The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-20-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Architectural Review Commission ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chamber City Hall - 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 20, 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. MINUTES: Minutes of October 6, 2014. Approve or amend. 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. 1.2885 S. Higuera Street.ARC 35-14; Review of exterior changes and additions to a warehouse building, including a determination that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act as an infill project (CEQA Guidelines §15332): The project includes conversion and expansion of an existing warehouse to a 35,285-square foot office building by the installation of a second floor within the building shell, and development of parking areas with 143 parking spaces; C-S-S zone; Mike Kyle, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) 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. 2.1845 Monterey Street.ARC 143-13; Continued 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) 3.467 Hill Street.ARC 140-14; Review of the remodel of and addition to an existing commercial building to accommodate a residential care facility, including a request for a Variance to allow a second-story sunroom above the ground floor of the existing building with a 2-foot street yard, and a fence height exception to allow up to a 10-foot tall combination retaining wall and fence, including a categorical exemption from CEQA (infill project); R-1 zone; Tim Ronda, applicant. (Pam Ricci) COMMENT & DISCUSSION 4.Staff a. Agenda Forecast 5.Commission ADJOURNMENT Presenting Planners: Walter Oetzell, Marcus Carloni, and Pam Ricci ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of remodel and expansion of an existing warehouse, converting it to a 35,285 square-foot office building, and development of associated parking areas. PROJECT ADDRESS:2885 South Higuera BY:Walter Oetzell Phone Number: 781-7593 E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER:ARC 35-14 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment #1), approving the application, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Mike Kyle Representative Hamrick Associates, Inc. Zoning Service Commercial (C-S) Special Consideration (S) General Plan Services and Manufacturing Site Area 130, 697 square feet (3 ac.) Environmental Status Categorically Exempt: Infill Development Projects (CEQA Guidelines §15332) SUMMARY Hamrick Associates, Inc., representing Mike Kyle, the applicant, has filed applications to modify an existing warehouse to convert it to an office building, and to develop parking areas for the building. A use permit establishing an Office use in this zone was granted October 3rd, 2014. Staff has reviewed the project for conformance to property development standards and Community Design Guidelines, as discussed in this report. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Commission’s role is to review the proposed project and evaluate the suitability and appropriateness of its design, using standards and policies of the City’s Zoning Regulations and Meeting Date: October 20, 2014 Item Number: 1 eer rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 80 ARC1 - 1 ARC 35-14 (2885 S Higuera) Page 2 Community Design Guidelines, to help achieve attractive, environmentally sensitive development. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting The site is located in the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone and Special Consideration (S) Zone on the east side of South Higuera Street between Madonna and Prado Roads, about 65 feet north of Fontana Avenue, a private road. It is about 3 acres in size, with 110 feet of frontage along South Higuera. It slopes gently upward in a northeasterly direction, increasing in steepness at the rear of the site. Little vegetation exists on the site, apart from a grouping of trees in the northeast corner of the lot, small shrubs along the site’s border with adjacent residences, and about a dozen mature trees at the front of the site, along the South Higuera Street frontage. No waterways or other significant topographical features are on the site. The site is developed with an industrial warehouse and accessory office space, together totaling about 19,000 square feet of floor area, and a concrete parking area at the south side of the building. Wine processing, storage, and tasting activities are conducted on the site, within the buildings and outdoors, under an administrative use permit (A 4-12). The easterly portion of the site is disturbed, but undeveloped. Site Dimensions (approx.) Area: 3 acres (130,700 sq ft) Width: varies between 110 and 315 feet Depth: varies between 488 and 542 feet Street Frontage: 110 feet Present Use & Development Warehouse building, used for wine processing, storage, and associated activities Topography Elevation: Min. 155 feet; Max. 243 ft. Slope: A gentle slope (10%) through the front ¾ of the site, becoming steeper (35%) over the rear ¼ of the site. Natural Features: trees (northeast corner), street trees, shrubs, and landscaping; no waterways or other significant topographical features. Access From South Higuera St Surrounding Use / Zoning North and East: Undeveloped (C-S); Open Space (C/OS-40) East and South: Villa Fontana: single-family dwellings (R-2-PD) South: Service Commercial (C-S) along South Higuera St West: Cemetery and mortuary (C-S-S) ARC1 - 2 ARC 35-14 (2885 S Higuera) Page 3 Nearby, to the south, are several light industrial properties within the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone, used predominantly for vehicle service businesses. To the west are the Wheeler-Smith Mortuary and the San Luis Cemetery. To the north is a large amount of open space. Adjacent to the site, on its southerly side, is Villa Fontana, a planned unit development consisting of 54 detached single-family homes. 2.2 Project Description The existing single-story warehouse building will be converted into two floors of office space by installation of a new floor within the building. The accessory office space at the southwest corner of the building will also be expanded. In total, the modified building will contain about 35,285 square feet of floor area. Parking areas will be developed at the south and east sides of the site, with 143 parking spaces. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the prospective tenant, intending to use the building for engineering offices to accommodate about 200 employees during normal weekday business hours. The concrete walls of the warehouse will remain. Windows will be added to three sides of the building, at the new upper-floor level. The south side will also get two new storefront windows along the lower-floor level. At-grade entries will be added to access the building: one to the lower floor at the south side of the building, and one to access the upper floor at the rear. At the southwest corner of the building, the existing accessory office will be expanded and remodeled, given a new entry at the rear, and integrated into the new office space. An existing stairway will be retained and an elevator will be installed at the front, to provide access up to the Figure 1: Perspective drawing, southwest corner ARC1 - 3 ARC 35-14 (2885 S Higuera) Page 4 building entries, which are elevated above the front portion of the site. New protective cable railings will be installed around the elevated section. 2.3 Project Statistics Proposed Standard or Requirement Yards Street > 45 ft. 15 ft. Other (South) > 70 ft. 5 ft.* Other (North) 3.5 ft. 0 ft.* Other (East) ± 300 ft. 20 ft.* Building Height 35 ft. 35 feet Building Coverage 17% (19,000 sq. ft.) 75% maximum Building Intensity 0.26 FAR 2.5 FAR maximum Parking Spaces 143 118 Bicycle 18 16 Motorcycle 6 6 * as provided in the zone of the adjacent lot 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.1 General Plan and Zoning Conformance The project site is located in an area designated in the General Plan for Services and Manufacturing land uses, and in the corresponding Service-Commercial (C-S) Zone. Offices having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services are identified in the General Plan as an appropriate land use in a Services and Manufacturing area, and are permitted by Zoning Regulations with a Director’s Use Permit. Additionally, a use permit is required to establish any use in a Special Considerations (S) Zone. A use permit establishing and allowing an “Office-Production and administrative” use at this site was granted on October 3, 2014 (Attachment 4). The permit was granted subject to several conditions addressing the compatibility of the office use with the adjacent residential development, and reduction of trips to and from the site to avoid impacts to the street system. A screening fence or wall is required at the site boundary near residences, augmented with plantings of ivy or other climbing plant where driveway width allows. A trip reduction plan must be prepared and maintained throughout operation of the office use. The existing warehouse, to be converted to offices, and the accessory offices, to be remodeled, are the only structures associated with this project. As summarized in the Project Statistics table above, the structures comply with the development standards applicable to the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone, as described in the Zoning Regulations. ARC1 - 4 ARC 35-14 (2885 S Higuera) Page 5 3.1 Site Plan The site is accessed from South Higuera Street by two driveways at either end of the site (north and south). An access drive along the southerly edge of the site leads up to a parking area at the side of the building. This existing access drive will be maintained, and will be extended to a new parking area to be developed in the rear portion of the site. General Design Principles The City’s Community Design Guidelines encourage careful consideration of site character and constraints. Changes to natural features are to be minimized, existing topography is to be preserved where possible, and excessive cuts or fills are to be avoided (CDG §2.1). More specifically, a development proposal should demonstrate consideration for the uses on neighboring properties, the privacy of neighboring properties, the existing natural features, and opportunities to preserve or enhance hillside views (CDG §3.1(C.1)). The main site constraints are the proximity to several residences at the site’s border with Villa Fontana, and the transition to hillside open space at the east end of the site. Grading At the east end of the site, significant grading will be undertaken to make room for the rear parking area, resulting in a cut slope ranging between 5 and 20 feet in height, with a maximum slope of 2:1. No retaining walls are proposed. Aesthetically, a lack of retaining walls minimizes the introduction of man-made elements into the landscape, but exposes the full extent of the slope cut, which itself is not a natural feature. To the extent that engineering practices allow, the slope should be treated in a manner that gives the most naturalistic appearance possible and avoids a uniform, engineered appearance. This may include seeding to encourage regrowth of vegetation, where appropriate. Alternatively, the sparing use of retaining walls may be desirable if additional landscaped area and a reduction in the amount of exposed cut slope would provide a more aesthetically pleasing result. Landscaping Landscaping plans for this project depict extensive tree plantings around the sides of the building (except along the north side), as well as within and surrounding the parking areas, and planting areas with trees, shrubs, and ground cover, to enhance the appearance of the site, provide shade, and soften the visual impact of buildings and paving. More trees are provided where appropriate to screen the parking area from view of the adjacent residences, and fewer trees are planted at the northeastern corner of the parking area, at the transition toward adjacent open space (CDG §6.2(B)). New street trees are proposed to replace existing trees along the Higuera Street frontage. However, the City Arborist has recommended that the existing mature street trees (Canary Pines) be retained. If the ARC supported removal of the street trees against the recommendation of the ARC1 - 5 ARC 35-14 (2885 S Higuera) Page 6 City Arborist to retain them, then the City’s Tree Committee would need to review the proposed tree removals. Parking Facilities Three parking areas will be developed to serve the offices, providing a total of 143 parking spaces: a small lot (14 spaces) at the front of the building, a larger lot (24 spaces) at the south side of the building, and the largest lot (105 spaces) behind the building, at the rear of the site. The amount of parking proposed is 25 spaces in excess of the 118 spaces required (about 20% extra). The project applicant must, as a condition of the approval of a use