted in a tree well with grates and guards. An
alternate tree species (Gold Medallion), as planted in this block of Monterey, could be
supported.
Transportation
23.Due to its close proximity to the main project driveway, the project’s southerly driveway shall
either be eliminated or redesigned as an “entrance only”one way driveway.
24.To further ensure pedestrian safety, the northerly project driveway exit shall provide a minimum
of ten feet clear visibility to the back of sidewalk on both sides of the exit. The distance shall
be measured from 8 feet behind the stop bar and two feet to the right of the centerline where a
driver would be located in a stopped vehicle and shown on building plans.
25.Long and short-term bicycle parking for the existing restaurant use and the proposed hotel use
shall be provided in accordance with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Bicycle parking shall
be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of the destination as
possible and located at least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking space.
Dimensioned locations and details of the short and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided
on the project’s construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation
needs for users in compliance with manufacturers’ standards. Each parking space shall include
a 2x6 ft. footprint unless noted otherwise by the manufacturer.
a.Approved short-term bicycle rack designs include the inverted “U” or “Peak Racks”.
“Ribbon” type racks are not approved for use in the City.
b.Long-term bicycle parking may consist of lockers installed either within or outside
the building. As an alternative, a lockable room within the building that is labeled
and reserved for bicycle storage may substitute for bicycle lockers. Provide details
and specifications for bicycle lockers/rooms to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division.
ARC2 - 16
Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 10
1845/1865 Monterey Street, ARC 143-13
Fire Department
26.Building construction type will require Type II-B with one-hour fire rated separation between
dwelling units. Project will require an NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. These requirements are a
trade-off for lack of Fire Department ladder truck access to the new building.
27.Fire sprinkler system OS&Y/backflow device shall be located within 40 feet of existing hydrant.
28.OS&Y/backflow device can be located vertically inside the building, facing the street, if it is in
a two-hour fire rated room/closet with exterior door access. Backflow device shall be within 20
feet of the property line at the street.
Utilities Department
29.Since the project at 1845 Monterey is proposing to share trash and recycling facilities with the
adjoining property at 1865 Monterey, an easement/agreement shall be recorded prior to Building
Permit issuance.
30.If the existing sewer lateral at 1845 Monterey is proposed to be reused, submittal of a video
inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during the
Building Permit Review process. If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must be
abandoned per City standards.
31.According to Sheet L1.0, the proposed project at 1845 Monterey has 3,448 square feet of
landscaping. New non-residential development with a landscape area of 1,000 square feet or
greater must install an irrigation meter and pay the associated impact fee (Green Building Code
5.304.2).
Note: Code requirements provided to applicant separately.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of September, 2014.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ARC2 - 17
C-T-S
O
C-T
C-T-S
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1-S
R-1C-T
R-1
R-1
R-4
R-4 R-4
R-1
R-1
R-1
PF
R-1
O
R-1
C-T
C-T C-T
R-3
O
C/OS-5
C/OS-5
C/OS-40
R-2
R-1
R-3
R-2
C-T SAN LUISMONTEREYGRANDCORRALITOSGARFIELD
A
N
D
R
E
W
SPALM
CONEJOMILL
CA
Z
A
D
E
R
OGRO
V
E BUENA VISTAGRAVESE
L
C
E
N
T
R
OHENDERSONAN
D
R
E
W
S
VICINITY MAP File No. 143-13
1845 MONTEREY ST.¯
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 18
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 19
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 20
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 21
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 22
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 23
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 24
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 25
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 26
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 27
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 28
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 29
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 30
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 31
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 32
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 33
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 34
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 35
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 36
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 37
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 38
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 39
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 40
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 41
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 42
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 43
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 44
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 45
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 46
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 47
Administrative Hearing Agenda Report ITEM #
FROM:-DLPH+LOO&RQWUDFW6HQLRU3ODQQHU MEETING DATE: $XJXVW
FILE NUMBER $
PROJECT ADDRESS DQG0RQWHUH\6WUHHW
SITUATION 7KHDSSOLFDQWKDVDSSOLHGIRUDQ$GPLQLVWUDWLYH8VH3HUPLWWRDOORZFRQVWUXFWLRQRID
QHZPXOWLVWRU\KRWHODQGDVVRFLDWHGDPHQLWLHVRQDVLWHZLWKD6SHFLDO&RQVLGHUDWLRQV2YHUOD\
7KH 6SHFLDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG DW WKH VXEMHFW ORFDWLRQ WR DGGUHVV ODQG XVH
FRPSDWLELOLW\ EHWZHHQ FRPPHUFLDO XVHV DQG UHVLGHQWLDO ODQG XVHVDGMDFHQWWR 6DQ/XLV &UHHN
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH8VH3HUPLWDSSURYDOLVDOVRUHTXLUHGWRDOORZDVKDUHGXVHSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQ
SITE DESCRIPTION:
DESCRIPTION:7KHSURSRVHGSURMHFWLVDURRPKRWHO ZLWKDVVRFLDWHGDPHQLWLHVLQFOXGLQJ
SDUNLQJJXHVWORXQJHPHHWLQJVSDFHILWQHVVFHQWHUURRIWRSWHUUDFH DQG PDQDJHUV XQLW 7KH
SURSRVHGVWUXFWXUHLQFOXGHVVWRULHVSOXVDEDVHPHQWOHYHO XQGHUJURXQGSDUNLQJ HQFRPSDVVLQJ
DWRWDOVTXDUHIRRWDJHRI VTXDUHIHHW VTXDUHIHHWJURVVEXLOGLQJDUHD
VTXDUHIHHWJURVVSDUNLQJDUHD 7KHYHKLFOHSDUNLQJVSDFHVDUHSURYLGHGLQDEDVHPHQWOHYHO
DQG DW WKH UHDU SRUWLRQ RIWKHJURXQG OHYHO VWUHHW OHYHO 7KHSURSRVHGVLWHLPSURYHPHQWVDUH
ORFDWHGLQWKH&76]RQHGSRUWLRQRIWKHVLWHZLWKDSRUWLRQRIWKHH[LVWLQJXQFRYHUHGSDUNLQJ
ZLWKLQIHHWRIWKH&26]RQHDWWKHHDVWHUQH[WHQWRIWKHVLWHEHLQJUHWDLQHG7KHH[LVWLQJ
VLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQFHRQWKHVLWHZLOOEHUHPRYHG7KHPDLQEXLOGLQJHQWUDQFHIURQWV0RQWHUH\
6WUHHW ZLWK D SRUWH FRFKHUH GURS RII DUHD ODQGVFDSLQJ DQG KRWHO OREE\ 2WKHU FRPPRQ KRWHO
DPHQLWLHVVXFKDVWKHJXHVWORXQJHDQGWHUUDFHVRQWKHYDULRXVOHYHOVDOVRIURQW0RQWHUH\6WUHHW
7KHFUHHNIDFLQJHDVWHUQIDoDGHLVGRPLQDWHGE\JXHVWURRPV
:LWKDSSURYDORIWKHSURSRVHGVKDUHGSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQWKHSURSRVHGKRWHOLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWK
DSSOLFDEOHSURSHUW\GHYHORSPHQWVWDQGDUGVLQFOXGLQJKHLJKWVHWEDFNV)ORRU$UHD5DWLR )$5
DQGORWFRYHUDJH6HH3URMHFW6WDWLVWLFV7DEOHEHORZ7KHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\LVDEXWWHGE\6HUYLFH
&RPPHUFLDO]RQLQJWRWKHQRUWKVRXWKDQGZHVWZLWK6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO 5 DFURVV6DQ
/XLV&UHHNWRWKHHDVW,Q 7KH&LW\&RXQFLODGRSWHG2UGLQD QFHWRVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVV
Site Size 1.93 Acres (62,353 sf C-T-S & 21,920 sf C/OS-5)
Present Use & Development One SFR to be removed and one commercial building and
associated parking to remain
Land Use Designation Tourist Commercial (C-T) with Special Considerations and
Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5)
Access Monterey Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Hotels (C-T-S zoning)
South: Hotels (C-T-S zoning)
East: San Luis Creek and Single-family residences (R-1)
West: Hotels (C-T zoning)
ARC2 - 48
3DJH
$ 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW
ODQGXVHFRPSDWLELOLW\FRQFHUQVEHWZHHQQHZFRPPHUFLDOXVHVRQWKHVLWHDQGUHVLGHQWLDOODQG
XVHVDGMDFHQWWR6DQ/XLV&UHHN
$GUDIW0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQRI(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW 01' IRUWKLVSURMHFWKDVEHHQ