permit for the project, prepare and implement a Trip Reduction Plan for the operation of the office building which, if successful, should also reduce the parking demand generated by this project. These extra spaces may allow some flexibility when balancing parking supply against site constraints. Parking spaces are set back from site boundaries, and screening is provided. Along the southern property boundary, at the entrance to the rear parking area, some parking spaces are as close as 5 feet to adjacent residences. Eliminating some of the spaces that are closest to adjacent residences could further enhance the privacy of those residences and reduce the potential noise and light impacts to them. Landscaping and Screening: Landscaping in, and screening of, parking lots is encouraged for visual interest, to provide shading for cars and people, as buffers between land uses, and to visually break up hard surfaces (CDG §3.1(C)). The parking areas for this project are screened from adjacent residences by an existing 6-foot chain-link fence with slats, augmented by vine plantings along the rear edges of the site, where driveway width allows. Additional planting areas may be necessary in the parking area in order to comply with City Parking and Driveway Standards (§ I.1) that require planting areas after each six spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces. Condition #26 notes that development of driveway and parking areas must comply with these standards. Pedestrian Connections: Benches and exterior lighting at building entries are provided as pedestrian amenities. Pedestrian ways should be incorporated into parking lots, where practical, using elements like accented paving, trellises, and lighting (CDG 6.3(D)), in order to help direct pedestrians comfortably and safely to building entrances. The site plan for the project lacks such pedestrian connections in the parking areas. Condition of approval #9 requires that final parking lot plans incorporate, to the extent practical, pedestrian connections to building entrances, utilizing enhanced paving materials. Motorcycles and Bicycles: Motorcycle and bicycle parking spaces are provided on-site. In the rear parking area, near the rear building entrance, are 6 motorcycle spaces, and 14 long-term bicycle parking spaces in bike lockers are provided in a visible location near the building entrance at the south side of the building. Plans do not depict the location or details of the 2 required short-term parking spaces (bike racks), but details are provided, and Condition of approval #10 requires that the racks be added to the site plan. ARC1 - 6 ARC 35-14 (2885 S Higuera) Page 7 Solid Waste Storage A solid waste storage enclosure is proposed to be built at the front of the site, well outside of the required street yard, where it is accessible for collection service without the need for a collection vehicle to travel along the access drive, adjacent to residences, into the site. It is to be constructed of concrete masonry units painted to match the main building, and incorporates the same metal wall panels used on the adjacent “tower” at the southwest corner of the building. Fences and Walls As office activities are conducted within the building, and there are no outdoor activity or storage areas, proposed fencing associated with this project is limited to screening provided for the adjacent residential development. While chain-link fencing is typically discouraged (CDG 6.1.B), the existing chain link fencing, with slats, is proposed to be used along the boundary with Villa Fontana, so that adequate width remains for the access drive into the site. Further back, along the south side of the rear parking area, the fencing itself will be covered with vine plantings and substantially screened by landscape plantings. Lighting Lighting plans for the project depict LED luminaires throughout the parking areas and cylindrical “downlights” at building entries. These fixtures are compatible with the building architecture, and are “cutoff” or recessed in compliance with Night Sky Preservation regulations. A photometric plan indicates light intensity on site ranging between 1.8 and 5.1 foot-candles, where Community Design Guidelines set a 10 foot-candle maximum (CDG 6.1.C). There is minimal spill onto adjacent property, ranging between 0 and 0.2 foot-candles. 3.2 Building Design The buildings on site will retain their basic form. Significant changes to the buildings include the renovation and expansion of the office space at the southwest corner of the building, the addition of windows to the upper level of the converted warehouse building, and the installation of several new entryways and storefront windows. Muted green and grey colors, suitable to the site’s location next to hillside open space, are employed, accented with black trim details and grey and silver metal panels on the expanded corner office tower. Corner Offices An elevator tower will be added to the accessory offices at the southwest portion of the building, and will be clad in dark gray horizontal metal Figure 2: Renovated offices ARC1 - 7 ARC 35-14 (2885 S Higuera) Page 8 panels. Silver horizontal metal panels will cover most of the building corner, accented by gray metal wall panels skirting the base, and aluminum louvers covering tall windows extending up the building elevation. The design of the expanded corner offices is well-proportioned to the main building, and serves as a complementary counterpoint to it. Windows and Entries Windows will be installed in a regular, balanced pattern along the upper portions of the concrete wall sections comprising the converted warehouse building. The windows are well proportioned to the wall surfaces, measuring 4 feet by 6 feet in dimension, with 12-inch painted surrounds, and introduce visual interest to a previously blank, monotonous building surface. No windows will be added to the north elevation. Entryways will be installed into the rear and south building elevations. On the south elevation these will provide access and light to the lower level of the building, and on the rear elevation, a new entry provides access to the upper level of the building from the rear parking area. Storefront windows will be added to the lower level of the south elevation. Each entry and storefront window will be covered by a metal trellis. Figure 3: South Elevation Figure 4: Rear Elevation ARC1 - 8 ARC 35-14 (2885 S Higuera) Page 9 Signs As the building is intended for a single tenant, the need for signage is minimal. Plans show a modest monument sign to be placed near the southerly entrance to the site. Conformance of any proposed sign with Sign Regulations, and compatibility with site architecture can be addressed through issuance of a Sign Permit. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is an In-Fill Development Project, as described in §15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. 5.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT Project plans were routed to several departments for review, and various comments were submitted in response. Pertinent comments have been incorporated into recommended conditions of approval of this project. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Continue consideration of the application to a future date to allow time for further revision to project plans; or 6.2 Deny the application, describing findings that constitute the basis for denial, based on inconsistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced-Size Project Plans 4. Copy of Administrative Use Permit Staff Report (A 35-14) Included in Commission Member Portfolio: Project Plans (Full-Size) Available at Hearing: Colors and Materials Board; Samples of Materials ARC1 - 9 RESOLUTION NO. ####-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO THE CONVERSION OF A WAREHOUSE BUILDING INTO OFFICES LOCATED AT 2885 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET (SERVICE-COMMERCIAL (C-S) ZONE AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (S) ZONE; ARC 35-14) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 20, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARC 35-14, Mike Kyle, 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; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law: 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 proposed project (ARC 35-14), based on the following findings: 1. The project conforms to the policies and goals of the City’s General Plan. It consists of the conversion of an industrial building to commercial offices in a Services and Manufacturing area, in conformance to use limitations and development standards set forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. A use permit (A 35-14) was granted on October 3, 2014, approving an office facility in the Commercial Services (C-S) Zone. 2.The project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines applicable to commercial development. While the basic form and arrangement of structures on the site is preserved, exterior modifications provide additional visual interest. 3. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as an infill project, as described by CEQA Guidelines §15332. SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (ARC 35-14), with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning ATTACHMENT 1 ARC1 - 10 Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 2 ARC 35-14 (2885 Higuera S) 1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for construction permits shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings 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. Conformance to Use Permit: Plans submitted for construction permits must be in compliance with the provisions of use permit A 35-14, granted on October 3, 2014, allowing the establishment of commercial offices at this site. 3. Colors and Materials: Plans submitted for construction permits will clearly indicate the colors and materials of all building surfaces, trim, and detail on building elevation drawings 4. Exterior Lighting: Plans submitted for construction permits will include sufficient information to show compliance with Night Sky Preservation regulations (Zoning Regulations, Ch. 17.23). The location of exterior lighting fixtures must be clearly indicated and building-mounted fixtures must be depicted on building elevation drawings. All exterior lighting must be oriented, recessed, or shielded to prevent light trespass and pollution. 5. Fences and Walls: Plans submitted for construction permits will clearly indicate the location, height, extent, materials, and colors of all fences, walls, and hedges. These features will be designed in a manner consistent with applicable development standards (Zoning Regulations §17.16.050) and Community Design Guidelines. 6. Landscape Plan: Plans submitted for construction permits will include a landscaping plan indicating the extent of landscaped area, hardscape, plant selection, and method of irrigation, consistent with Community Design Guidelines, Engineering Standards, and Water-Efficient Landscape Standards, as applicable. 7. Street Tree Retention: The Canary Island Pine trees along the Higuera Street frontage will be retained, according to the recommendation of the City Arborist. 8. Parking Spaces: Parking spaces will be removed or relocated from the southerly edge of the rear parking area, at its connection to the access drive, as necessary to provide a minimum setback of 10 feet between parking spaces and the property line adjacent to residences in Villa Fontana. 9. Pedestrian Connections: Plans submitted for construction permits will include a parking lot plans that incorporates pedestrian connections to building entrances, utilizing enhanced paving materials such as colored or stamped concrete, brick, or grasscrete, in compliance with Community Design Guidelines. ARC1 - 11 Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 3 ARC 35-14 (2885 Higuera S) 10. Bicycle Parking: Plans submitted for construction permits will show the locations and details of the short and long-term bicycle parking, including locker and rack design, and clearances. 11. Grading: The cut slope along the easterly edge of the rear parking area will be treated in a manner that gives the slope a naturalistic appearance. Where appropriate, the slope will be hydro-seeded to encourage regrowth of vegetation. Building & Safety 12. Use and Occupancy Classification: Plans submitted for construction permits must clearly identify on the title sheet the use and occupancy classification applicable to structures or portions of structures that are depicted on the plans. Fire 13. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 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. Driveway shall not exceed 15% slope, and any angle of approach within the access roads shall not exceed 10% slope. 14. 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. [UFC 901.4.4] 15. Water Supplies: Water Supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using Appendix III-A of the CFC. 16. 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 riser shall be located near the main building entrance. 17. Knox Box: A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room with a key to the room. 18. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA 13 fire ARC1 - 12 Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 4 ARC 35-14 (2885 Higuera S) sprinkler system will be required for this project. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. 19. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the CFC. 20. Portable Fire Extinguishers: Portable fire extinguishers, rated 2A, 10 BC, shall be mounted within 75’of travel and at each exit. 21. Egress: First floor main office area requires a second required exit, per the 2013 California Building Code. Public Works 22. Projects involving the construction of new structures, the addition of dwelling units, or the substantial remodel of existing structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 23. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The building plan submittal shall clarify the extent of repairs or replacements of the existing infrastructure. 24. The existing driveway approach shall be verified as complying with ADA and city standards for accessibility and compliance with current City Engineering Standards. If not accessible, the approach shall be altered or upgraded to comply with current standards. The current city and ADA standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. 25. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage improvements shall be shown for reference. 26. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 27. All parking spaces shall be able to be entered in one movement. All spaces, drive aisles, etc. shall be designed so that all vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward motion in not more than two maneuvers. For purposes of maneuverability, all required and proposed covered and uncovered spaces shall be assumed to be occupied by a standard size vehicle. ARC1 - 13 Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 5 ARC 35-14 (2885 Higuera S) 28. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 29. New wire utilities including electrical service, phone, and cable TV shall be placed underground, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. The undergrounding of utilities shall be completed without a net increase in the number of utility poles within the public right-of-way 30. The building plan submittal and project drainage report shall show and note compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for re-development projects. The project drainage report shall include calculations and analysis for the possibly significant upslope watershed on the site. Compliance checklists are available on the City website or by request. 31. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. Provide all necessary drainage calculations with the building plan submittal. 32. The building plan submittal shall include an erosion control plan and/or erosion control notes on the grading plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Public Works Director. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained for construction involving any ground disturbing activities. A Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) shall be summarized and submitted on a form provided by the Building Division. 33. A soils report will be required for development of the parking wall, new parking lot areas, Best Management Practices development, site improvements, and for public improvements. The soils report shall be included with the building permit submittal package and with the submittal of public improvement plans if applicable. The soils engineer will specifically review the Best Management Practices and report all findings in the soils report. 34. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/or easements shall be considered in the final design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner’s/Property Owner’s Association and shall be included in the CCR’s or other property maintenance agreement accordingly. ARC1 - 14 Resolution No. ARC ####-14 Page 6 ARC 35-14 (2885 Higuera S) 35. 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. Tree removals may require approval by the City Arborist and/or Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees. 36. 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 37. 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. Utilities 38. The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property’s existing and proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points of connection at the City water and sewer mains. 39. If the property’s existing sewer lateral is proposed to be reused to serve the proposed project, 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. 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 20th day of October, 2014. _____________________________ Pam Ricci, Secretary Architectural Review Commission ARC1 - 15 R-2 C/OS-40 C-S-S C/OS-10 C-S-S C-S R-2-PD C-S C-S-MU C-T-MU C/OS-5 C/OS-100 R-2-SP C-S-S C-S C/OS-40-SP C-S-MU C-S-PD M C/OS-5 O-PD C/OS-5 R-2-PD O-PD ELKSHIGUERA S OJAI MALIBU FONTA N A CHUMASHMUGU SISQUOCHIGUERACACHUMALOMPOCCASTAICCAMBRIALOMA BO N I T A NOJOQUILOS ALAMOSLOMPOCVICINITY MAP File No. 35-14 2885 S. Higuera St.¯ ATTACHMENT 2 ARC1 - 16 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 17 ARC1 - 18 ARC1 - 19 ARC1 - 20 ARC1 - 21 ARC1 - 22 ARC1 - 23 ARC1 - 24 ARC1 - 25 ARC1 - 26 ARC1 - 27 ARC1 - 28 ARC1 - 29 ARC1 - 30 Meeting Date: October 3, 2014 Item Number: 2 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AGENDA REPORT FROM: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner MMEETING DATE: October 3, 2014 FILE NUMBER: A 35-14 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2885 South Higuera St BACKGROUND Hamrick Associates, Inc., representing Mike Kyle, the applicant, has filed applications to modify an existing warehouse to convert it to an office building, and to develop parking areas at the side and rear of the building. A use permit is required to establish an Office use in this zone, and to establish any use in a Special Considerations (S) Overlay Zone. The project is also subject to architectural review and will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for conformance to property development standards and Community Design Guidelines. Data Summary Address & APN 2285 S Higuera St (053-021-029) Applicant Mike Kyle Representative Hamrick Associates, Inc. Property Owner Mike Kyle Zoning Service Commercial (C-S) Special Consideration (S) General Plan Services & Manufacturing Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from CEQA, as an in-fill development project (Guidelines §15332) SITE INFORMATION The site is located in the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone and Special Consideration (S) Zone on the east side of South Higuera Street between Madonna and Prado Roads, about 65 feet north of Fontana Avenue, a private road. It is about 3 acres in size, with 110 feet of frontage along South Higuera. It slopes gently upward in a northeasterly direction, then increases in steepness at the rear of the site. The site is developed with an industrial warehouse and accessory office space, together totaling about 19,000 square feet of floor area, and a concrete parking area at the south ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1 - 31 side of the building. Wine processing, storage, and tasting activities are conducted on the site, within the buildings and outdoors, under an administrative use permit (A 4-12). The easterly portion of the site is disturbed, but undeveloped. Site Dimensions (approx.) Area: 3 acres (130,700 sq ft) Width: varies between 110 and 315 feet Depth: varies between 488 and 542 feet Street Frontage: 110 feet Present Use & Development Warehouse building, used for wine processing, storage, and associated activities Topography Elevation: Min. 155 feet; Max. 243 ft. Slope: A gentle slope (10%) through the front ¾ of the site, becoming steeper (35%) over the rear ¼ of the site. Natural Features: trees (northeast corner), street trees, shrubs, and landscaping; no waterways or other significant topographical features. Access From South Higuera St Surrounding Use / Zoning North and East: Undeveloped (C-S); Open Space (C/OS-40) East and South: Villa Fontana: single-family dwellings (R-2-PD) South: Service Commercial (C-S) along South Higuera St West: Cemetery and mortuary (C-S-S) Nearby, to the south, are several light industrial properties within the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone, used predominantly for vehicle service businesses. To the west are the Wheeler-Smith Mortuary and the San Luis Cemetery. To the north is a large amount of open space. Adjacent to the site, on its southerly side, is Villa Fontana, a planned unit development consisting of 54 detached single-family homes. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing single-story warehouse building will be converted into two floors of office space through the installation of a new floor within the building. The accessory office space at the southwest corner of the building will also be expanded. In total, the modified building will contain about 35,285 square feet of floor area. The parking areas to be developed at the south and east sides of the site will have 143 parking spaces. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the prospective tenant, intending to use the building for engineering offices to accommodate about 200 employees during normal weekday business hours. EVALUATION Use Limitations Construction contractor offices and engineering services are classified as “Office – ARC1 - 32 Production and Administrative” in the City’s Zoning Regulations. These uses are permitted within a Service-Commercial (C-S) Zone with a Director’s Use Permit. Caltrans is a state government agency, but the activities conducted at this site are administrative in nature and will not include public visitation or civic activities, as would a typical government office. Nor is the site intended to serve as an equipment storage yard. Office in a C-S Zone: To approve a use permit establishing an Office use in a Service- Commercial (C-S) Zone, the Administrative Hearing Officer must find that the project is compatible with land uses in the area, does not divert traffic into residential areas, provides mitigation for potential impacts on nearby residential areas, and does not preclude or create a shortage of land available for industrial or service commercial uses. The site is not particularly well-suited for many industrial or service commercial uses, as it is directly adjacent to residential development and hillside open space. The characteristics of the proposed office activities will not preclude such uses within the surrounding service and manufacturing area. Most of South Higuera is zoned C-S or M, and the subject site itself, a small portion of this land, retains the C-S zoning, allowing for potential future service commercial or industrial development and land uses. Traffic patterns, land use compatibility, and impact mitigations are discussed in further detail throughout this report. Special Consideration Zone: A use may also be established in a Special Consideration (S) Zone with an administrative use permit. The use permit is intended to ensure compatibility of the use with its surroundings, conformance to General Plan policies, and to address development problems on a project site. Of particular concern on this site are the proximity of adjacent residences and the slope at the rear portion of the site, as it approaches hillside open space. These concerns are more fully discussed below. Compatibility The activities proposed to be conducted within the office building will be of an administrative nature, involving no equipment or processes that would generate noise, glare, dust, vibrations, objectionable odors, or other significant impacts on neighboring properties. Caltrans would be the sole occupant of the redeveloped site, using it exclusively for administrative and engineering offices, and so there would be no incompatibility between activities conducted on the site itself. Office activities are conducted indoors, and so would not be incompatible with the nearby cemetery, mortuary, open space, vehicle service, or residential uses. Adjacent Residential Development: The project site is north of the Villa Fontana residential development, with 9 residences directly adjacent to the site’s southern and eastern boundaries, and the project could introduce various impacts to nearby residence. Vehicles accessing the site’s parking areas generate noise and, at night, headlight glare. The parking area is lighted for safety and security, and the lighting must be carefully designed to avoid creating a nuisance with glare or light trespass. ARC1 - 33 To reduce detrimental impacts, this permit will require that a screening fence be installed and maintained along the interface between the site and