SUHSDUHGZKLFKLGHQWLILHGSRWHQWLDOO\VLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVUHODWHGWRDHVWKHWLFVDLUTXDOLW\ELRORJLFDO
UHVRXUFHVFXOWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGJHRORJ\VRLOVZKLFKDUHPLWLJDWHGWRDOHVVWKDQVLJQLILFDQWHIIHFW
ZLWKLQFRUSRUDWLRQRIUHFRPPHQGHGPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHV7KH01'DQGUHFRPPHQGHGPLWLJDWLRQ
PHDVXUHVZLOOEHUHYLHZHGDQGDFWHGXSRQE\WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ $5& DWD
SXEOLFKHDULQJWHQWDWLYHO\VHWIRU6HSWHPEHU
Project Statistics Table
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yard setback 10 feet 10 feet
Side Yard Setbacks
East (C-T)
West (C-T)
South (C/OS-5)
0 feet
0 feet
20 feet
0 feet
0 feet
20 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 44.5 feet + 9 feet for Arch
Projections
45 feet + 10 feet for Arch Projections
Coverage (buildings & paving) 54% 75%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.85 2.5
Parking Spaces
Vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
141
7
7
153 (138 w/ shared parking reduction)
7
7
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans dated July 2, 2014
2. City Zoning Regulations
EVALUATION:
Special Considerations.7KHSURMHFWLVSURSRVHGWREHFRQVLVWHQWZLWK WKH&LW\*HQHUDO3ODQ
'HVLJQDWLRQDQG]RQLQJIRUWKHVLWHDQGZLWKWKHDSSURYDORIWKLVXVHSHUPLWUHTXHVWDOODSSOLFDEOH
UHJXODWLRQVDQGGHYHORSPHQWVWDQGDUGV2UGLQDQFH 6HULHV ZDVDGRSWHGE\WKH&LW\
&RXQFLOWRHQVXUHFRPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKDGMDFHQWUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVWRWKHHDVWDQGHVWDEOLVKHVWZHOYH
VSHFLILFGHYHORSPHQWVWDQGDUGVIRUWKHVLWH(DFKRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWVWDQGDUGVVSHFLILFWR
WKLVVLWHDUHOLVWHGEHORZIROORZHGE\VWDIIDQDO\VLV
$OOQHZVWUXFWXUHVDSSURYHGDIWHUDGRSWLRQRIWKLVRUGLQDQFHVKDOOEHVHWEDFNDPLQLPXPRI
IHHW IURP WKH UHORFDWHG &26 ERXQGDU\ 7KH VHWEDFN DUHD PD\ EH RFFXSLHG E\
ODQGVFDSLQJIHQFLQJ DQGSHGHVWULDQ ZDONZD\VDQG OLNHIHDWXUHV DVGHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ1RQHZIDFLOLWLHVIRUSDUNLQJDFWLYHUHFUHDWLRQRUQRLVHJHQHUDWLQJ
HTXLSPHQWPD\RFFXS\WKHFUHHNVHWEDFNDUHD
Staff analysis: All new development has been set back 20-feet from the C/OS-5. A portion
of existing surface parking within this area will remain, and be repaired as necessary. Other
work in this area would be limited to landscaping and revegetation as required by the City.
%XLOGLQJRSHQLQJV GRRUVZLQGRZVEDOFRQLHVHWF IDFLQJWKHFUHHNVKDOOEHPLQLPL]HG
1 The draft Initial Study ER143-13 is available for public review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department at 919 Palm Street.
ARC2 - 49
3DJH
$ 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW
Staff analysis: In an effort to minimize impacts to existing residential uses adjacent to San
Luis Creek, the project has been designed with only 26% of all hotel rooms facing the
creek, and only 29% of all exterior door & window glazing along the creek facade. Guest
room balconies along this façade are approximately 5-feet deep; a minimal area adequate
for getting some fresh air, but not large enough to entice gathering. All common hotel guest
areas, including lobby lounge, 2nd floor breakfast terrace, and 4th floor roof deck, are
oriented toward Monterey Street and away from San Luis Creek in compliance with this
regulation.
6FUHHQLQJVKDOOEHSURYLGHGEHWZHHQEXLOGLQJVDQGWKHFUHHNZKLFKPD\LQFOXGHIHQFLQJ
GHFRUDWLYH ZDOOV DQG ODQGVFDSHG EHUPV EXW DW D PLQLPXP LQFOXGH UHVWRUDWLRQ DQG
HQKDQFHPHQWRIWKHFUHHNVLGHYHJHWDWLRQ
Staff analysis: The draft MND includes as Mitigation Measure AES 1 a requirement that “A
combination of vegetation and fencing shall be utilized as required to effectively screen
headlights facing eastward towards San Luis Creek from the uncovered parking area that
will be retained and improved ”. The preliminary planting and fencing plan will be reviewed
by the ARC, who at that time can provide specific direction to the applicant so as to achieve
sufficient screening.
/LJKWLQJ EHWZHHQ WKH EXLOGLQJV DQG WKH FUHHN VKDOO EH OLPLWHG LQ LQWHQVLW\ DQG VFDOH
QHFHVVDU\IRUVHFXULW\DQGLGHQWLILFDWLRQDQGVKDOOEHGHVLJQHGWRQRWVKLQHRIIVLWH
Staff analysis: The project is located in an already urbanized area with light sources from
neighboring commercial and residential uses as well as light from vehicular circulation
along neighboring streets. The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial
light or glare or affect nighttime views in the area since the project will be required to
conform to the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter
17.23) which sets operational standards and requirements for lighting installations,
including requiring all light sources to be shielded and downward facing. Additionally, the
proposed project includes a solid composite wood guardrail and headlight wall to screen
vehicle headlights in the above-grade podium level of parking.
7KH H[SDQVLRQ RU UHGHYHORSPHQW RI SURSHUWLHV VKDOO PDNH PD[LPXP XVH RI FRPPRQ
GULYHZD\V
Staff analysis: Two existing driveways provide ingress/egress, and will be retained so to
safely and adequately serve both the existing restaurant and new hotel project.
$OOQHZXVHVPXVWEHIRXQGE\WKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
WREHFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKHULSDULDQ
KDELWDWDQGDGMDFHQWUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVFRQVLGHULQJVXFKYDULDEOHVDVOLJKWDQGJODUHSULYDF\
QRLVH DQG WUDIILF ,Q DOO FDVHV XVHV VKDOO EH DGHTXDWHO\ EXIIHUHG IURP WKH FUHHN DQG
DGMDFHQWUHVLGHQFHVLQDPDQQHUZKLFKPLWLJDWHVSRWHQWLDORIIVLWHLPSDFWV
Staff analysis: The project is consistent with the property development standards found in
Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations), the Community Design Guidelines,
and Ordinance 1130 (1989) which was adopted to apply the Special Considerations (“S-
Since adoption of Ordinance 1130 in 1989, review authority over new uses on sites with Special Considerations has
been delegated by the Planning Commission to the Administrative Hearing Officer.
ARC2 - 50
3DJH
$ 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW
Overlay”) to the site to address land use compatibility concerns applicable to the
surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential land uses adjacent to
San Luis Creek.
As discussed in items 1 - 5, above, and in ER 143-13, proposed improvements have been
setback from the riparian habitat and adjacent residential uses, with all common hotel guest
areas oriented toward Monterey Street and away from San Luis Creek. Furthermore,
additional riparian vegetation will be installed to improve the health of San Luis Creek and
provide additional screening from adjacent residences (Mitigation Measure BIO 2).
1RLVH JHQHUDWLQJ XVHV VXFK DV SDUNLQJ DQG DFWLYH RXWGRRU UHFUHDWLRQ XVHV VKRXOG EH
ORFDWHGRQWKHLQWHULRURIWKHVLWHXVLQJEXLOGLQJVWREXIIHU
Staff analysis. New parking is proposed to be setback 20-feet from the C/OS boundary,
which is approximately 90-feet from the top of creek bank, or 145-feet from the easterly
property line; which is approximately at the creek centerline. As discussed in items 3 and 4
above, a combination of walls, fencing, and vegetation have been provided or required,
which will buffer both light and noise from adjacent sensitive receptors. As discussed in
item 2 above, active outdoor uses are concentrated toward Monterey street; away from the
Creek and existing residences.
$OOGUDLQDJHWRWKHFUHHNVKDOOEHGLUHFWHGLQDPDQQHUZKLFKGRHVQRWHURGHWKHFUHHN
EDQNKDUPWKHFUHHNVLGHYHJHWDWLRQRUGHJUDGHWKHTXDOLW\RIWKHFUHHNDQGLWVULSDULDQ
KDELWDW7KLVPD\LQFOXGHWKHXVHRIGHEULVDQGUXEELVKVFUHHQVRLODQGJUHDVHWUDSVDQG
HURVLRQFRQWUROHQHUJ\GLVVLSDWHUVVXEMHFWWRWKHDSSURYDORIWKH&LW\(QJLQHHUDQG6WDWH
'HSDUWPHQWRI)LVKDQG*DPH
Staff analysis. The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed
area. Due to its size and location, the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual
(DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post Construction
Requirements for storm water control. These plans were adopted for the purpose of
insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed, including potential
release of sediments and flow into the creek. In addition to complying with City hydrology
and drainage standards, the proposed project complies with required setbacks from the
creek bank and C/OS portion of the site, and the recommended MND includes mitigation
measures to ensure that proper erosion control measures are utilized during construction
(BIO 1) and that a planting plan be prepared which would retain existing native vegetation
along the banks and the channel and provide replacement of non-native plantings with
appropriate trees, shrubs and groundcover to enrich the creek habitat (BIO 2).