the adjacent residences. The particular methods of buffering and screening will be more closely examined during architectural review of this project. To further protect adjacent residences, this permit will expressly limit the use of the parking area to the parking of office employees’ vehicles, so that it is not used as a storage yard for heavy vehicles and equipment, in order to restrict the type of vehicle traffic using the access driveway adjacent to residences. A photometric plan was submitted with this application, demonstrating that light trespass beyond the site boundaries is expected to be minimal, ranging between 0 and 0.02 foot- candles. This permit will require that lighting be designed and installed in a manner that minimizes glare and light trespass, and that in the event a nuisance condition is caused by lighting that the lighting must be modified to eliminate the nuisance. Parking The site is large enough to accommodate a parking area with the required amount of parking. Under current requirements, about 118 parking spaces would be required to serve the offices (at a ratio of 1 per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area). The applicant proposes to provide 143 parking spaces for automobiles, about 20% more than the minimum requirement. Bicycle and motorcycle parking are also provided. The design of the parking areas will be examined during architectural review of the project, with the aim of minimizing potential impacts to adjacent residences. Requirement (35,286 sf Office) Required Provided Automobile 1/300 sf 118 143 Motorcycle 1/20 auto spaces 6 6 Bicycle 15% of auto spaces 18 18 Short Term 10% 2 4 Long Term 80% 14 14 Traffic Traffic accessing the site does so directly from South Higuera, an arterial street, without the need to use local or collector streets or any streets within a residential zone. Trip Generation: Project plans were reviewed by the Public Works Department, who estimated that trip generation during peak hours would exceed 100 trips. Therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis1 was prepared to assess the project’s impact on the street system (Attachment 2). The analysis concluded that the Level of Service (LOS) at nearby intersections would remain within acceptable limits (as described in §6.2 of the General Plan Circulation Element), but that the number of vehicle trips estimated to be 1 Traffic Impact Analysis: California Department of Transportation Office Project, City of San Luis Obispo; prepared for Lee & Associates (San Luis Obispo) by Larry D. Hail, CE, TE, PTOE, Pinnacle Traffic Engineering (Hollister, California) ARC1 - 34 added to the northbound left-turn lane at South Higuera and Madonna could impact traffic movements there in the evening peak hour. Preparation and maintenance of a trip reduction plan for the project will be required by this permit in order to avoid this impact by achieving a reduction in vehicle trips to and from the site. Fontana Street Intersection: The analysis also evaluated the access to the site and the potential for conflict with traffic using Fontana Avenue, adjacent to the southerly project driveway entry. Adequate sight distance is available at the driveways to provide safe entry and exit to and from the site, so long as vegetation at the edge of the southerly driveway is kept below 3 feet in height. The left-turn lane into Fontana (from southbound Higuera Street) extends beyond the southerly project driveway. Installation of driveways within functional areas of an intersection is typically avoided, and turning movements within such areas are often limited to improve safety. The traffic impact analysis notes that there are no feasible options to restrict access to the site without modifying driveway locations or constructing widening improvements to Higuera, and suggests that good visibility and trip reduction measures together will help minimize conflicts at this intersection. This permit will require the applicant to design and bond for a “pork chop island” restricting left-turn access into the southerly driveway, along with an extension of the Fontana Avenue left- turn lane from Higuera, and to install those features in the event that collisions are in fact experienced in this area. Slope Slope increases toward the rear of the site, in a northeasterly direction. Significant grading is proposed in the northeast corner of the site to accommodate parking areas. Site grading plans and a geological evaluation for the project will be reviewed by Public Works and Building & Safety before site improvement can commence, to ensure slope stability. Aesthetic concerns related to grading in a hillside area will be addressed during subsequent architectural review of the project. Noise A small portion of the front of the building is within a 65 dB noise contour, and the rest of the building is within the 60 dB contour, indicating that the building is exposed to elevated noise levels from South Higuera Street. New development of offices in such a noise environment is considered acceptable under General Plan policies if it is designed to meet noise exposure standards (Noise Element §1.2). The maximum indoor noise exposure is 45 dB. According to the City’s Noise Guidebook, following normal construction practices and building codes will achieve a noise level reduction of 15 decibels, bringing noise exposure to acceptable levels within most of the building. Noise exposure along the front 30 feet of the building needs to be reduced by 20 decibels to achieve acceptable levels. For a 20 dB reduction, the Noise Guidebook calls for mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning), low-infiltration frames for windows and sliding doors, and solid-core exterior doors with weather-stripping and threshold ARC1 - 35 seals. A condition of this permit will require that these noise mitigation measures be incorporated into the design of the project. The maximum acceptable noise exposure level for outdoor activity areas is 60 dB. There are no outdoor activity areas proposed within areas subject to noise levels above 60dB. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is an in-fill development project, as described in §15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed in this report, the project is consistent with the Service and Manufacturing designation and applicable General Plan policies, and with standards and limitations applicable to development in the Service-Commercial (C-S) Zone. The site is within City limits, and is less than 5 acres in size, substantially surrounded by urban uses, and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. No habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species exists on the site. Approval of the project will not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. Traffic and noise impacts will be avoided by implementation of a trip reduction plan and noise mitigation measures for the project. The project size is well below the threshold of 70,000 square feet of General Office Building space set SLO County Air Pollution Control District’s operational screening criteria for air quality analysis. The site is not near any waterway. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Project plans were routed to several departments for review and comment (Building & Safety, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities). Many comments were related to design issues that will be addressed through subsequent architectural review. Those comments pertaining to approval of a use permit have been incorporated into conditions of approval for this permit. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the findings described below and approve this application, granting an administrative use permit allowing the establishment of Office – Production and Administrative use at this site, subject to certain conditions: FFindings 1. Use of the site for an Office - Production and Administrative land use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons working or living at the site and in the vicinity. ARC1 - 36 2. The project is consistent with General Plan policies and standards and limitations of the City’s Zoning Regulations. 3. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area. 4. The project location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones. 5. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas. 6. The project will not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with offices. 7. The project will not create a shortage of C-S or M-zoned land available for service commercial or industrial development. 8. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It constitutes an in-fill development project, as described in §15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. CConditions Planning 1. Screening: A fence or wall designed to screen noise and light must be installed along the southerly and easterly boundaries between the site and the adjacent residential development (Villa Fontana). The fence or wall will at all times be maintained so that materials and supports are structurally sound with no missing material. Plans submitted for architectural review of this project must include detail drawings indicating the dimensions of the fence and the materials and colors used in its construction. 2. Screen Plantings: The screening fence or wall provided in satisfaction of Condition #1 above will be augmented, where driveway dimensions allow, by plantings of ivy or other climbing plant to provide an attractive, naturalistic appearance. Plans submitted for architectural review of this project will include details of these plantings, and means of irrigating them, on a landscape plan for review by the Architectural Review Commission. 3. Noise Mitigation: The design of proposed structures and modifications must incorporate noise mitigation measures to reduce interior noise exposure to acceptable levels, as set forth in Tables 1 and 2 of the General Plan Noise Element. The standard mitigation package for a 20 dB noise level reduction may be used to achieve compliance for that portion of the building within the 65 dB noise contour. Noise mitigation measures must be clearly depicted on plans and drawings submitted for construction permits to complete this project. ARC1 - 37 4. Material or Equipment Storage: Use of the parking areas is limited to parking of office employees’ vehicles. Storage of materials, equipment, or heavy vehicles is not permitted under this use permit. This limitation is intended to restrict the type of vehicle traffic using the access driveway in order to avoid detrimental impacts to adjacent residences. 5. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting must be designed and installed in a manner that minimizes glare and light trespass. In the event that exterior lighting causes a nuisance condition, it must be modified to eliminate the nuisance. Plans submitted for architectural review and for construction permits for this project must include a photometric plan. 6. Night Sky Preservation: Lighting shall at all times comply with Night Sky Preservation regulations (Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.23). Plans submitted for architectural review and for construction permits for this project must include lighting details demonstrating that exterior lighting is compliant with these regulations. Public Works 7. Sight Distance: Prior to occupancy the applicant shall work with the neighboring Home Owners Association and remove any landscaping taller than 3’ from the planter area between the southerly driveway and Fontana Ave, 20’ from the back of curb. The applicant shall also be responsible for on-going coordination with the neighboring Home Owners Association to ensure that adequate sight distance is maintained at the southerly driveway. 8. Trip Reduction Plan: A trip reduction plan and program must be developed and maintained for this project. A draft of the plan shall be submitted for review as part of the building permit application and the plan shall be approved by the City prior to occupancy. A copy of the approved trip reduction plan shall be provided to all new tenants and employees. An annual report of the plan’s effectiveness (utilizing the annual survey) shall be submitted to the City Public Works Department for review and modification if the plan’s trip reduction goals are not being realized. The plan shall include at a minimum: a) Plan goals including an Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) of 1.6 or better; b) Designation of a coordinator to administer the program; c) An annual survey of employee commute patterns; d) Carpool, carshare, bicycling and transit information; e) Availability of long term bicycle parking and shower facilities; and f) Information and incentives for those who use alternative transportation such as subsides to employees using public transit, or other measures as approved by the Public Works Director. ARC1 - 38 9. Turn Restriction (Bonding): Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall design and bond for the installation of pork chop island in the southerly driveway restricting left turn access and an extension of the existing southbound left turn lane for Fontana Ave. For up to two years after occupancy if three or more collisions involving left turns at the southerly driveway occur within a 12 month period the restriction and extension shall be installed. If after two years three collisions have not occurred within a 12 month period the left turn restriction and extension do not have to be installed and the bond shall be released. 