%XLOGLQJKHLJKWVKDOOEHUHVWULFWHGDVIROORZV
:LWKLQIHHWRIWKHUHYLVHG&26ERXQGDU\PD[LPXPKHLJKWVKDOOEHIHHW
%H\RQGIHHWIURPWKHUHYLVHG&26ERXQGDU\PD[LPXPKHLJKWVKDOOEHIHHW
Staff analysis. As is called out on applicable plan sheets, the building has been stepped
back to comply with the above standards.
*UDGLQJZLWKLQWKHFUHHNVHWEDFNDUHDVKDOOEHOLPLWHGWRWKDWQHFHVVDU\WRVWDELOL]HWKH
FUHHNEDQNDQGWRDFFRPPRGDWHODQGVFDSLQJDQGVKDOOEHGRQHLQDPDQQHUZKLFKGRHV
QRWLQFUHDVHHURVLRQRIWKHFUHHNEDQNRUUHVXOWLQWKHUHPRYDORIFUHHNVLGHYHJHWDWLRQ
3 Since renamed California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
ARC2 - 51
3DJH
$ 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW
Staff analysis. No grading within the creek bank is proposed. Work within the creek bank
will be limited to revegetation as required by the City’s Natural Resource s Manager.
$VDFRQGLWLRQRIHYHU\QHZXVHHVWDEOLVKHGRUH[SDQVLRQRIH[LVWLQJXVHWKDWSRUWLRQRID
FRPPHUFLDOORWZKLFKOLHVZLWKLQWKH&26]RQHVKDOOEHGHGLFDWHGDVDSHUSHWXDORSHQ
VSDFHHDVHPHQW
Staff analysis. To ensure this dedication occurs with other entitlements, the recommended
MND includes a mitigation measure (BIO 3) requiring the portion of the site which lies within
the C/OS-5 zone to be dedicated as a perpetual open space easement. This would occur
prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
,QVSHFLDOFLUFXPVWDQFHVDQGE\PDNLQJILQGLQJVIRUDYDULDQFHWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
PD\YDU\WKHKHLJKWDQGVHWEDFNVWDQGDUGVHVWDEOLVKHGE\WKLVRUGLQDQFH
Staff analysis. No exceptions to height or setback standards have been requested.
Shared Parking Reduction.=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV6HFWLRQ % DOORZVIRUXSWRD
VKDUHGSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQZKHQWZRRUPRUHXVHVVKDUHFRPPRQSDUNLQJDUHDV:LWKWKHSURSRVHG
QHZGHYHORSPHQWSDUNLQJVSDFHVZRXOGEHUHTXLUHG IRUWKHKRWHOIRUWKHH[LVWLQJ
UHVWDXUDQW :LWKDSSURYDORIWKHVKDUHGSDUNLQJUHGXFWLRQWKLVUHTXLUHPHQWZRXOGEHUHGXFHGWR
VSDFHV7KHDSSOLFDQWKDVSURSRVHGSDUNLQJVWDOOVLQDFRPELQDWLRQRIH[LVWLQJXQFRYHUHG
VXUIDFHSDUNLQJDQGLQWZROHYHOVRIWKHQHZVWUXFWXUH7KLVLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHLQWHQWRI=RQLQJ
5HJXODWLRQV6HFWLRQ % ZKLFKLVWRFRQVROLGDWHSDUNLQJDQGWRPLQLPL]HDUHDGHYRWHG
H[FOXVLYHO\WRSDUNLQJZKHQW\SLFDOGHPDQGVPD\EHVDWLVILHGPRUHHIILFLHQWO\E\VKDUHGIDFLOLWLHV
%HFDXVHWKHSDUNLQJZLOOEHRQDVHSDUDWHSDUFHOIURPWKHUHVWDXUDQWIROORZLQJUHFRUGDWLRQRIWKH
ORWOLQHDGMXVWPHQW //$ DFRQGLWLRQRIDSSURYDOKDVEHHQUHFRPPHQGHGWKDWWKHDIIHFWHGSDUWLHV
PXVWUHFRUGDQDJUHHPHQWJRYHUQLQJWKHVKDUHGSDUNLQJSULRUWR//$UHFRUGDWLRQDVUHTXLUHGE\
WKH%XLOGLQJ&RGH
RECOMMENDATION: $SSURYHWKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH8VH3HUPLWWRDOORZGHYHORSPHQWRIDVLWHZLWK
6SHFLDO&RQVLGHUDWLRQVDQGD6KDUHG3DUNLQJ5HGXFWLRQV IRUDQHZKRWHOLQWKH6HUYLFH
&RPPHUFLDO &76 ]RQHEDVHGRQILQGLQJVDQGVXEMHFWWRFRQGLWLRQVRIDSSURYDO
Findings
$V FRQGLWLRQHG WKH SURSRVHG XVH ZLOO QRW DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFWWKHKHDOWKVDIHW\RUZHOIDUHRI
SHUVRQV OLYLQJ RU ZRUNLQJ LQ WKH YLFLQLW\ EHFDXVH WKH SURSRVHGXVH LV FRPSDWLEOH ZLWK WKH
H[LVWLQJEXLOGLQJDQGVXUURXQGLQJXVHV
7KHSURSRVHGXVHLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWK2UGLQDQFH 6HULHV DVLWKDVEHHQGHVLJQHGWR
EHFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKHFUHHNDQGDGMDFHQWUHVLGHQWLDOXVHV
7KH SURSRVHG VKDUHG SDUNLQJ UHGXFWLRQ ZLOO FRQVROLGDWHSDUNLQJ DQG PLQLPL]H DUHD
GHYRWHGH[FOXVLYHO\WRSDUNLQJFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHLQWHQWRIWKH=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV
3XUVXDQWWR&(4$*XLGHOLQHVDGUDIW0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQRI(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW
KDVEHHQSUHSDUHGZKLFKZLOOEHUHYLHZHGE\WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQDWDSXEOLF
KHDULQJ
ARC2 - 52
3DJH
$ 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW
Conditions
7KHSURMHFWVKDOOEHUHYLHZHGDQGDSSURYHGE\WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQSULRUWR
VXEPLWWDORISODQVIRUDFRQVWUXFWLRQSHUPLW7KLVDSSURYDOVKDOOQRWUHVWULFWWKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO
5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQ¶VDELOLW\WRPRGLI\WKHSURMHFWIRUFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWKWKH&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ
*XLGHOLQHVRUIRUIXUWKHUFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWK2UGLQDQFH
7KH SURSRVHG XVH VKDOO RSHUDWH LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH VXEPLWWHG SURMHFW GHVFULSWLRQ DQG
SURMHFWSODQV
7KHDIIHFWHGSDUWLHVPXVWUHFRUGDQDJUHHPHQWJRYHUQLQJWKHVKDUHGSDUNLQJSULRUWR//$
UHFRUGDWLRQ
7KH8VH3HUPLWVKDOOEHUHYLHZHGE\WKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRUIRUFRPSOLDQFHZLWK
FRQGLWLRQVRIDSSURYDORUWRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHUDPRGLILFDWLRQRIWKH8VH3HUPLWLVQHFHVVDU\
XSRQVLJQLILFDQWFKDQJHWRWKHEXVLQHVVDVUHSUHVHQWHGLQWKH6WDII5HSRUWGDWHG$XJXVW
RULQWKHHYHQWRIDFKDQJHLQRZQHUVKLSZKLFKPD\UHVXOWLQGHYLDWLRQIURPWKHSURMHFW
GHVFULSWLRQRUDSSURYHGSODQV
7KLV8VH3HUPLWVKDOOEHUHYLHZHGE\WKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH+HDULQJ2IILFHULIWKH&LW\UHFHLYHV
VXEVWDQWLDWHG ZULWWHQ FRPSODLQWV IURP DQ\ FLWL]HQ &RGH (QIRUFHPHQW 2IILFHU RU 3ROLFH
'HSDUWPHQWHPSOR\HHZKLFKLQFOXGHVLQIRUPDWLRQDQGRUHYLGHQFHVXSSRUWLQJDFRQFOXVLRQ
WKDWDYLRODWLRQRIWKLV8VH3HUPLWRURI&LW\RUGLQDQFHVRUUHJXODWLRQVDSSOLFDEOHWRWKHSURSHUW\
RUWKHRSHUDWLRQRIWKHEXVLQHVVKDVRFFXUUHG$WWKHWLPHRIWKH8VH3HUPLWUHYLHZWRHQVXUH
RQJRLQJFRPSDWLELOLW\RIWKHXVHVRQWKHSURMHFWVLWHFRQGLWLRQVRIDSSURYDOPD\EHDGGHG
GHOHWHGPRGLILHGRUWKHSHUPLWPD\EHUHYRNHG7KH+HDULQJ2IILFHUPD\UHIHUWKHFRPSODLQW
WRWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDWKLVKHUGLVFUHWLRQ
7KHDSSOLFDQWVKDOOGHIHQGLQGHPQLI\DQGKROGKDUPOHVVWKH&LW\DQGRULWVDJHQWVRIILFHUVDQG
HPSOR\HHVIURPDQ\FODLPDFWLRQRUSURFHHGLQJDJDLQVWWKH&LW\DQGRULWVDJHQWVRIILFHUVRU
HPSOR\HHVWRDWWDFNVHWDVLGHYRLGRUDQQXOWKHDSSURYDOE\WKH&LW\RIWKLVSURMHFWDQGDOO
DFWLRQV UHODWLQJ WKHUHWR LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR HQYLURQPHQWDO UHYLHZ ³,QGHPQLILHG
&ODLPV´ 7KH &LW\ VKDOO SURPSWO\ QRWLI\ WKHDSSOLFDQW RI DQ\ ,QGHPQLILHG &ODLPXSRQEHLQJ
SUHVHQWHGZLWKWKH,QGHPQLILHG&ODLPDQG&LW\VKDOOIXOO\FRRSHUDWHLQWKHGHIHQVHDJDLQVWDQ
,QGHPQLILHG&ODLP
$WWDFKPHQWV
2UGLQDQFH 6HULHV
Action
$SSURYH
$SSURYHDVPRGLILHG
'HQ\
&RQWLQXHWR BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBWRDOORZ
&RQWLQXHLQGHILQLWHO\WRDOORZ
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
+HDULQJ2IILFHU
ARC2 - 53
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 54
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 55
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 56
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 57
Visual Simulations
For
The Monterey Hotel
1845 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prepared For:
Jess Parker
1865 Monterey Street Investors, LP
1205 Coast Village Road
Montecito, CA 93108
At The Request Of:
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CDD Application #143-13
Prepared By:
garcia architecture + design
1308 Monterey Street, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Date: 24 April 2014
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 58
Executive Summary
The following visual simulations are for a proposed hotel project to be located at 1845/1865
Monterey Street, in the City of San Luis Obispo, California. Prepared at the request of the City’s
Community Development Department, these photo-simulations are intended to provide a
graphic depiction of the proposed finish hotel facility as seen within the existing context of the
proposed site location, as viewed from various vantage points surrounding the existing project
site.
This document contains a reference vicinity map, which indicates the point-of-reference view-
points (VP) for the background photographs taken for this analysis, followed by "before and
after" visual simulations of the proposed project. Finally, the appendix contains a methodology
summary, which describes the techniques and methods used to generate the visual simulations
contained herein.
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 59
Reference Vicinity Map
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 60
VP #1:Visual simulation of proposed project from Monterey Street looking southeast
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 61
VP #2:Visual simulation of proposed project from Monterey Street looking northeast
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 62
VP #3:Visual simulation of proposed project from San Luis Drive looking northwest
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 63
VP #4:Visual simulation of proposed project from San Luis Drive looking northwest
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 64
VP #5:Visual simulation of proposed project from San Luis Drive looking northwest
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 65
Appendix A: Methodology
Introduction
The following is a summary of techniques, means, and methods utilized to create the visual
photo simulations contained herein this visual analysis:
Basis
For each View Point (VP) simulation, a digital photo or series of photos (panoramics) were
taken of the subject property, shot from a known and pre-determined location in the field, as
denoted in the reference vicinity map contained herein. For this study, a Nikon digital 35mm
SLR camera was utilized to capture the raw site images, with the camera stop set at a constant
F=35 for consistency across the simulations. These digital photographs not only store the
visual data but also the image metadata, including date/time of image capture, shutter speed
and focal length. This data is later “mapped” to the digital building modeling software in order to
recreate actual field conditions in the virtual modeling environment.
Modeling
Digital or “virtual” modeling begins by creating a three-dimensional terrain model of the subject
property. Utilizing an AutoCAD-based digital topography provided by Wallace Group, a 3-D
terrain model was generated, incorporating the ACAD files’ X,Y,Z coordinates as well as field
monuments verified and/or set via GPS technology. Concurrently, the 2-D digital architectural
and engineering project CAD plans were imported into “Google Sketchup” 3-D modeling
software in order to “construct” a scaled 3-D digital model of the entire project. The resultant
product yielded a comprehensive scaled 3-D virtual model of the entire proposed project,
including all known and proposed ground improvements within the project boundary, as well as
adjacent 3-D objects surrounding the subject property. The composite model was then
translated and adjusted to achieve its’ actual State Plane Coordinates location in order to
ensure proper sun angle relative to its GPS location.
Layout + Alignment
Once the virtual project is fully modeled, translated and rotated into proper real-world
coordinates, the digital photo or panoramic is imported into the modeling software. The photo’s
predetermined VP is then re-established within the digital modeling environment, recreated via
the digital image’s metadata information. Using known existing scale elements such utility
poles, trees, signs and/or field-set graduated story poles, the model is then digitally aligned with
the existing photograph or panoramic image. These known objects or land features, which are
coincidental to both the digital model and photograph, are used to accurately align the model,
both vertically and horizontally, with the digital photo, creating a raw photo-simulation of the
digital model with its’ known background environment.
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 66
Rendering / Materialization
Once the model and photo alignment has been verified, and the VP information has been stored
into the digital environment, the project model is then exported for final rendering and surfacing
of all exterior materials. The rendering process takes into account the time of day as well as
actual month/day of year in order to properly cast identical shadows to those in the digital
photograph.
Final Compositions / Simulations
Upon completion of the final renderings process, the fully rendered image is merged with the
original high-resolution digital photo to create a composite visual simulation (VS). Final digital
editing is employed to remove and/or mask any objects in the foreground and/or background
that would not be seen after project completion, as well as include any new site features, such
as proposed landscaping, walls, walkways, etc, in order to accurately portray the finished
project from the desired viewpoint.
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 67
$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 68
view from 2ndfloor hotel rooms...$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 69
view from upper hotel rooms…$WWDFKPHQW
ARC2 - 70
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # 143-13
1. Project Title:
the MONTEREY
A 102-room hotel with on-site parking, including Architectural Review, Use Permit for
development of site with Special Considerations, and Tentative Lot Line Adjustment Map; City
File A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
805-781-7176
Prepared By:
Jaime Hill, Contract Senior Planner (PMC)
4. Project Location:
1845 Monterey Street (APN 001-152-012) & 1865 Monterey Street (001-152-012)
5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
1865 Monterey Street Investors
2105 Coast Village Road
Montecito, CA 93108
Project Representative Name and Address:
Garcia Architecture + Design
1308 Monterey Street, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ARC2 - 71
2
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning:
Tourist-Commercial with Special Considerations Overlay (C-T-S)
Conservation Open Space 5 acre minimum (C/OS-5)
8. Description of the Project:
The project proposes the following:
1. Demolition of an existing single-family home;
2. Construction of a 102 room hotel with managers quarters and amenities, in four-stories
above podium parking;
3. Development of 141 covered and uncovered vehicle parking spaces, motorcycle and
bicycle parking to serve the proposed hotel and existing adjacent restaurant;
4. Shared use parking reduction of 10%;
5. Lot Line adjustment of existing parcel line that transects the site; and
6. Use Permit to allow development of a site with Special Considerations (Ordinance 1130
(1989 Series))
The proposed project is a 102 room hotel and associated amenities including parking, guest
lounge, meeting space, fitness center, roof-top terrace and managers unit. The proposed structure
includes 4-stories plus a basement level, encompassing a total square footage of 115,897 square
feet. The 141 vehicle parking spaces are provided in a basement level and the rear portion of the
ground level. The proposed site improvements are located in the C-T-S zoned portion of the site,
with a portion of the existing uncovered parking within 20-feet of the C/OS-5 zone at the eastern
extent of the site being retained. Both the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and total Lot Coverage are
consistent with the standards of the C-T zone; FAR = 1.85 (115,897 sf gfa/62,535 sf within the
C-T-S portion of the site is less than the 2.5 allowed, and; Coverage of 54% (34,047 sf of the
62,535 sf of C-T-S designated land) less than the 75% allowed.
The main building entrance fronts Monterey Street with a porte cochere drop off area,
landscaping and hotel lobby. Other common hotel amenities, such as the guest lounge and
terraces on the various levels also front Monterey Street. The creek-facing eastern façade is
dominated by guest rooms and balconies.
9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
The redevelopment project will encompass two adjacent parcels that total approximately 84,278
square feet (1.93 acres). The parcels slope substantially from Monterey Street southeast towards
San Luis Creek, which runs along the rear property line. The site at 1845 Monterey is developed
with a Potentially Contributing Tudor Revival house built in 1922. The house was converted to
an office in 1977. The most recent commercial tenant was the Church of Religious Science. It
appears to be used currently as a student rental. The site at 1865 Monterey is developed with a
commercial building constructed in 1974. The building has served as a restaurant for more than
30 years. The majority of the site is designated Commercial in the General Plan, and zoned
ARC2 - 72
3
Tourist Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay (C-T-S). The eastern portion of the
site is designated Conservation Open Space with a 5-acre minimum (C/OS-5), and is subject to
the design criteria of Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series).
Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows:
West (across Monterey Street):Developed with hotel uses (Holiday Inn Express, zoned C-T.
North:Developed with hotel uses (Best Western), zoned C-T-S.
East (across San Luis Creek, fronting San Luis Drive): developed with single-family
residences, zoned R-1.
South: Developed with hotel uses (Travelodge), zoned C-T-S.
See Attachment 1, Vicinity Map.
In 2011 a tentative parcel map creating four lots and a creek setback exception were approved
(A/MS/ER 34-11). A final map was not recorded and those approvals have since expired.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Use Permit: Use Permit approval is required to allow development of a site with Special
Considerations with a shared parking reduction. Architectural Review: Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) approval is required for the site layout and building design.
Lot Line Adjustment: Tentative Lot Line Adjustment Map has been submitted as part of this
entitlement application. The County assigned lot line adjustment map number is SLOAL 14-
006. The Community Development Director will take action on this request.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD)
Central Coast Water Quality Control Board (CCWQCB)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the Department of Fish and Game)
ARC2 - 73
4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
X Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation
X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic
X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems
X Geology / Soils Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
ARC2 - 74
5
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
For: Derek Johnson
Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director Community Development Director
ARC2 - 75
6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4.“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
ARC2 - 76
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1,5,
25
--X--
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space,and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
5, 11 --X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11,
31,32
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
10,11,
18, 31
--X--
Evaluation
a) The proposed project is in an urbanized section of the City on a site that has generally flat topography, sloping gradually
toward San Luis Creek along the property’s’eastern edge, where the site is designated Conservation Open Space, 5 acre
minimum (C/OS-5). The project conforms to the setbacks established for this site by Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series),
including a 20-foot setback for new construction and height limits of 25-feet within 50-feet of the C/OS boundary and 45-feet
beyond the 50-foot demarcation. Scenic vistas include natural features such as topography, watercourses, rock outcrops,
natural vegetation, and man-made alterations to the landscape. The project site does not contain unique visual features that
would distinguish the site from surrounding areas, nor is it located within a designated scenic vista. The proposed project
would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas, as there would be no change to existing conditions regarding
scenic vistas or scenic resources. The proposed project does not include any components that would change the overall
character of the project site, block significant views from or in the vicinity of the project site, or change the nature of scenic
resources.
b) Located approximately 1 mile to the east, Highway 101 is the closest state-designated scenic highway to the project site.
The project site is not visible from the highway or on/off ramps. There are no state scenic highways in the project area from
which the project is visible. There would be no impact.
c)Visual resources in the vicinity of the site include views of City owned or City protected open space and San Luis Creek.
The applicant proposes development of a multi-story hotel and parking structure on the C-T portion of the site. In addition to
standards found in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) and the Community Design Guidelines,
Ordinance 1130 (1989) was adopted to apply the Special Considerations (“S-Overlay”) to the site to address land use
compatibility concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential land uses
adjacent to San Luis Creek. The proposed project is consistent with the creek setback and height standards established by
Ordinance, and as demonstrated by the Visual Simulations will not obstruct views of High School Hill. The project will be
reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, which routinely evaluates projects for consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines.
d) The project is located in an already urbanized area with light sources from neighboring commercial and residential uses as
well as light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. The proposed project will not create a new source of
substantial light or glare or affect nighttime views in the area since the project will be required to conform to the City’s Night
Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) which sets operational standards and requirements for
lighting installations, including requiring all light sources to be shielded and downward facing.
The proposed project includes a solid composite wood guardrail and headlight wall to screen vehicle headlights in the above-
grade podium level of parking. A mitigation measure (AES 1)has been recommended that the existing surface parking that
will remain within the C/OS setback also be screened with a combination of vegetation and fencing as necessary. The
proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or gla re or affect nighttime views in the area.
Mitigation Measure AES 1: A combination of vegetation and fencing shall be utilized as required to effectively screen
headlights facing eastward towards San Luis Creek from the uncovered parking area that will be retained and improved.
Conclusion:With recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
ARC2 - 77
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1, 20
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 12,
13 --X--
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
18
--X--
Evaluation
a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use.
b) The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for
Commercial uses in the General Plan and is zoned C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with Special Considerations Overlay).The
project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site
agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion:No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
9, 21,
36
--X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?--X--
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
--X--
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?--X--
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of
contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient
air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are
described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas
that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. San Luis Obispo is currently designated as
nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state
standards for PM10.
CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. In April 2012 the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution
ARC2 - 78
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9
Control District (SLO APCD) adopted The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County. The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document identifying thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are
subject to CEQA, and is designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from
motor vehicle use. These thresholds of significance were designed to establish the level at which the SLO APCD believed air
pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may
result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The CEQA Air Quality
Handbook is provided by the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District for the purpose of assistin g lead
agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development. Under
CEQA, the SLO County APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to
cause adverse impacts to air quality.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions
from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air
quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain natu rally occurring asbestos. The
SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities. A mitigation measure (AQ 1)has been recommended that all requirements outlined in the Asbestos
ATCM be complied with.
The project will include extensive grading and demolition, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in
underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition of this kind of underground
equipment can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and
disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions,
including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M
–asbestos NESHAP). A mitigation measure (AQ 2)has been recommended for compliance with all regulatory
requirements pertaining to the disturbance, removal or relocation of utility pipelines.
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close
proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors a mitigation
measure (AQ 3)has been recommended to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20%
opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402).
Construction equipment itself can be the source of emissions, and may be subject to California Air Resources Board or
APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other equipment listed in
the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4 -4. Truck trips associated with the 10,800 CY of soils that
will be exported from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to APCD permitting requirements, subject to specific
truck routing selected.The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the following web
sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.Amitigation
measure (AQ 4)has been recommended to ensure proper use of subject equipment. Additionally, because the project is in
close proximity to nearby sensitive receptors, an additional mitigation measure (AQ 5)is recommended to ensure that
public health benefits are realized by reducing toxic risk from diesel emissions.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
Although Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that a hotel with 102 rooms exceeds the threshold of
significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (maximum size for exemption stated as 85-rooms),
running the more accurate CalEEMod computer model identifies that the operational phase impacts will likely be less than
ARC2 - 79
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
the APCD’s thresholds in Table 3-2 of the CEQA Handbook. The CalEEMod computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle
travel, fuel use, and the resulting emissions related to the project’s land uses. The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG)
and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 126
rooms). Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this project.
Mitigation Measure AQ1:Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic
evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption
request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must
comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Mitigation Measure AQ2:Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with
the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781 -5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited
to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey
conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3:During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following
particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering,modify
practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and
from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased
watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities
during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-
control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown
with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction
site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers
shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the
APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
ARC2 - 80
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
Mitigation Measure AQ 4:Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by
contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5:To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct
the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of
more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California
based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location,except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any
ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for gr eater than 5.0 minutes at
any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of
the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s
5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel
idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and
number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
e) The project includes the development of a hotel and associated amenities, as anticipated in the Tourist-Commercial zone,
and therefore would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to produce objectionable odors in the
area.
Conclusion:With recommended construction mitigation measures, t he project will have a less than significant impact on air
quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,18,
26, 31
--X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
--X--
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
--X--
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native --X--
ARC2 - 81
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
--X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
--X--
Evaluation
(a-d) The proposed project complies with required setbacks from the creek bank and C/OS portion of the site. South-Central
California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) are known to occur in San Luis Obispo
Creek in the vicinity of the area of impact and have been documented upstream of the project site. The City’s Natural
Resources Manager has visited the site and confirmed that no riparian or otherwise biologically sensitive habitat or wetlands
or wildlife corridors are associated with the portion of the site impacted by the proposed project. However, due to the
proximity of development to the creek channel and downward slope of t he site, there is the potential for construction-related
impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation which could enter the natural area. A mitigation measure (BIO 1)has
been recommended to ensure that proper erosion control measures for work in and around the riparian corridor are utilized
under a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP).
San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the site, and is subject to protective standards adopted with Ordinance 1130
(1989 Series) for the C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones at this location. On its western bank (on the project site) the creek channel is
vegetated by a mixture of native and non-native trees and groundcovers. All structures and other improvements are above the
established top of bank. Residential properties across the creek to the east encroach to the top of bank or overhang the creek
channel with decorative landscaping and decking. Despite these encroachments, the creek has retained its value as a
significant biological corridor. Its condition could be enhanced with the proposed project development if a robust restoration
and enhancement plan is implemented, as required by Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series), No. 3 . The City’s Natural Resources
Manager has reviewed the project plans and has recommended mitigation measures (BIO 2)requiring a planting plan which
would retain existing native vegetation along the banks and channel and replacement of non-native plantings with appropriate
trees, shrubs and groundcover to enrich the creek habitat by providing additional shade cover and food sources for South-
Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) and a more diverse, complex tree
canopy that will be attractive to various bird species.