10.The Owner and Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner and Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Plans 2. Traffic Impact Analysis 3. FIRM Map AAction: Approve Approve as modified Deny Continue to: ____________________ to allow _______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Continue indefinitely to allow: ___________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Hearing Officer ARC1 - 39 Meeting Date: 2FW Item Number: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: &RQWLQXHG UHYLHZ RI D QHZ XQLW PXOWLVWRU\ KRWHO EXLOGLQJ ZLWK DGRSWLRQ RI D 0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQRI(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW PROJECT ADDRESS:0RQWHUH\6WUHHW BY:0DUFXV&DUORQL$VVRFLDWH3ODQQHU 3KRQH1XPEHU HPDLOPFDUORQL#VORFLW\RUJ FILE NUMBER: $5& FROM:3DP5LFFL6HQLRU3ODQQHU RECOMMENDATION:$GRSW WKH 'UDIW 5HVROXWLRQ $WWDFKPHQW ZKLFK DSSURYHV WKH SURMHFW EDVHGRQILQGLQJVDQGVXEMHFWWRFRQGLWLRQV 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 7KHSURSRVHGSURMHFWLVDUHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHVXEMHFWORFDWLRQZLWKDPXOWLVWRU\XQLWKRWHODERYH VXEWHUUDQHDQ DQG DWJUDGH SDUNLQJ 7KH $5& UHYLHZHG WKH SURMHFW RQ 6HSWHPEHU DQG FRQWLQXHGWKHSURMHFWSURYLGLQJVL[GLUHFWLRQLWHPV>VHHVHFWLRQEHORZ@ 6WDIIKDVUHYLHZHGWKHDSSOLFDQW¶VUHVSRQVHDQGILQGVWKHUHYLVHGSODQVDQGVXSSRUWLQJLQIRUPDWLRQWR FRPSO\ZLWK$5&GLUHFWLRQ6WDIIUHFRPPHQGVWKH$5&DGRSWWKHGUDIWUHVROXWLRQ$WWDFKPHQW JLYLQJILQDODSSURYDORIWKHSURMHFWEDVHGRQFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWK$5&GLUHFWLRQDVZHOODV&RPPXQLW\ 'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHV2UGLQDQFH1RDQGDSSOLFDEOH&LW\UHJXODWLRQV ARC2 - 1 U $5&0RQWHUH\6WUHHWB&RQWLQXHG5HYLHZ 3DJH 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW 7KH$5&FRQWLQXHGWKHSURMHFWRQ6HSWHPEHUSURYLGLQJVL[GLUHFWLRQDOLWHPVGLVFXVVHGLQ VHFWLRQEHORZ7KH&RPPLVVLRQ¶VUROHLVWRUHYLHZWKHDSSOLFDQW¶VUHVSRQVHWR$5&GLUHFWLRQDQG WKHUHVSRQVH¶VFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWKWKH&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVDQGDSSOLFDEOH&LW\VWDQGDUGV7KH $5&LVDOVRWDVNHGZLWKWKHUHYLHZDQGDGRSWLRQRIWKHSURMHFW¶VHQYLURQPHQWDOGRFXPHQWLQWKLVFDVH D0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting $GHWDLOHGGHVFULSWLRQRIVLWHLQIRUPDWLRQDQGVHWWLQJFDQEHIRXQGLQWKH6HSWHPEHU$5& VWDIIUHSRUWZKLFKLVDWWDFKPHQWWRWKLVUHSRUW 2.2 Project Description $VXPPDU\RIVLJQLILFDQWSURMHFWIHDWXUHVDQGSURMHFWVWDWLVWLFVFDQEHIRXQGLQWKH6HSWHPEHU $5&VWDIIUHSRUWZKLFKLVDWWDFKPHQWWRWKLVUHSRUW 2.3 Background $EDFNJURXQGGLVFXVVLRQLQFOXGLQJ2UGLQDQFH1RDQGWKHSURMHFW¶V8VH3HUPLWUHTXLUHPHQW FDQEHIRXQGLQWKH6HSWHPEHU$5&VWDIIUHSRUWZKLFKLVDWWDFKPHQWWRWKLVUHSRUW 2.3.1 Use Permit Appeal $GLVFXVVLRQRIWKH8VH3HUPLWDSSHDOFDQEHIRXQGLQWKH6HSWHPEHU$5&VWDIIUHSRUW ZKLFKLVDWWDFKPHQWWRWKLVUHSRUW 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 7KH$5&FRQWLQXHGWKHSURMHFWRQ6HSWHPEHUSURYLGLQJVL[GLUHFWLRQDOLWHPVIRUUHYLVLRQVWR WKHSURMHFW7KHEHORZSDUDJUDSKVKLJKOLJKWWKHGLUHFWLRQDOLWHPVSURYLGLQJWKHDSSOLFDQW¶VUHVSRQVH DQGVWDII¶VDQDO\VLVRIVDLGUHVSRQVH 3.1 Commission Direction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aG% 3DUNLQJ DUHDV 'DYLG 'XEELQN $VVRFLDWHV SHUIRUPHG UHDOZRUOG WHVWLQJ WR DFFXPXODWH GDWD UHODWLYHWRW\SLFDOXVHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKDSDUNLQJDUHDGRRUWUXQNVODPVDQGKRUQEHHSVVHH $WWDFKPHQW$FRXVWLF$QDO\VLVLQSDUWLFXODUVHH$SSHQGL[$³3DUNLQJ/RW1RLVH´RQSDJH 7KHGDWDIURPWKHDQDO\VLVZDVWKHQDSSOLHGWRWKHVXEMHFWORFDWLRQEDVHGRQWKHGHVLJQDQG VLWHSODQRIWKHSURSRVHGKRWHO7KHUHSRUWFRQFOXGHVWKDWVRXQGSURGXFHGIURPXVHRIWKHµOHYHO ¶DQGµORZHUOHYHOSDUNLQJDUHDV¶ZLOOGLVVLSDWHWRDQGGHFLEHOVUHVSHFWLYHO\DWWKH SURSHUW\OLQHEHWZHHQWKHVXEMHFWORFDWLRQDQGDGMDFHQW5UHVLGHQFHVZKLFKLVEHORZWKH DOORZHG GD\WLPH G% DQG QLJKWWLPH G% PD[LPXPV FRPSOLDQW ZLWK &LW\ QRLVH UHTXLUHPHQWV 7KH FRQFOXVLRQ IURP WKH UHSRUW UHODWLYH WR QRLVH IURP WKH SDUNLQJ DUHDV LV LOOXVWUDWHGLQILJXUHVDQGRI$WWDFKPHQW$FRXVWLF5HSRUW Conclusion #1: 6WDII ILQGV WKH QRLVH DQDO\VLV DQG VRXQG DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH KRWHO XVH WR FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH &LW\¶V QRLVH UHTXLUHPHQWV DQG $5& GLUHFWLRQ )XUWKHUPRUH DOWKRXJK WKH SURMHFWFRPSOLHVZLWK&LW\QRLVHUHTXLUHPHQWVWKH$FRXVWLF$QDO\VLVLQGLFDWHVWKDWDGGLWLRQDO VWHSV FDQ EH WDNHQ WR UHGXFH SRWHQWLDO QRLVH GLVWXUEDQFH 7KHVH DGGLWLRQDO VWHSV DUH UHFRPPHQGHGIRUDGRSWLRQDVFRQGLWLRQVRIDSSURYDODQGKDYHEHHQDGGHGWRWKHDWWDFKHG UHVROXWLRQVHHFRQGLWLRQVRI$WWDFKPHQW 3.2 Commission Direction #2:3URYLGHDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQRQOLJKWLQJHVSHFLDOO\RQWKHHDVW VLGHRIWKHSURMHFW 7KHDSSOLFDQWKDVSURYLGHGDVLWHVSHFLILFSKRWRPHWULFDQDO\VLV$WWDFKPHQWVSHFLILFWRWKH FUHHNIDFLQJIDoDGHRIWKHSURSRVHGKRWHO7KHDQDO\VLVFRQFOXGHVWKDWOLJKWLQJOHYHOVLQWKH FUHHNDUHDDQGDWWKHERXQGDU\SURSHUW\OLQHEHWZHHQWKHVXEMHFWORFDWLRQDQGWKHDGMDFHQW5 UHVLGHQFHVZLOOEHIRRWFDQGOHV$OOSURSRVHGOLJKWLQJOHYHOVVKRZQRQWKHSKRWRPHWULFSODQ DUHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&LW\¶V1LJKW6N\3UHVHUYDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVZKLFKDOORZDPD[LPXPRI IRRWFDQGOHVIRUFRPPHUFLDODQGUHVLGHQWLDOSURSHUWLHVVHFWLRQVXEVHFWLRQV $GGLWLRQDOO\WKHUHTXLUHPHQWVVHFWLRQVXEVHFWLRQVWDWHWKDW“no lighting on a private property shall produce an illumination level greater than two maintained horizontal footcandles at grade on any property within a residential zoning district except on the site of the light source”7KHOLJKWLQJOHYHOVVKRZQRQWKHSKRWRPHWULFSODQVPRUHWKDQFRPSO\ZLWK WKLV VWDQGDUG DOWKRXJK WHFKQLFDOO\ QRW UHTXLUHG VLQFH WKH SURMHFW LV QRW ORFDWHG ZLWKLQ D UHVLGHQWLDO]RQH Conclusion #2: 6WDIIILQGVWKHOLJKWLQJOHYHOVDWWKHVXEMHFWORFDWLRQWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKH&LW\¶V 1LJKW6N\3UHVHUYDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVDQG$5&GLUHFWLRQ 3.3 Commission Direction #3: /RRNDWZD\VWRIXUWKHUPLQLPL]HLPSDFWVWRQHLJKERUVIURPWKH SURSRVHGEDOFRQLHVLQFOXGLQJWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIUHGXFLQJWKHQXPEHUDQGRUVL]HRIEDOFRQLHVDQG H[SORUHEDOFRQ\VFUHHQLQJDOWHUQDWLYHVVXFKDVWDOOHUJXDUGUDLOLQJV 7KHDSSOLFDQWKDVPRGLILHGWKHGHVLJQRIWKHFUHHNIDFLQJHDVWIDo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onclusion #3: $VGLVFXVVHGDERYHVRXQGJHQHUDWHGIURPXVHRIWKHSURSRVHGEDOFRQLHVPRUH WKDQFRPSOLHVZLWK&LW\QRLVHUHTXLUHPHQWVVHFWLRQDERYHDQGOLJKWDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH SURSRVHG EDOFRQLHV DOVR PRUH WKDQ FRPSOLHV ZLWK WKH &LW\¶V 1LJKW 6N\ 3UHVHUYDWLRQ UHTXLUHPHQWVVHFWLRQDERYH6WDIIILQGVWKHUHPRYHGEDOFRQLHVDQGUHGXFHGVL]HEDOFRQLHV WRFRPSO\ZLWK$5&GLUHFWLRQDQGWREHFRPSOLDQWZLWK&LW\QRLVHDQGOLJKWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWV 3.4 Commission Direction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onclusion #4: 6WDIIILQGVWKHWDOOHUVFUHHQLQJZDOOWRVXIILFLHQWO\VFUHHQYHKLFOHKHDGOLQHVDQG VHUYHWRPLWLJDWHVRXQGVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKYHKLFOHXVHRIWKHORZHUSDUNLQJDUHDFRQVLVWHQWZLWK Red line indicates balcony finished floor False balconies Removed wrap-around balcony ARC2 - 4 $5&0RQWHUH\6WUHHWB&RQWLQXHG5HYLHZ 3DJH WKH0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQDQG$5&GLUHFWLRQ 3.5 Commission Direction #5:,QFOXGHLQIRUPDWLRQRQSODQWLQJVLQWKHFUHHNVHWEDFNDUHDWREH UHPRYHGDQGDQ\UHSODFHPHQWSODQWLQJV 7KHDSSOLFDQW¶V/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFW)LUPD&RQVXOWDQWV,QFRUSRUDWHGKDVSURYLGHGDIRUPDO OHWWHULQUHVSRQVHWR$5&GLUHFWLRQ$WWDFKPHQW/HWWHUIURP)LUPD7KHOHWWHUGLVFXVVHVWKH H[LVWLQJULSDULDQDQGXSODQGKDELWDWDQGLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHH[LVWLQJ(XFDO\SWXVWUHHDQGVRPHRI WKHVPDOOHUQRQQDWLYHVKUXEVDQGYLQHVVKRXOGEHUHPRYHG Conclusion #5: 7KH 1DWXUDO 5HVRXUFHV 0DQDJHU KDV UHYLHZHG DQG FRQFXUV ZLWK WKH FRQFOXVLRQVRIWKHOHWWHUEXWIHHOVWKHODUJH(XFDO\SWXVWUHHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURIWKHVLWHPD\ UHPDLQLQRUGHUWRSURYLGHDGGLWLRQDOVFUHHQLQJEHQHILWSURYLGHGWKDW UHJXODUFOHDQXSDQG PDLQWHQDQFH RI OHDI OLWWHU LV SHUIRUPHG VR DV WR DOORZ RWKHU QDWLYH YHJHWDWLRQ DFFHVV WR QHFHVVDU\OLJKWDQGVSDFH7KH&LW\$UERULVWDQG1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV0DQDJHUZLOOPHHWZLWKWKH DSSOLFDQW¶V/DQGVFDSH$UFKLWHFWDQG&RQWUDFWRUWRHQVXUHILQDOL]DWLRQRIWKHFUHHNUHVWRUDWLRQ DQGHQKDQFHPHQWSODQDVZHOODVILQDOLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKHSODQ 3.6 Commission Direction #6: 3URYLGHDQXSGDWHRQ3XEOLF:RUNV&RQGLWLRQUHODWHGWR GULYHZD\VRIIRI0RQWHUH\6WUHHW Condition #23: “Due to its close proximity to the main project driveway, the project’s southerly driveway shall either be eliminated or redesigned as an “entrance only” one way driveway.” Conclusion #5: 7KH3XEOLF:RUNV'HSDUWPHQWKDVIRXQGWKDWWKHFORVHVSDFLQJRIIXOODFFHVV GULYHZD\V FUHDWHV D ³5LJKW7XUQ &RQIOLFW 2YHUODS´ DV GHILQHG XQGHU WKH 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK%RDUGV$FFHVV0DQDJHPHQW0DQXDO&RQWHPSRUDU\VDIHW\GHVLJQJXLGHOLQHVGLFWDWHD PLQLPXPVSDFLQJRIIXOODFFHVVGULYHZD\VDWIHHWLQDPSK]RQHWKHGLVWDQFHEHWZHHQ WKHVH GULYHZD\V LV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ IHHW )XUWKHUPRUH WKH 3XEOLF :RUNV GHSDUWPHQW KDV LQFOXGHGDFRQGLWLRQRIDSSURYDODDOORZLQJWKHDSSOLFDQWWRUHTXHVWWKDWWKH&LW\DQDO\]H WKHRQHZD\GULYHZD\DQGWKHSRWHQWLDOLPSDFWVRIPRGLI\LQJWKHRQHZD\GULYHZD\GHVLJQ EDFNWRDWZRZD\GHVLJQ 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $QLQLWLDOVWXG\KDVEHHQSUHSDUHGE\VWDIILQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\ $FW$WWDFKPHQW0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ(5DQGD0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ 01'LVUHFRPPHQGHGIRUDGRSWLRQ $ VXPPDU\ RI WKH SRWHQWLDO LPSDFWV DQG UHFRPPHQGHG PLWLJDWLRQ PHDVXUHV LV SURYLGHG LQ WKH 6HSWHPEHU$5&VWDIIUHSRUWZKLFKLVDWWDFKPHQWWRWKLVUHSRUW 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS &RPPHQWVIURPWKHRWKHUGHSDUWPHQWVKDYHEHHQLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKHUHFRPPHQGHGUHVROXWLRQDV ARC2 - 5 $5&0RQWHUH\6WUHHWB&RQWLQXHG5HYLHZ 3DJH FRQGLWLRQVRIDSSURYDODQGRUFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWV 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 'HQ\WKHSURMHFWEDVHGRQILQGLQJVRILQFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWKWKH&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHV DQGRU2UGLQDQFH &RQWLQXHWKHSURMHFWZLWKGLUHFWLRQWRWKHDSSOLFDQWDQGVWDIIRQSHUWLQHQWLVVXHV 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 'UDIW5HVROXWLRQ 9LFLQLW\PDS 5HYLVHG3URMHFW3ODQV $FRXVWLF$QDO\VLV 3KRWRPHWULF$QDO\VLV /HWWHUIURP),50$&RQVXOWDQWV,QFRUSRUDWHG 6HSWHPEHU$5&6WDII5HSRUWZLWKOLPLWHGDWWDFKPHQWV (the full ARC report and attachments is available on the City’s website www.slocity.org > Architectural Review Commission > Past Agenda/Staff Reports > 09-15-2014) 0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ(5 6HSWHPEHU$5&PHHWLQJPLQXWHV Included in Committee member portfolio:3URMHFW3ODQV Available at ARC Hearing: &RORUVDQG0DWHULDOV%RDUG ARC2 - 6 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 OCTOBER 20, 2014 1845/1865 MONTEREY STREET (C-T-S AND C/OS-5 ZONES; ARC 143-13) :+(5($6 WKH $UFKLWHFWXUDO 5HYLHZ &RPPLVVLRQ RI WKH &LW\ RI 6DQ /XLV 2ELVSR FRQGXFWHGDSXEOLFKHDULQJLQWKH&RXQFLO&KDPEHURI&LW\+DOO3DOP6WUHHW6DQ/XLV2ELVSR &DOLIRUQLDRQ6HSWHPEHUSXUVXDQWWRDSURFHHGLQJLQVWLWXWHGXQGHU$5&:HVW &RDVW$VVHW0DQDJHPHQWDSSOLFDQWDQGFRQWLQXHGWKHSURMHFWWRDGDWHXQFHUWDLQDQGSURYLGHG GLUHFWLRQDOLWHPVWRWKHDSSOLFDQWDQGVWDIIDQG :+(5($6 WKH $UFKLWHFWXUDO 5HYLHZ &RPPLVVLRQ RI WKH &LW\ RI 6DQ /XLV 2ELVSR FRQGXFWHGDSXEOLFKHDULQJLQWKH&RXQFLO&KDPEHURI&LW\+DOO3DOP6WUHHW6DQ/XLV2ELVSR &DOLIRUQLD RQ 2FWREHU SXUVXDQW WR D SURFHHGLQJ LQVWLWXWHG XQGHU $5& LQ FRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKHUHVSRQVHWR$5&GLUHFWLRQDOLWHPV:HVW&RDVW$VVHW0DQDJHPHQWDSSOLFDQW DQG :+(5($6WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQRIWKH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRKDVGXO\ FRQVLGHUHGDOOHYLGHQFHLQFOXGLQJWKHWHVWLPRQ\RIWKHDSSOLFDQWLQWHUHVWHGSDUWLHVDQGHYDOXDWLRQ DQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVE\WKHVWDIIDWVDLGKHDULQJV :+(5($6 QRWLFHV RI VDLG SXEOLF KHDULQJV ZHUH PDGH DW WKH WLPHDQG LQ WKH PDQQHU UHTXLUHGE\ODZDQG :+(5($6WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQUHYLHZHGDQGFRQVLGHUHGWKH0LWLJDWHG 1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQRIHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWIRUWKHSURMHFWDVSUHSDUHGE\VWDII 12:7+(5()25(%(,75(62/9('E\WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQRIWKH &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRDVIROORZV 6(&7,21 )LQGLQJV 7KH $UFKLWHFWXUDO 5HYLHZ &RPPLVVLRQ KHUHE\ JUDQWV ILQDO DSSURYDOWRWKHSURMHFW$5&EDVHGRQWKHIROORZLQJILQGLQJV 7KHSURMHFWZLOOQRWEHGHWULPHQWDOWRWKHKHDOWKVDIHW\RUZHOIDUHRIWKRVHZRUNLQJRUUHVLGLQJ LQ WKH YLFLQLW\ VLQFH WKH SURSRVHG SURMHFW LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH VLWH¶V ]RQLQJ GHVLJQDWLRQ UHTXLUHPHQWVRI2UGLQDQFH1R6HULHVDQGZLOOEHVXEMHFWWRFRQIRUPDQFHZLWKDOO DSSOLFDEOHEXLOGLQJILUHDQGVDIHW\FRGHV &RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&LW\¶V&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVWKHSURMHFWLVFRPSDWLEOHLQVFDOH VLWLQJGHWDLOLQJDQGRYHUDOOFKDUDFWHUZLWKEXLOGLQJVLQWKH0RQWHUH\6WUHHWQHLJKERUKRRG &RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&LW\¶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esthetics 0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH$(6$ FRPELQDWLRQRIYHJHWDWLRQDQGIHQFLQJVKDOOEHXWLOL]HGDVUHTXLUHGWR HIIHFWLYHO\VFUHHQKHDGOLJKWVIDFLQJHDVWZDUGWRZDUGV6DQ/XLV&UHHNIURPWKHXQFRYHUHGSDUNLQJ DUHDWKDWZLOOEHUHWDLQHGDQGLPSURYHG ¾0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ$(67KH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQVKDOOUHYLHZWKHSUHOLPLQDU\ SODQWLQJDQGIHQFLQJSODQDQGSURYLGHGLUHFWLRQWRWKHDSSOLFDQW)LQDOSODQVVKDOOEHUHYLHZHG &RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW3ODQQLQJVWDIIDQGWKH&LW\¶V1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV0DQDJHUDVSDUWRI WKH %XLOGLQJ 3HUPLW DSSOLFDWLRQ SDFNDJH ZKR VKDOO UHTXLUH PRGLILFDWLRQV DV QHFHVVDU\ IRU FRQVLVWHQF\ZLWK&LW\VWDQGDUGVSULRUWRGHSDUWPHQWVLJQRIIDQGLVVXDQFHRISHUPLWV Air Quality 0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH$43ULRUWRDQ\FRQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLWLHVDWWKHVLWHWKHSURMHFWSURSRQHQWVKDOO HQVXUHWKDWDJHRORJLFHYDOXDWLRQLVFRQGXFWHGWRGHWHUPLQHLIWKHDUHDGLVWXUEHGLVH[HPSWIURPWKH $VEHVWRV$7&0UHJXODWLRQ$QH[HPSWLRQUHTXHVWPXVWEHILOHGZLWKWKH$3&',IWKHVLWHLVQRW H[HPSWIURPWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKHUHJXODWLRQWKHDSSOLFDQWPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKDOOUHTXLUHPHQWV RXWOLQHGLQWKH$VEHVWRV$7&07KLVPD\LQFOXGHGHYHORSPHQWRIDQ$VEHVWRV'XVW0LWLJDWLRQ 3ODQDQG$VEHVWRV+HDOWKDQG6DIHW\3URJUDPIRUDSSURYDOE\WKH$3&' ¾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¾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¶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¶VOLPLWRIRSDFLW\IRUQRJUHDWHU WKDQPLQXWHVLQDQ\PLQXWHSHULRG7KHLUGXWLHVVKDOOLQFOXGHKROLGD\VDQGZHHNHQG SHULRGV ZKHQ ZRUN PD\ QRW EH LQ SURJUHVV 7KH QDPH DQG WHOHSKRQH QXPEHU RI VXFK SHUVRQV VKDOO EH SURYLGHG WR WKH $3&' &RPSOLDQFH 'LYLVLRQ SULRU WR WKH VWDUW RI DQ\ JUDGLQJHDUWKZRUNRUGHPROLWLRQ ¾0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ$4$OOPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVVKDOOEHVKRZQRQJUDGLQJDQGEXLOGLQJSODQV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH FRQWUDFWRU VKDOO GHVLJQDWH D SHUVRQ RU SHUVRQV WR PRQLWRU WKH GXVW FRQWURO $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 9 5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&3DJH 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW$5&BFRQWLQXHGUHYLHZ SURJUDPDQGWRRUGHULQFUHDVHGZDWHULQJDVQHFHVVDU\WRSUHYHQWWUDQVSRUWRIGXVWRIIVLWH 7KHLUGXWLHVVKDOOLQFOXGHKROLGD\DQGZHHNHQGSHULRGVZKHQZRUNPD\QRWEHLQSURJUHVV7KH QDPH DQG WHOHSKRQH QXPEHU RI VXFK SHUVRQV VKDOO EH SURYLGHG WRWKH $3&' &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQWDQG3XEOLF:RUNV'HSDUWPHQWVSULRUWRFRPPHQFHPHQWRIFRQVWUXFWLRQ 0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH$43ULRUWRDQ\FRQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLWLHVDWWKHVLWHWKHSURMHFWSURSRQHQWVKDOO HQVXUHWKDWDOOHTXLSPHQWDQGRSHUDWLRQVDUHFRPSOLDQWZLWK&DOLIRUQLD$LU5HVRXUFH%RDUGDQG $3&'SHUPLWWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVE\FRQWDFWLQJWKH$3&'(QJLQHHULQJ'LYLVLRQDW IRUVSHFLILFLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJSHUPLWWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWV ¾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¶VSULPDU\GLHVHOHQJLQHIRUJUHDWHUWKDQPLQXWHVDWDQ\ ORFDWLRQH[FHSWDVQRWHGLQ6XEVHFWLRQGRIWKHUHJXODWLRQDQG 6KDOOQRWRSHUDWHDGLHVHOIXHOHGDX[LOLDU\SRZHUV\VWHP$36WRSRZHUDKHDWHUDLU FRQGLWLRQHURUDQ\DQFLOODU\HTXLSPHQWRQWKDWYHKLFOHGXULQJVOHHSLQJRUUHVWLQJLQD VOHHSHUEHUWKIRUJUHDWHUWKDQPLQXWHVDWDQ\ORFDWLRQZKHQZLWKLQIHHWRI UHVWULFWHGDUHDH[FHSWDVQRWHGLQ6XEVHFWLRQGRIWKHUHJXODWLRQ E2IIURDGGLHVHOHTXLSPHQWVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHPLQXWHLGOLQJUHVWULFWLRQLGHQWLILHGLQ 6HFWLRQ G RI WKH &DOLIRUQLD $LU 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG¶V ,Q8VH RII5RDG 'LHVHO UHJXODWLRQ F6LJQVPXVWEHSRVWHGLQWKHGHVLJQDWHGTXHXLQJDUHDVDQGMREVLWHVWRUHPLQGGULYHUVDQG RSHUDWRUVRIWKHVWDWH¶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¾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iological Resources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¾0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ%,2$OOPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVVKDOOEHVKRZQRQJUDGLQJDQGEXLOGLQJSODQV DQGEHFOHDUO\YLVLEOHWRFRQWUDFWRUVDQG&LW\LQVSHFWRUV(URVLRQFRQWUROPHDVXUHVVKDOOEH UHYLHZHGE\WKH&LW\¶V&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQWDQG3XEOLF:RUNV'HSDUWPHQWVDQGWKH&LW\¶V 1DWXUDO 5HVRXUFHV 0DQDJHU &LW\ VWDII ZLOO SHULRGLFDOO\ LQVSHFW WKH VLWH IRU FRQWLQXHG FRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHDERYHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHV 0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH%,2 3ODQVVXEPLWWHGIRU%XLOGLQJ3HUPLW$SSOLFDWLRQVKDOOLQFOXGHDFUHHN UHVWRUDWLRQDQGHQKDQFHPHQWSODQLGHQWLI\LQJWKHUHPRYDORIQRQQDWLYHYHJHWDWLRQZLWKLQWKHFUHHN EDQNDQGUHSODFHPHQWZLWKDSSURSULDWHQDWLYHWUHHVVKUXEVDQGJURXQGFRYHUV ¾0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ%,2)LQDOSODQVVKDOOEHUHYLHZHGE\WKH&LW\¶V1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV0DQDJHU DVSDUWRIWKH%XLOGLQJ3HUPLWDSSOLFDWLRQSDFNDJHZKRVKDOOUHTXLUHPRGLILFDWLRQVWRWKHFUHHN UHVWRUDWLRQDQGHQKDQFHPHQWSODQDVQHFHVVDU\WRHQVXUHWKDWDQDSSURSULDWHPL[RISODQWLQJVLQ W\SHVL]HDQGTXDQWLW\LVSURSRVHGDQGWKDWEHVWSUDFWLFHVDUHXWLOL]HGZKLOHZRUNLQJZLWKLQWKH FUHHNFRUULGRU 0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH%,27KDWSRUWLRQRIWKHVLWHZKLFKOLHVZLWKLQWKH&26]RQHVKDOOEH GHGLFDWHGDVDSHUSHWXDORSHQVSDFHHDVHPHQW ¾0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ%,23ULRUWRWKHLVVXDQFHRI%XLOGLQJ3HUPLWVDQRSHQVSDFHHDVHPHQW ZULWWHQWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH&LW\¶V1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV0DQDJHUVKDOOEHUHFRUGHGRQWLWOH Cultural Resources $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 11 5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&3DJH 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW$5&BFRQWLQXHGUHYLHZ 0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH&8/7 $TXDOLILHGDUFKDHRORJLVWVKDOOEHSUHVHQWGXULQJDQ\GHPROLWLRQRU JURXQGGLVWXUELQJDFWLYLWLHVLQWKHSURMHFWDUHD ¾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¾0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ&8/7$OOPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVVKDOOEHVKRZQRQJUDGLQJDQGEXLOGLQJ SODQV DQG EH FOHDUO\ YLVLEOH WR FRQWUDFWRUV DQG &LW\ LQVSHFWRUV &LW\ VWDII ZLOO SHULRGLFDOO\ LQVSHFWWKHVLWHIRUFRQWLQXHGFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHDERYHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUH Geology & Soils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¾0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ*(2$OOPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVVKDOOEHVKRZQRQJUDGLQJDQGEXLOGLQJSODQV &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW 3ODQQLQJ DQG 3XEOLF :RUNV VWDII VKDOO UHYLHZ WKH JHRWHFKQLFDO DQDO\VLV DVSDUWRIWKH %XLOGLQJ3HUPLW DSSOLFDWLRQSDFNDJHSULRUWR LVVXDQFHRI JUDGLQJRU FRQVWUXFWLRQSHUPLWV 6(&7,21$FWLRQ7KH$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ&RPPLVVLRQKHUHE\JUDQWVILQDODSSURYDO WRWKHSURMHFWZLWKLQFRUSRUDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJFRQGLWLRQV Planning Department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¶V 1LJKW 6N\ 3UHVHUYDWLRQ VWDQGDUGV FRQWDLQHGLQ&KDSWHURIWKH=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV D$SKRWRPHWULFSODQVKDOOEHSURYLGHGSHU=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV6HFWLRQ E([WHULRUEDOFRQ\ZDOOVFRQFHOLJKWLQJIDFLQJWKHFUHHNVKDOOEHGHVLJQHGVRWKDWWKH OLJKWFDQEHVZLWFKHGRQDQGRIIWRDYRLGFRQVWDQWLOOXPLQDWLRQRIWKHH[WHULRUOLJKWV 0HFKDQLFDODQGHOHFWULFDOHTXLSPHQWVKDOOEHORFDWHGLQWHUQDOO\WRWKHEXLOGLQJ:LWKVXEPLWWDO RIZRUNLQJGUDZLQJVWKHDSSOLFDQWVKDOOLQFOXGHVHFWLRQDOYLHZVRIWKHEXLOGLQJZKLFKFOHDUO\ VKRZWKHVL]HVRIDQ\SURSRVHGFRQGHQVHUVDQGRWKHUPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQW,IDQ\FRQGHQVHUV RURWKHUPHFKDQLFDOHTXLSPHQWLVWREHSODFHGRQWKHURRISODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLW VKDOOFRQILUPWKDWSDUDSHWVDQGRWKHUURRIIHDWXUHVZLOODGHTXDWHO\VFUHHQWKHP$OLQHRIVLJKW GLDJUDPVKDOOEHLQFOXGHGWRFRQILUPWKDWSURSRVHGVFUHHQLQJZLOOEHDGHTXDWH7KLVFRQGLWLRQ DSSOLHVWRLQLWLDOFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGODWHULPSURYHPHQWV $ ILQDO ODQGVFDSLQJ SODQ LQFOXGLQJ LUULJDWLRQ GHWDLOV DQG SODQV VKDOO EH VXEPLWWHG WR WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW 'HSDUWPHQW DORQJ ZLWK ZRUNLQJ GUDZLQJV 7KH OHJHQG IRU WKH ODQGVFDSLQJSODQVKDOOLQFOXGHWKHVL]HVDQGVSHFLHVRIDOOJURXQGFRYHUVVKUXEVDQGWUHHVZLWK FRUUHVSRQGLQJV\PEROVIRUHDFKSODQWPDWHULDOVKRZLQJWKHLUVSHFLILFORFDWLRQVRQSODQV D$Q\SURSRVHGODQGVFDSHOLJKWLQJVKDOOEHVKRZQRQSODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJ SHUPLWDQGSODQVVKDOOFOHDUO\LQGLFDWHOLJKWLQJWRXWLOL]HDQDUURZFRQHRIOLJKWQR EULJKWHUWKDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\ZDWWVIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIFRQILQLQJWKHOLJKWWRWKH REMHFWRILQWHUHVW 7KHORFDWLRQRIDQ\UHTXLUHGEDFNIORZSUHYHQWHUDQGGRXEOHFKHFNDVVHPEO\VKDOOEHVKRZQRQ DOOVLWHSODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWLQFOXGLQJWKHODQGVFDSLQJSODQ&RQVWUXFWLRQSODQV VKDOODOVRLQFOXGHDVFDOHGGLDJUDPRIWKHHTXLSPHQWSURSRVHG:KHUHSRVVLEOHDVGHWHUPLQHG E\WKH8WLOLWLHV'LUHFWRUHTXLSPHQWVKDOOEHORFDWHGLQVLGHWKHEXLOGLQJZLWKLQIHHWRIWKH IURQWSURSHUW\OLQH:KHUHWKLVLVQRWSRVVLEOHDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH8WLOLWLHV'LUHFWRUWKHEDFN IORZSUHYHQWHUDQGGRXEOHFKHFNDVVHPEO\VKDOOEHORFDWHGLQWKHVWUHHW\DUGDQGVFUHHQHGXVLQJ D FRPELQDWLRQ RI SDLQW FRORU ODQGVFDSLQJ DQG LI GHHPHG DSSURSULDWH E\ WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRUDORZZDOO7KHVL]HDQGFRQILJXUDWLRQRIVXFKHTXLSPHQWVKDOOEH VXEMHFWWRUHYLHZDQGDSSURYDOE\WKH8WLOLWLHVDQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRUV $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 13 5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&3DJH 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW$5&BFRQWLQXHGUHYLHZ 7KHSURSRVHGURRIWRSVLJQDJH6KHHW$YLHZVKDOOEHUHPRYHG 7KH SURSRVHG JUHHQVFUHHQ OLYLQJ ZDOO VKDOO FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI =RQLQJ 5HJXODWLRQV6HFWLRQ)HQFHV:DOOVDQG+HGJHV 7KHKRWHOVKDOOPDLQWDLQDQLJKWWLPHVWDIIWKDWFDQTXLFNO\UHVSRQGWRJXHVWRUWRQHLJKERU¶V FRPSODLQWVDERXWH[FHVVLYHQRLVH 7KHVXUIDFHRIWKHSDUNLQJDUHDVVKDOOEHILQLVKHGZLWKDWH[WXUHWKDWOHVVHQVWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUWLUH VTXHDO&RQFUHWHVXUIDFHWUHDWPHQWVWKDWFDQDFKLHYHWKLVLQFOXGHEXUODSGUDJWH[WXULQJ7KLV VKDOOEHVKRZQRQSODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLW 7KHHFKRHIIHFWVZLWKLQWKHSDUNLQJOHYHOVVKDOOEHUHGXFHGE\VXUIDFLQJSRUWLRQVRIWKHFHLOLQJ ZLWKVRXQGDEVRUELQJPDWHULDO$YDULHW\RISURGXFWVDUHDYDLODEOHIRUWKLVSXUSRVHLQFOXGLQJ IRDPRUSRURXVH[SDQGHGSRO\SURS\OHQHSDQHOV 7KH³KHDGOLJKWZDOO´ERUGHULQJWKHSDUNLQJDUHDVKDOOEHFRQVWUXFWHGRIDVROLGPDWHULDOZLWKQR RSHQLQJVRUJDSV7KHGULYHZD\UDPSWKDWFRQQHFWVWKHWZRSDUNLQJOHYHOVVKDOOEHHQFORVHGE\ D VRXQG EORFNLQJ ZDOO WKDW LV DW OHDVW DV KLJK DV WKH ³KHDGOLJKW ZDOO´ 7KLV ZDOO VKDOO EH FRPSDWLEOHLQGHVLJQZLWKDGMDFHQWVFUHHQLQJZDOOVDQGWKHILQDOGHVLJQDQGSODFHPHQWVKDOOEH WRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRU &RQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLWLHVVKDOOWDNHSODFHRQO\EHWZHHQWKHKRXUVRI$0WR30 Engineering Division 7KHXQGHUO\LQJSURSHUW\OLQHVVKDOOEHPHUJHGRUDGMXVWHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJSHUPLWLVVXDQFH $Q\SURSRVHGRUUHTXLUHGHDVHPHQWVVKDOOEHUHFRUGHGSULRUWRSHUPLWLVVXDQFH$Q\UHTXLUHG FRPPRQ GULYHZD\ RU VKDUHG SDUNLQJ DJUHHPHQWV VKDOO EH DSSURYHG DQG UHFRUGHG SULRU WR EXLOGLQJSHUPLWLVVXDQFH :RUNRUFRQVWUXFWLRQVWDJLQJZLWKLQWKHSXEOLFULJKWRIZD\UHTXLUHVDQHQFURDFKPHQWSHUPLW IURPWKH3XEOLF:RUNV'HSDUWPHQW$OOZRUNZLWKLQWKHSXEOLFULJKWRIZD\VKDOOEHVXEMHFWWR WKH&LW\(QJLQHHULQJ6WDQGDUGVLQHIIHFWDWWKHWLPHRISHUPLWLVVXDQFH$Q\FXUEJXWWHUDQG VLGHZDONZRUNVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGVIRUWKH0LVVLRQ6W\OHGLVWULFWDVH[WHQGHGWR XSSHU0RQWHUH\6WUHHW 7KHH[LVWLQJSURSRVHGDQGRUDOWHUHGGULYHZD\DSSURDFKHVVKDOOEHVKRZQWRFRPSO\ZLWK FXUUHQW$'$DQG&LW\(QJLQHHULQJ6WDQGDUGV$Q\VHFWLRQVRIGDPDJHGRUGLVSODFHGFXUE JXWWHUDQGVLGHZDONVKDOOEHUHSDLUHGRUUHSODFHGWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH&LW\(QJLQHHUSULRUWR ILQDOLQVSHFWLRQDSSURYDOV 7KLVSURSHUW\DQGSURMHFWLVORFDWHGZLWKLQDPDSSHG6SHFLDO)ORRG+D]DUG$UHD6)+$DV VKRZQRQWKHPRVWFXUUHQW)ORRG,QVXUDQFH5DWH0DS),507KHSURMHFWVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWK WKH)ORRGSODLQ0DQDJHPHQW5HJXODWLRQV7KHILQDOSODQVDQGGUDLQDJHUHSRUWVKDOOVKRZDQG UHIHUHQFHWKHPDSSHG)ORRG]RQH7KHSURMHFWVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHPDSSHG]RQHXQOHVVD /HWWHURI0DS5HYLVLRQ/205LVSURFHVVHGWKURXJK)(0$,ISURSRVHGD&RQGLWLRQDO/HWWHU $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 14 5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&3DJH 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW$5&BFRQWLQXHGUHYLHZ RI0DS5HYLVLRQ&/205RU/205'HWHUPLQDWLRQ'RFXPHQWVKDOOEHDSSURYHGSULRUWR EXLOGLQJSHUPLWLVVXDQFH :RUNZLWKLQWKHFKDQQHORUULSDULDQDUHDVVKDOOEHDSSURYHGE\WKH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRDQG RWKHUSHUWLQHQWUHJXODWRU\DJHQFLHVSULRUWRGHPROLWLRQJUDGLQJRUFRQVWUXFWLRQSHUPLWLVVXDQFH 7KHQHZSLSHRXWOHWWR6DQ/XLV&UHHNVKDOOEHDSSURYHGE\DOODJHQFLHVKDYLQJMXULVGLFWLRQ SULRUWREXLOGLQJSHUPLWLVVXDQFH 7KH ILQDO SODQV DQG GUDLQDJH UHSRUW VKDOO VKRZ DQG QRWH FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH )ORRGSODLQ 0DQDJHPHQW 5HJXODWLRQV :DWHUZD\ 0DQDJHPHQW 3ODQ 'UDLQDJH 'HVLJQ 0DQXDO DQG 3RVW &RQVWUXFWLRQ6WRUPZDWHU5HJXODWLRQVDVSURPXOJDWHGE\WKH5HJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\&RQWURO %RDUGSHUWKHLU5HVROXWLRQ5 7KHEXLOGLQJSODQVXEPLWWDOVKDOOLQFOXGHDSUHOLPLQDU\2SHUDWLRQVDQG0DLQWHQDQFHPDQXDOIRU DOOSURSRVHG%03¶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´1RUIRON,VODQG3LQHORFDWHGRQWKH0RQWHUH\SURSHUW\VKDOOEHUHWDLQHG XQOHVV RWKHUZLVH DSSURYHG IRU UHPRYDO E\ WKH &LW\ $UERULVW DQG &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW 'LUHFWRU$WUHHUHPRYDOSURSRVDOZLOOUHTXLUHDUHSRUWIURPDFHUWLILHGDUERULVWZLWKDVXPPDU\ RIZK\WKHWUHHFDQ¶WEHVDYHG 7KHWZRH[LVWLQJ'HRGDUD&HGDUWUHHVORFDWHGLQWKHIURQW\DUGVHWEDFNVKDOOEHUHWDLQHGDQG LQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKHILQDOVLWHSODQXQOHVVRWKHUZLVHDSSURYHGIRUUHPRYDOE\WKH&LW\$UERULVW DQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRU$WUHHUHPRYDOSURSRVDOZLOOUHTXLUHDUHSRUWIURPD FHUWLILHGDUERULVWZLWKDVXPPDU\RIZK\RQHRUERWKRIWKHWUHHVFDQ¶WEHVDYHG,IDSSURYHG IRUUHPRYDOFRPSHQVDWRU\HYHUJUHHQWUHHVVKDOOEHLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKHIURQW\DUGVHWEDFN DUHD 7ZRJDOORQ=RQHVWUHHWWUHHVVKDOOEHSODQWHGLQWKHSXEOLFVLGHZDONDUHDDORQJWKHSURMHFW IURQWDJH6WUHHWWUHHVSHFLHVDQGSODQWLQJVVKDOOEHLQVWDOOHGSHU&LW\(QJLQHHULQJ6WDQGDUGVDQG DSSURYHGE\WKH&LW\$UERULVW7UHHVVKDOOEHSODQWHGLQDWUHHZHOOZLWKJUDWHVDQGJXDUGV$Q DOWHUQDWH WUHH VSHFLHV *ROG 0HGDOOLRQ DV SODQWHG LQ WKLV EORFN RI 0RQWHUH\ FRXOG EH VXSSRUWHG Transportation $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 15 5HVROXWLRQ1R$5&3DJH 0RQWHUH\6WUHHW$5&BFRQWLQXHGUHYLHZ 'XHWRLWVFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRWKHPDLQSURMHFWGULYHZD\WKHSURMHFW¶VVRXWKHUO\GULYHZD\VKDOO HLWKHUEHHOLPLQDWHGRUUHGHVLJQHGDVDQ³HQWUDQFHRQO\´RQHZD\GULYHZD\ D$IWHURQH\HDURIRSHUDWLRQRIWKHKRWHOWKHDSSOLFDQWPD\VXEPLWDUHTXHVWWKDWWKH &LW\DQDO\]HWKHSRWHQWLDOLPSDFWVRIPRGLI\LQJWKHSURMHFWµ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¶VFRQVWUXFWLRQSODQVLQFOXGLQJUDFNGHVLJQORFDWLRQFOHDUDQFHVDQGFLUFXODWLRQ QHHGVIRUXVHUVLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWKPDQXIDFWXUHUV¶VWDQGDUGV(DFKSDUNLQJVSDFHVKDOOLQFOXGH D[IWIRRWSULQWXQOHVVQRWHGRWKHUZLVHE\WKHPDQXIDFWXUHU D$SSURYHGVKRUWWHUPELF\FOHUDFNGHVLJQVLQFOXGHWKHLQYHUWHG³8´RU³3HDN5DFNV´ ³5LEERQ´W\SHUDFNVDUHQRWDSSURYHGIRUXVHLQWKH&LW\ E/RQJWHUPELF\FOHSDUNLQJPD\FRQVLVWRIORFNHUVLQVWDOOHGHLWKHUZLWKLQRURXWVLGH WKHEXLOGLQJ$VDQDOWHUQDWLYHDORFNDEOHURRPZLWKLQWKHEXLOGLQJWKDWLVODEHOHG DQGUHVHUYHGIRUELF\FOHVWRUDJHPD\VXEVWLWXWHIRUELF\FOHORFNHUV3URYLGHGHWDLOV DQG VSHFLILFDWLRQV IRU ELF\FOH ORFNHUVURRPV WR WKH VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI WKH 3ODQQLQJ 'LYLVLRQ Fire Department %XLOGLQJFRQVWUXFWLRQW\SHZLOOUHTXLUH7\SH,,%ZLWKRQHKRXUILUHUDWHGVHSDUDWLRQEHWZHHQ GZHOOLQJXQLWV3URMHFWZLOOUHTXLUHDQ1)3$ILUHVSULQNOHUV\VWHP7KHVHUHTXLUHPHQWVDUHD WUDGHRIIIRUODFNRI)LUH'HSDUWPHQWODGGHUWUXFNDFFHVVWRWKHQHZEXLOGLQJ )LUHVSULQNOHUV\VWHP26 <EDFNIORZGHYLFHVKDOOEHORFDWHGZLWKLQIHHWRIH[LVWLQJK\GUDQW 26 <EDFNIORZGHYLFHFDQEHORFDWHGYHUWLFDOO\LQVLGHWKHEXLOGLQJIDFLQJWKHVWUHHWLILWLVLQ DWZRKRXUILUHUDWHGURRPFORVHWZLWKH[WHULRUGRRUDFFHVV%DFNIORZGHYLFHVKDOOEHZLWKLQ IHHWRIWKHSURSHUW\OLQHDWWKHVWUHHW Utilities Department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atural Resources 6XEMHFWWRWKHILQDODSSURYDORIWKH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV0DQDJHUDQG&LW\$UERULVWWKHH[LVWLQJ HXFDO\SWXVWUHHPD\EHUHWDLQHGZLWKVDIHW\SUXQLQJDQGUHJXODUFOHDQXSDQGPDLQWHQDQFHRIOHDI OLWWHUVRDVWRDOORZRWKHUQDWLYHYHJHWDWLRQDFFHVVWRQHFHVVDU\OLJKWDQGVSDFH 7KHULSDULDQDQGXSODQGYHJHWDWLRQOHWWHUIURP)LUPD&RQVXOWDQWV,QFRUSRUDWHGGDWHG2FWREHU LVVXSSRUWHGE\WKH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV0DQDJHU1HZO\LQWURGXFHGQDWLYHVSHFLHVVKDOO EHPRQLWRUHGIRUDSHULRGRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\WKUHH\HDUVWRHQVXUHVXFFHVVIXOHVWDEOLVKPHQWRIWKH VSHFLHV Note: Code requirements provided to applicant separately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ile No. 143-13 1845 MONTEREY ST.¯ $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 18ARC2 - 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 Acoustic Analysis For the Monterey Hotel San Luis Obispo, California Prepared by: David Dubbink Associates 864 Osos Street, Ste D San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 10, 2014 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 43 David Dubbink Associates 2 of 18 Acoustic Analysis: The Monterey Hotel This report evaluates acoustic issues related to the proposed construction of the 102 room Monterey Hotel at 1845 Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo. Several concerns have prompted this study. One concern is the extent to which noise produced by hotel guests on balconies fronting San Luis Creek might impact residential properties on the opposite side of the creek. A second concern is noise from two levels of parking under the hotel. Both are open to the creek side and could impact nearby residences. Figure 1 shows the location of the Monterey Hotel and identifies some other nearby hotels that front onto the creek. The Monterey Hotel is indicated by the white outline at the center of the graphic. The light red lines are property lines. Figure 2 shows a close up view of the hotel as a semi-transparent overlay on the aerial. The property is on a slender parcel that extends from Monterey Street to the far side of San Luis Creek. Pappy McGregor’s Pub is located within the parcel that is to be developed and will remain on the site. The hotel is in two separated structures shown in tan. The parking for the hotel is below, on two levels; one at the present site level with a second level underneath. The parking structure stops well short of the creek, ending at approximately the same location as the current parking lot for the pub. Figure 1: Aerial of Project Site Figure 2: Hotel Site Plan Overlaid on Aerial $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 44 David Dubbink Associates 3 of 18 The Acoustic Setting In order to determine the present ambient noise at the location, sound levels were monitored a several days, at different times of the day. Table 1 shows the data that was collected during multiple ten minute monitoring periods1. Table 1: Monitoring of Background Levels The hotel site drops in elevation from the side of the parcel fronting Monterey Street to the lowest level parking close to San Luis Creek and the rear property line. The ambient sound level varies with distance from traffic on Monterey Street as would be expected. However, the drop in topography has an effect too. At the lower elevations, the roadway noise is screened by topography and by the line of buildings fronting Monterey Street. The character of the sounds varies with elevation also. Near Monterey Street, traffic noise is the dominant feature. At creek level, traffic sounds are muted with the only notable evidence being the occasional vehicles with loud mufflers or rumbling tires. Apart from the distant traffic sounds, the loudest noise events lower elevation comes from residential activities on the opposite side of the creek. The sounds vary; people talking across patios, calls to people outdoors, children playing, dogs barking and yard maintenance activities. At the lower elevations, traffic sounds from Highway 101 can be heard, from the direction of Cuesta Grade. The hotel site is bracketed on Monterey Street by the Best Western Summerset Inn to the north and a Travelodge to the south. The access to the upper level rooms is from continuous balconies that, in both cases, face away from the proposed hotel property. Both hotels have parking areas that extend as deeply as the existing parking for Pappy McGregor’s. However, patrons choose to park closer to hotel registration and, during the monitoring period, the lowest levels of the hotel parking was not being used. 1 A Brüel & Kjær Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter, Type 2230 was used in making the measurements. The meter was calibrated before and after the survey using a B&K Acoustic Calibrator Model 4231. The readings were determined to be accurate. 1-Oct 2-Oct 27-Sep 6:00 PM 10:30 AM 1:00 PM Leq 57.4 53.4 - Lmax 64.1 68.2 - Monterey Street @ 64 feet Lmin 51.8 40 - Leq 57.6 48.1 - Lmax 61 63 - Mid Parcel @ 210 feet Lmin 46.7 44.2 - Leq 48.6 44.9 48.1 Lmax 53.1 53.7 60 Base of parking @ 342 feet Lmin 43.3 42 38 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 45 David Dubbink Associates 4 of 18 Project Plans Figure 3, shows a cross sectional view of the hotel and the topographic profile. The view is from the “south” with Monterey Street at the left of the diagram and San Luis Creek at the right. There are two parking levels beneath the hotel which extend beyond the hotel building. Where the parking levels are open to the sides, they will be bordered by a 5 foot high “headlight” wall. The column of numbers at the center of the graphic indicates the floor elevation of each level of the building. The rear property line is on the far side of San Luis Obispo Creek; at a ground elevation of 280 feet. The topographic rise on the far side of the creek is not as steep as on the hotel side. The red dots on the hotel structure indicate the location of sound sources evaluated in the analysis section of this report. The dot at the property line represents the receptor location. Applying the City’s Noise Regulations Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Stationary Noise Sources Daytime Nighttime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) ========================================================= Hourly Leq, dB1, 2 50 45 Maximum level, dB1, 2 70 65 Maximum level, dB-Impulsive Noise1, 3 65 60 1 As determined at the property line of the receiver. 2 Sound level measurements shall be made with slow meter response 3 Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter response The City of San Luis Obispo has adopted multiple strategies dealing with noise issues. The Municipal Code and the Noise Element of the General Plan specify the permitted levels for the noise that can be produced by land use activities referred to as “stationary Figure 3: Cross Section of the Hotel Site Viewed from the South Table 2: Noise Element Standards $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 46 David Dubbink Associates 5 of 18 sources”. The City’s Noise Element, adopted in 1996, includes a table that specifies maximum noise exposure levels as shown in Table 22. In the case of the Monterey Hotel there are two areas of concern, based on two different metrics. There is a question of whether noise from day and nighttime noise hotel activities will contribute to a sound level in excess of the permitted hourly Leq level. Similarly, there is a question of whether noise from individual events exceeds the specified levels for Lmax. CEQA standards are also a consideration. While CEQA does not set explicit quantitative standards it requires that local governments make specific determinations regarding noise levels. The City’s Noise Guidebook includes a table describing people’s “subjective reaction to changes in noise levels”. 3 It suggests that increase of 1 decibel is the minimum noticeable change and that a 3 decibel change is usually noticeable. One question is whether the permitted activity will significantly alter existing noise environment. The City’s Code includes a number of exemptions. Some bothersome sounds can be generated by car alarms or by drivers sounding horns. But, the Code exempts “Warning Devices” or sounds alerting people to the existence of an emergency4. “Emergency Signaling Devices” are not covered by the code, including car alarms, as long as they are not sounded longer than 30 minutes5. The Code also permits the testing of such devices. The Code also includes a provision that, when measurements are made on the boundary of two different land use zones, the noise level of the more restricted zone will apply plus 5 decibels6. In this case, where a single family area borders a commercial area, the specified limits increase by 5 decibels. The City Code includes a separate collection of standards regulating the noise that can be produced by individuals. This is based on “public nuisance law” which controls activities that adversely affect community welfare. If people were producing noise at levels disturbing to neighbors, the activity could be treated as an infraction under nuisance law. The maximum noise production from mobile vehicle sources is regulated by the state and drivers with exceptionally loud vehicles could be ticketed and required to undergo state supervised inspection. Analysis In order to construct this analysis it was necessary to assemble data from multiple sources and to collect original data where reference material was absent. An extended discussion 2 Noise Element, page 26. 