It is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and the
project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
(e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. A tributary of Acacia
Creek runs through the site. Multiple small native and non -native trees would be removed, the largest being a 10-inch Coast
Live Oak along the southern property line. The majority of the trees to be removed are small non-natives, such as California
Peppers, Monterey Cypress. And Sweet Gums. The largest trees in the area of development include a 28 -inch diameter
Norfolk Island Pine, a 28-inch diameter California Pepper, and a multi-trunk California Pepper, which would be protected in-
place. Both the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager have reviewed the removals and concurred that the proposed
landscape plan, including both landscape trees and trees within the creek restoration area, provide adequate mitigation.
As required by Ordinance 1130 (1989 series), No. 11, as a condition of approval of any new use on the site, that portion of
the property which lies within the C/OS-5 zone is required to be dedicated as a perpetual open space easement. A mitigation
measure (BIO 3)has been recommended to ensure this dedication occurs with other entitlements.
Mitigation Measure BIO 1:The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion
control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill
ARC2 - 82
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction.
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the
drainage/creek system.
Mitigation Measure BIO 2:Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and
enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Mitigation Measure BIO 3:That portion of the site which lies within the C/OS-5 zone shall be dedicated as a perpetual
biological open space easement.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on biological
resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
5,
24,25,
27, 28
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
23,
25, 27 --X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
5, 27 --X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
5, 25,
27 --X--
Evaluation
a) The home located at 1845 Monterey and scheduled for demolition with the proposed project was constructed in the early
1920’s and is considered a Potential Contributing Property by the City of San Luis Obispo.A Historic Architectural Survey
Report was prepared for the site which concluded that the home does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places,does not appear to be an historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, and does not appear to
warrant City of San Luis Obispo Master List status.
Built in approximately 1922 for Dr. Loveall, a dentist, the home is a single story residence in a simple Tudor style. There is
no architect of record; the contractor was C.E. Follett. The property, although charming, lacks sufficient architectural
distinction, is not the work of a master, and there is no indication of any association with important events or individuals.
There are other, better, examples of the Tudor style in the City of San Luis Obispo.
b-d) The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained
resource maps. Because the site is within an archaeologically sensitive area (adjacent to San Luis Creek), an Archeological
Resource Inventory of 1845 and 1865 Monterey Street was prepared to determine the presence or likelihood of
archaeological historical resources. The surface survey resulted in no evidence of prehistoric or histo ric archaeological
materials. However, the presence of the existing structure dating from the early 1920s, and evidence of potential historic
material underneath an existing structure and parking area signifies a greater probability that buried historic features may be
impacted during any ground disturbing activities. Additionally, there is the limited potential that materials (including but not
limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, and human burials) could be encountered given the proximity to the
creek.Two mitigation measures (CULT 1 and CULT 2)have been recommended to ensure that any materials discovered
during construction activities be appropriately handled.
Mitigation Measure CULT 1:A qualified archaeologist shall be present during any demolition or ground disturbing
activities in the project area.
Mitigation Measure CULT 2:In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are encountered during
ARC2 - 83
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
excavation (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, historic features, and human burials), work
shall cease until a qualified archaeologist makes determinations on possible significance, recommends appropriate measures
to minimize impacts, and provides information on how to proceed in light of the discoveries. All specialist recommendations
shall be communicated to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department prior to resuming work to
ensure the project continues within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San Luis Obispo and the State of
California.
Conclusion:With recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural
resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4,10,
29, 30
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking?--X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?--X--
IV. Landslides?--X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?--X--
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
--X--
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
--X--
Evaluation
a, c, d) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive
folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the
pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos
Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because portions of this
fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are
considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, th e
Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately
12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seis mic
Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the
California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
ARC2 - 84
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15
earthquake.
The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for
most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require
proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to
resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
Both a Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study and Structural Feasibility Analysis were prepared, which include
preliminary conclusions and recommendations related to the development of the property, from a geotechnical and structural
standpoint. These analyses conclude that the proposed project, while challenging in its scope and size, is structur ally feasible,
and that the site seems well-suited for a project of this type. The most notable challenge identified will be the construction of
the basement level parking and the corresponding foundation system(s), and ensuring that existing structures on adjacent
properties are protected from ground movement or damage through proper shoring and/or underpinning. For much of the site
there is a shallow bedrock layer which will constitute excellent bearing material, but where the depth of the bedrock
increases,drilled concrete caissons may be required. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final geotechnical engineering
investigation and comprehensive design-level report will be required. A mitigation measure (GEO 1)has been
recommended that the analysis recommended in the Preliminary Report be developed. The Building Division of the
Community Development Department routinely reviews project plans and special engineering evaluations for compliance
with Building Code and the recommendations of the soils engineering reports.
b) This is a previously developed infill site, located in an urbanized area of the City.As required by Ordinance 1130 (1989
Series), No. 3, a creek side vegetation restoration and enhancement plan, which also provides for landscape scr eening, is
required to be developed for the area between the proposed structure and the creek corridor (BIO MM 3).The planting plan
will be specifically designed to enhance the biology of the riparian channel, provide visual screening, and to prevent further
erosion. The project will not result in loss of topsoil.
e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems
are not proposed and will not be used on the site.
Mitigation Measure GEO 1:A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design-
level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific
areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The
report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall
design parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and
any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer.
Conclusion:With recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on geologic and soil
resources.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1,13,
14,21
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
X
Evaluation
a,b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California’s’Assembly Bill
32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S -3-05
(June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will result in
infill development, located in close proximity to transit, services and employment centers. City policies recognize that
compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in significant
energy savings, which result in emissions reductions.
ARC2 - 85
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16
SLOAPCD states that GHGs (CO2 and CH4) from all projects subject to CEQA must be quantified and mitigated to the extent
feasible. The California Office of Planning and Research has provided the following direction for the assessment and
mitigation of GHG emissions:
Lead agencies should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the
amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic,
energy consumption, water usage and construction activities;
The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not
dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful evaluation. All available
information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either
individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts); and,
The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than
significant level. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic,
technological, or other reasons. A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a
project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less than significant.”
The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO 2eq emissions; see Air
Quality discussion is Section 3 (above) for discussion. The remaining project CO2eq emissions are primarily from building
heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electrical demands. Utilizing
the LEED 2009 Project Checklist for New Construction and Major Renovations, the project proponent identified qualifying
project features totaling 51 points, which would qualify the project as LEED Silver.
Short term GHG emissions from construction activities consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. Mitigation
Measures AQ 3 and AQ 4 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those impacts to
below a level of significance. In San Luis Obispo there are several active programs for reducing vehicle trips both for those
traveling to the area and during their stay that are available to hotel guests during the operational phase of the project. Among
these is SLO Car Free, which is managed by the APCD to encourage car-free transportation to and around San Luis Obispo
County. The City’s Bus system and Downtown Trolley also serves this area of Monterey Street, providing efficient transit to
the downtown core city-services.
Additional long-term emissions associated with the project relate indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage for
lighting.State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are routinely enforced with new construction. So although
Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that a hotel with 102 rooms exceeds the threshold of significance for
the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (maximum size for exemption stated as 85-rooms), running the more
accurate CalEEMod computer model identifies that the operational phase impacts will likely be less than the APCD’s
thresholds in Table 3-2 of the CEQA Handbook. The CalEEMod computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle travel, fuel
use, and the resulting emissions related to the project’s land uses. The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxide s
of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 126 rooms).
Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this project.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
31
--X--
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
--X--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
12
--X----X--
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 35 --X--
ARC2 - 86
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
12
--X--
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
12
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4, 19
--X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
4, 19
--X--
Evaluation
a)Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance”refers to both hazardous
materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness,
and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of
substances that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may
pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use,
such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disposed
of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous
materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria.
Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are or would be used. It is necessary to differentiate between
the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard i s
any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety
is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material.
Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose the
person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical
enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility.
The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport,
use,or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable
building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and
occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and
diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition
to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials, assuming such use complies with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not
limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code.
With respect to operation of the project, hotel facilities do not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials,and only a
minimal amount of routine “household”chemicals would be stored on-site. These materials would not create a significant
hazard to the public or to the environment.
b) As discussed in Impacts a and c, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or
emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment.
ARC2 - 87
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18
Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated with the
potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of the proposed project or by transporters picking up or
delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These regulations establish standards by which hazardous materials would
be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California
Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of regulations.
The project also includes demolition of the existing house, which, given the age of the structure, could contain asbestos and
lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction
before being banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to
discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be found in a variety of building materials and components including
sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation, wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is
classified into two main categories: friable and non-friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed
and is considered Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly
hazardous because inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which potentially causes
lung cancer and asbestosis. Non-friable asbestos will release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I or
Category II, non-friable. Non-friable asbestos and encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks. The
California Occupational Safety and Health Administratio n (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos-containing building materials
(ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be
handled by a licensed, qualified contractor.
Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead-based paint.
In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per million
[ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06
percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are
particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing systems and
organs.
Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state-certified risk assessor conduct a risk
assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the presence of asbestos. If such hazards are
determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal
methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the project
sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified ACBM removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor) to conduct
the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be
disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the risk
assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing and abatement
have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead-based paint. These include
Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead -based paint abatement must be performed and
monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Compliance with
existing regulation would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be less than significant.
c) The proposed project is a hotel with parki ng and associated amenities, and is within a quarter mile of San Luis High,
located at the intersection of San Luis Drive and California Blvd. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project is a
hotel use that would not result in the routine transpo rt, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that
would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing school.
d) The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 2000 Monterey Street, at the Chevron Service Station,
approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. That site is listed on the Cortese State Water Resources Control
Board GEOTRACKER database due to the presence of permitted underground storage tanks.Therefore, the proposed project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing hazardous materials site.
ARC2 - 88
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstrip.
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area.
g)The project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans.
Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan are considered less than significant.
h)The project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo and is not located within a wildland hazard area. The
surrounding land is developed with urban and residential uses, and is set back from the creek corridor as required by the
Conservation and Open Space Element and Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series). The proposed project will have no impact on the
placement of people or structures next to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
g), h) The project site is an infill site and plans have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who determined that as designed the
project will not conflict with any emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The site is not directly adjacent to any
wildlands.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
16,17,
31, 34
--X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
--X--
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
--X--
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
--X--
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
--X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?--X--
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
--X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?--X--
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
--X--
j) 4 11,
12, 30 --X--
Evaluation
a, f) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is
subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post
ARC2 - 89
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20
Construction Requirements for storm water control. Under these standards, the projects where Impervious Area ≥22,000 SF
and in Watershed Management Zone 1 shall meet Post Construction Requirements 1 –4 as follows: 1) Site Design and
Runoff Reduction,2) Water Quality Treatment, 3) Runoff Retention, and 4) Peak Management.For the SLO City/WWMP
drainage criteria to be accommodated, Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulations require the analysis to verify that
there will be:1) No change in the 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 & 2 year peak flow runoff exiting the property, 2) Use of Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) to minimize potential release of sediments and clarify storm flows in minor storm events to
reduce pollutants moving downstream into San Luis Creek, and 3) City Standard Criteria for Source Control of Drainage and
Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 1010,“Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to
implement operation or source control measures consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality
For the proposed project, the development will construct a detention basin meeting San Luis Creek Water Way Management
Plan (WWMP) Drainage Design Manual standards with a sub-surface Rainstore3 Pond System, vegetated areas, and pervious
paved areas to control the required 95 percentile storm volume. Working with best management practices to deliver relatively
clean storm runoff to the detention pond, the plan proposes to detain the peak developed runoff coming from the new
improvements. This concept will in turn meet the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) Drainage Design Manual
standards to maintain pre-developed flow conditions for the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 & 100 year storm events.
b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources.
c, d, e, i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the
City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan and LID stormwater treatment requires that site development be
designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. As a Tier 3 project
development is required to implement a minimum of two LID measures for stormwater treatment to filter runoff from the
developed site through structural BMP’s for low flow storm events. The design provides three LID measures, including 1)
Down-spout connection on roof downspouts where appropriate, with roof drains discharging into planters or other landscaped
areas, 2) Permeable paving system located within existing paved parking area adjacent to the 20 -foot C/OS-5 setback line,
and 3) Rainwater harvesting with the Rainstore Stormwater System, which includes detention/retention ponding to slow
flows and encourage infiltration into a well-draining soil backfill.The volumetric BMP’s are designed to meet the Ne w
Central Coast Regional Water Board, CCRWB PCR’s affective March 6, 2014, and adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo,
which are for on-site Runoff Retention as specified in R3-2013-0032 Post Construction Storm Water Requirements, B.4.a
and B.4.c.i.1) & 2). The 1.93 Acre site is within Water Management Zone, WMZ 1. The site consists of 0.93 acres of
proposed impervious surface, 0.14 acres of pervious surfacing and landscape. This projects’ runoff retention requirement is t o
provide storage for the 95th Percentile 24-hour Rainfall depth equal to 2.08 inches, as taken from an isopoluvial map
developed by the State Water Board for the site area.
The applicant proposes to store and release the sites’increased storm water runoff in a subsurface detention/retention system.
The re-vegetated creek corridor will also act as a vegetated bioswale, which will further decrease runoff and siltation
compared to the current degraded configuration. Bio -swales will be used where possible to direct runoff into the sites
subsurface system,which complies with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) Tier 3 standards for stormwater runoff.
The project will comply with City Engineering Standard 1010.B for water quality treatment of stormwater runoff from
expanded street paving; requiring the treatment for storm events.This project is considered a Tier 3 Low Impact
Development project as stated in the City of San Luis Obispo’s Stormwater Control Plan guidelines and application. As a
Tier 3 LID project the site is required to implement at least two (2) LID measures for reducing on-site stormwater runoff. The
development is incorporating the following structural water quality best management/volumetric practices:1) Pervious paver
driveway and parking spaces, 2) Sub -surface bio-retention pond, 3) Infiltration planters (north side of lobby), 4) Down-spout
disconnection, and 5) Stormwater detention pond.
The Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan and Basis Analysis prepared by Wallace Group, April 2014,concludes the
project’s water flows increase minimally from preconstruction to post-construction, and complies with the City’s Waterways
Management Plan, LID storm water treatment requirements, and Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. Compliance
with the Waterways Management Plan is sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the areas
of water quality and hydrology. The Public Works Department has determined that the proposed improvements identified in
the Wallace Analysis are sufficient to avoid drainage impacts, such as flooding, on-site or downstream.
ARC2 - 90
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21
g), h) San Luis Creek crosses through the eastern portion of the project site. That portion of the site that is within the
boundaries of the area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map is within the C/OS-5 portion of the site, and is not proposed for new development. The project will
not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters. Compliance with the standards detailed above will be sufficient to ensure that
the proposed project does not endanger structures on this and other adjoin ing sites.
j) The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not
generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow .
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?1, 10 --X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 9,
26, 31
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
5, 12 --X--
Evaluation
a)The proposed infill development project is designed to fit among existing visitor-serving development and will not
physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plans.
b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with City General Plan Designation and zoning
for the project site, regulations and development standards.
Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series), which establishes specific development standards for the site, was adopted to ensure
compatibility with adjacent residential uses to the east. Consistency with these standards will be determined through a public
hearing processes required for approval of the Use Permit, as required of sites with Special Considerations overlays.
c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the
proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5
--X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
--X--
Evaluation
a, b)No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site.
Conclusion:No impact
ARC2 - 91
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
22
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 9,
10, 31 --X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?--X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
27
--X--
12
--X--
Evaluation
a) The Noise Guidebook includes distances from the center line of roads to noise contours on sites along roadways with
heavier traffic volumes. The table indicates that existing noise levels at the site are below 60 decibels (dB) Ldn. With build-
out of the City noise levels will increase to about 60 at the most westerly portion of the project site. The Guidebook indicates
that these estimates should be taken as worst case estimates and do not take into account shielding by buildings or landforms
which can reduce noise exposure up to 14 dB. Like residences, hotels are designated as noise sensitive by the Noise Element.
The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas.
Exterior noise levels will be less than 60 dB when attenuation afforded by building features and elevation is taken into
account. Interior noise levels of less than 45dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction
techniques.
b) Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project would be hotel uses, which would not involve the
use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Increases in
groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-
related activities. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of equipment, such as forklifts,
concrete mixers, and haul trucks.Because construction activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed
by City ordinance, impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant.
c) As discussed above, long-term operation of the project involves hotel use, which is consistent with existing uses in the
project vicinity. Hotel uses would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment.Operation of the project
would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the project site and would not result in substantial changes to the
existing noise environment. Other noise sensitive uses in the vicinity include other hotels to the south, and residential uses to
the east, across San Luis Creek. These uses will be shielded from any noise generated by hotel uses by distance and by the
structure itself.
d) Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term construction of the proposed hotel. Noise levels during
construction would be higher than existing noise levels, but only for the duration of construction. Although there would be
intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, noise impacts would be less than significant
because the construction would be short term and restricted to the hours and noise levels allowed by City ordinance.
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or private
airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose individuals to excessive noise levels associated with
ARC2 - 92
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
23
aircraft operations.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 31 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
--X--
--X--
Evaluation:
a)The proposed project includes construction of a visitor-serving hotel, which would not directly add to the population of the
city. The new employment generated by the project would not be considered substantial. Considering the project area is
currently developed, and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location,the project would
not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. No upgrades to the existing infrastructure would be
required to serve the project. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further
growth.
b) There is an existing single family residence on the project site that would be demolished as part of the project. The house
has been used as both an office and a rental property in recent years. Removal of one home is not considered a substantial
loss of housing which would necessitate construction of a replacement unit.
c)There is a single existing house on the project site, which as noted above, has been used alternatively as an office or rental
unit. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?10, 19 --X--
b) Police protection?--X--
c) Schools?--X--
d) Parks?--X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?--X--
f) Other public facilities?--X--
Evaluation
a) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed
project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services
over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already
served by the City for fire protection. The project would not substantially alter the number of housing units or population in
the city and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve the site. There would be no physical
impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities and impacts related to fire protection would be less than
significant.
b) The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The
redevelopment of the site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities
would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and
ARC2 - 93
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
24
impacts related to police protection would be less than significant.
c) Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the SLOCUSD. These fees would be
directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities.
Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the
proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
As the proposed hotel is a visitor-serving use, no new students are anticipated to be associated with this development.
d)Because the proposed project is visitor serving, it would result in a very minor increase in the number of people utilizing
park facilities relative to the city’s existing population, and significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and
recreation-oriented public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a less
than significant impact on parks.
e)As noted above, because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses and would result in a relatively minor increase in
users relative to the city’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of transportation
infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
10, 31
--X--
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
--X--
Evaluation:
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given that the
project is visitor-serving, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with redevelopment of the site. Park Land
In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space, maintenance or equipment in the
vicinity, per existing City policy. Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new proj ects on the City’s recreational
facilities.
b) The project includes several small areas for guests to congregate within the structure, including a bar lounge, dining area,
fitness room, and meeting space. Because of its central location, guests of the hotel will have convenient access to
recreational activities in the city, and to points of interest accessed from Highway 101.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
2,12,
18,31
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
--X--
ARC2 - 94
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
12
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
31
--X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?31 --X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2,31
--X--
Evaluation
a), b)Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 101, located northeast of the project site. Local access to the
project site is provided by Monterey Street and Grand Avenue. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity have curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, and on-street parking.The project does not conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does
not significantly add to demand on the circulation system or conflict with any congestion management programs or any other
agency’s plans for congestion management. The project will generate approximately 820 new vehicle trips on the adjacent
street system with approximately 53 AM trips and 60 PM trips occurring. No new trips are anticipated from the restaurant use
since it is and existing use.
Units ITE Code
ADT Rate ADT AM Rate AM Trips PM Rate PM Trips
Existing
Residence 1 210 9.52 -9.52 0.75 -0.75 1 -1
Hotel 102 310 8.17 833.34 0.53 54.06 0.6 61.2
Restaurant No Change
Net Trips: 823.82 53.31 60.2
These vehicular trips will be added to local and area streets. While existing streets have sufficient capacity to accommodate
the added vehicular traffic without reducing existing levels of service the project location and employee mix make it a prime
candidate to take advantage of public transportation services located along Monterey street. Participation in an employee and
patron transit pass program to help further reduce individual vehicle trips to and from the site location will be included as
recommended conditions of approval to the Architectural Review Commission.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with regard to increased vehicular trips and does not conflict
with performance standards provided in City adopted plans or policies. The project will also contribute to overall impact
mitigation for transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program.
c) The project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air traffic
patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan.
d) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, including Monterey Street. The project would improve
the sidewalk along the Monterey Street frontage, but would not significantly alter the existing travel flow of vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians. The project driveways would be consistent with City code requirements for ingress/egress to safely
and adequately serve both the existing restaurant and new hotel project. Because the project is a similar use to those in the
immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses.
e) The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. As
proposed, the project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians or substantially increase
traffic on local streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access.
ARC2 - 95
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
26
f) The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to the site’s location within the City’s
urban center, and its proximity to shopping, parks and services. Monterey Street is served by RTA, the regional transit agency
as well as the City’s Trolley which operates Thursday nights from 5-9 PM and on Friday and Saturday nights during summer.
SLO City bus lines for Route 5 and 6B are located within walking distance (Grand/Monterey) that allows public
transportation services to the Downtown and Cal Poly campus. City standards require provision of on-site bicycle storage
(six long-term and one short-term bicycle parking spaces). The proposed project includes a short term bicycle rack near the
entrance and long term bicycle lockers in the subterranean parking level that meets code requirements.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
7,17,
34
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
--X--
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
--X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
--X--
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
8, 33 --X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
--X--
Evaluation
a), b), c), e) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water,
wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service,
which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project
site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities
which could have significant environmental effects. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewat er to the nearest public sewer.The on-
site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code and City
standards.Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City’s Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF). The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of the project.
d) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as anticipated by the General
Plan. Per the General Plan Water/Wastewater Element and the 2012 Water Resource Status Report, the City has sufficient
water supplies for build-out of the City’s General Plan. The incremental change is not considered to be significant. This
project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
f), g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access and access to
ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. San Luis
Garbage has reviewed the location and size of enclosures behind the restaurant building and determined that they are
ARC2 - 96
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
27
sufficient in size to handle both the restaurant and hotel garbage and recycling.
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly
2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and
public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in
California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream
generated by this project, consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste
reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3),and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at
http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/binstandards08.pdf) recycling facilities have been accommodated on the project
site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the
building permit application. The incremental additional waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create
significant impacts to solid waste disposal.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
--X--
The project is an infill residential development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have the
potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential
impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, and geology and soils will be less than significant with
incorporation of recommended mitigation measures.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
--X--
The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although
incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts that
could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this
Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics (AES 1-2), air quality (AQ 1-5), biological resources (BIO 1-3),
cultural resources (CULT 1-2), and geology and soils (GEO 1).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study.
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used.Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
ARC2 - 97
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
28
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, June 2010
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, April 2006
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, April 2010
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
9. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
10. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
11. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
12. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
13. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations August 2012
14. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
15. 2010 California Building Code
16. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
17. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department
18. Site Visit
19. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge
20. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
21. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
22. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
23. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
24. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
25. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
26. Ordinance No.1130 (1989 Series)
27. Archeological Resource Inventory, CRMS, April 2014
28. Historic Architectural Survey Report, Robert C. Pavlik, April 2012
29. Structural Feasibility, Ashley & Vance, April 3, 2014
30. Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Earth Systems Pacific, April 2, 2014
31. Project Plans
32. Visual Simulations, Garcia Architecture + Design, April 24, 2014
33. Applicant project statement/description
34. Stormwater Control Plan and Basis Analysis, Wallace Group, April 9, 2014
35. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List:
http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm
36. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Referral Comments, July 2014
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Plans
ARC2 - 98
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
29
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure AES 1: A combination of vegetation and fencing shall be utilized as required to
effectively screen headlights facing eastward towards San Luis Creek from the uncovered parking area
that will be retained and improved.
¾ Monitoring Plan, AES 1: The Architectural Review Commission shall review the preliminary
planting and fencing plan and provide direction to the applicant. Final plans shall be reviewed
Community Development Planning staff and the City’s Natural Resources Manager as part of the
Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for consistency
with City standards prior to department sign off and issuance of permits.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the
Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not
exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan
and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
¾ Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2:Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall
be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with
NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days
of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
¾ Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
ARC2 - 99
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
30
Mitigation Measure AQ 3:During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading
and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust
control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties
shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3
minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25
m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing
activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at
the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall
be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork
or demolition.
ARC2 - 100
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
31
¾ Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and
to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall
include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 4:Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD
permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific
information regarding permitting requirements.
¾ Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5:To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the
following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of
regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with
gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on
highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation
specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in
Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel
regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State
required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more
restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
ARC2 - 101
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
32
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix,
hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific
standards and conditions will apply.
¾ Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and
to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall
include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of
compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The project shall incorporate the following erosion control measures for
work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment shall enter flowing water.
b.Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian
corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d.All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be
cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times
during construction.
e. All spoils shall be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage
of sediment in to the drainage/creek system.
¾ Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed by
the City’s Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the City’s Natural
Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the
above mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure BIO 2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek
restoration and enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek
bank and replacement with appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
¾ Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: Final plans shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resources Manager as
part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications to the creek
restoration and enhancement plan as necessary to ensure that an appropriate mix of plantings, in
ARC2 - 102
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
33
type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized while working within the
creek corridor.
Mitigation Measure BIO 3: That portion of the site which lies within the C/OS-5 zone shall be
dedicated as a perpetual open space easement.
¾ Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: Prior to the issuance of Building Permits an open space easement, written
to the satisfaction of the City’s Natural Resources Manager, shall be recorded on title.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CULT 1: A qualified archaeologist shall be present during any demolition or
ground disturbing activities in the project area.
¾ Monitoring Plan, CULT 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans
and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site
for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CULT 2: In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are
encountered during excavation (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits,
historic features, and human burials), work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist makes
determinations on possible significance, recommends appropriate measures to minimize impacts, and
provides information on how to proceed in light of the discoveries. All specialist recommendations shall
be communicated to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department prior to
resuming work to ensure the project continues within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San
Luis Obispo and the State of California.
¾ Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans
and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site
for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Geology & Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO 1:A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a
comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project.
Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and
structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site
preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall design
parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on
retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer.
¾ Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical analysis as
part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits.
ARC2 - 103