3 City of SLO Noise Guidebook, page 5. 4 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 9.12.090, page 11. 5 Ibid, Section 9.12.050 B.9, page 7 6 Ibid, Section 9.12.060 A.4, page 6 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 47 David Dubbink Associates 6 of 18 of this work is included in Appendix A. The analysis presented here is drawn from the data described in this appendix. The noise associated with the restaurant/pub operations or customer activities are not included in the analysis of the Monterey Hotel’s acoustic impacts. This is an existing condition and activities will not be substantially changed because of the presence of the hotel. The present parking area for the restaurant/pub extends closer to the creek area than the limit of the hotel’s parking. Lmax Levels As noted, the maximum noise levels that can be produced in the City of San Luis Obispo are 70 decibels during daytime (7AM to 10PM) and 65 decibels at night. Loud voices on balconies would produce sound at 50 decibels at a 50 foot reference distance. This extrapolates to a level of 39 decibels heard at the property line bordering the closest residential uses. These voice levels do not exceed the City’s Leq standards. Measured at a 50 foot distance, typical parking lot events were determined to have a maximum sound level of 73 decibels for a horn beep (such as when car doors are locked and the alarm set with a remote), 60 decibels for a door slam and 61 for a trunk lid closing. Based on our test situation, the same events within the enclosed space of the lower parking level would be amplified by 8 decibels. The “headlight wall” surrounding the parking levels will act as a noise barrier, reducing sound by 5 decibels heard at the property line (this reduction factor includes a consideration of the relative elevations of the source, boundary wall and receptor). Table 3 shows the estimated Lmax values associated with the different parking area noise events. Source At 50 foot Reference At Property Boundary Enclosure Amplification Barrier Effect Result horn beep 73 60 8 -5 63 door closing 60 47 8 -5 50 trunk closing 61 48 8 -5 51 The sounds associated with door and trunk closings do not exceed the City’s standard for “impulsive noise” as expressed in the Noise Element. The Code defines these as “sound of a short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay”7. Horn beeps, within the enclosed portion of the parking structure do not exceed the daytime limit of 65 decibels but do exceed the nighttime limit. As has been previously noted, the City Code exempts the brief testing of warning devices from regulation, specifically mentioning car alarms. If the brief signal beeps associated with opening and un-opening car doors with a remote are excepted, the other typical parking lot activities do not exceed the City’s Lmax standards. However, it is appropriate to adopt strategies 7 Ibid, Municipal Code, page 2 Table 3: Computed Lmax Levels for Parking Lot Events $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 48 David Dubbink Associates 7 of 18 Table 4: Computation for Leq at the Property Line. (It is not customary to show decibels to the hundredth place in environmental reports. It is done here to illustrate the increment of change when the source and ambient sounds are added) for reducing the sound of events taking place within the covered portions of the parking structure. Leq Levels The Leq is a time-averaged metric depicting the average noise energy over a specified period of time. The City’ code establishes one hour as the time period. Appendix A provides information on how the hourly Leq values for hotel noise events were computed. Table 4 shows the reference and property line Leq values for sounds from balcony voices and parking lot events at the two parking levels. Only the second level balcony values are shown which represent the worst case for the three room levels. Leq @ 50 Foot Barrier Leq @ Property Duration Source Reference Effect Line (minutes) Ambient Source+ Ambient Balcony Voices (Level 2) 51 0 39 10 47 47.11 Level 1 Parking 50 -5 33 8 47 47.02 Lower Level Parking 58 -5 41 4 47 47.15 Loud voices from the balconies, heard for the specified duration, do not significantly raise the Leq level at the property line. Sound from the several parking levels increases the hourly Leq, but minimally. It is conceivable that all hotel sound events might be present during the same hour. A computation including all sound sources at the specified durations plus ambient levels would produce less than a 1 decibel increase in the Leq. Figures 4 through 6 on the following pages are noise maps showing the sound dispersion patterns associated with people speaking loudly at each of the 3 floor levels of the hotel. The numeric values on the graphics combine the source and background levels. There is little difference between the sound dispersion patterns. None appreciably change the Leq level at the property line. The minor distinction is that the sound beneath a balcony changes with its elevation. Figures 7 and 8 show the dispersion pattern associated with vehicle activities at the two parking levels. These contour patterns include the noise level reduction effect of the perimeter “headlight wall”. As with the balcony diagrams the significant changes in sound exposure are close by the source and, at the property line, there is little change from the 47 decibel background. Figures 4 through 8 are on the following pages $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 49 David Dubbink Associates 8 of 18 Figure 4 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Balcony at Hotel Level 2 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 50 David Dubbink Associates 9 of 18 Figure 5 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Balcony at Hotel Level 3 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 51 David Dubbink Associates 10 of 18 Figure 6 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Balcony at Hotel Level 4 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 52 David Dubbink Associates 11 of 18 Figure 7 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Parking on Level 1 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 53 David Dubbink Associates 12 of 18 Figure 8 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Parking at Lower Level $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 54 David Dubbink Associates 13 of 18 Conclusion Sound produced by guests using the balconies of the Monterey Hotel or loading and unloading cars in the parking levels will not produce sound at levels that exceed the limits specified in the City’s Noise Element. Evaluated at the property line, there is a minimal increase in the Leq level. That is not to say that hotel activities will be inaudible at nearby homes. People can detect the presences of intruding sounds at levels well below ambient levels. And ambient levels vary from moment to moment. People’s balcony conversations will be audible and vehicle loading and unloading will generate sounds that will be heard well beyond the hotel’s property line. This analysis indicates that these events will not occur with sufficient frequency to produce changes that are significant measured by the metrics used in the City’s Noise Element or Municipal Code. Recommendations While the project, as proposed, will not produce noise levels that are in excess of the City’s standards there are steps that can be taken to reduce the potential for noise disturbance in adjacent neighborhoods. The hotel should maintain a nighttime staff that can quickly respond to guest or to neighbor’s complaints about excessive noise. The surface of the parking areas should be finished with a texture that lessens the potential for tire squeal. Concrete surface treatments that can achieve this include burlap drag texturing. The echo effects within the parking levels can be reduced by surfacing portions of the ceiling with sound absorbing material. A variety of products are available for this purpose including foam or porous expanded polypropylene panels. The “headlight wall” bordering the parking area should be constructed of a solid material with no openings or gaps. The driveway ramp that connects the two parking levels should be enclosed by a sound blocking wall that is at least as high as the “headlight wall”. Construction activities should be conditioned to take place only between the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM. This condition is consistent with City standards. $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 55 David Dubbink Associates 14 of 18 Appendix A Estimating Sound Levels for Hotel Sources This narrative describes the process that was used for evaluating noise sources for the Monterey Hotel project. The City’s noise regulations use several metrics in describing sound levels. One is Lmax, which is the maximum noise level reached during an event. A second is hourly Leq which is the average noise energy over an hour. Computation of the Lmax level for an event is straightforward but determining Leq is more complex. It requires information about the loudness of the source, but also its duration and frequency. In times when the source is silent, the ambient background level becomes the sound floor. Ambient Sound Ambient sound is often represented by the hourly Leq value. Since ambient sound levels vary over a day it is important to identify a period that is most significant in determining the acoustic impacts of a specific project. In this case, for a hotel project, the most representative time period might be the peak times of guest arrival which is during the four to six PM hours. This would be when the greatest amount of parking lot activity would occur with the sound of vehicle maneuvering, door and trunk lid closings, rolling suitcases and the horn peeps as car locks are set. Table 1 in the report shows the current background noise levels at different locations on the project site. Noise Produced by Hotel Guests There are limits to the loudness of sounds that individuals can generate without amplification. There is a substantial body of research on this topic because speech recognition is so critical to proper communication8. Normal conversation, heard at 3 feet, is at the level of 60 to 65 decibels. A person speaking in a raised voice, such as a person talking to a group, is in the 70 to 75 decibel range. A person shouting at full volume, heard at a three foot distance, would generate sound in the 80 to 89 decibel range. In computing Leq, there also need to be assumptions concerning the frequency and duration of the sound events. The Madonna Inn has 110 rooms and gets a regular mix of commercial and holiday travelers. I asked Clint Pierce, of Madonna Enterprises about the frequency of complaints about guest noise. He reports that this is a regular occurrence, with about one incident per night. He says that it typically is ten minutes between the time the desk receives a complaint and hotel staff quiets the problem. Parking Lot Noise While voice communication has long been a subject of study and there is a reservoir of information available, noise from parking lot activities is less studied. In a Google search only a few California EIRs were identified where this was studied and these concerned major parking structures. There is has been some careful research done on this topic in 8 http://www.alfwarnock.info/profess/Average%20Speech%20Levels.pdf $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 56 David Dubbink Associates 15 of 18 Germany but the projects studied and the metrics used differ from parking areas proposed for the Monterey Hotel9. We decided to conduct several studies in settings that resemble the situation at the Monterey Hotel. The several questions that were addressed were: •Determining the noise levels associated with a typical parking lot activity. This would include car door and trunk slams, conversation across the car top, and the horn beep of a car alarm being set. •The hotel’s parking levels are above the level of the rear property line and the houses on the far side of the creek. The question is the extent to which this elevation change would modify sound propagation and how echoes from the interior of the structure might affect what is heard. Table 1 shows the sound levels associated with a multiple 15 second sound events that included motor sounds, door and trunk closures, voices, and the horn peep of car being locked with a remote. The sounds were evaluated at a distance of fifty feet. The tests were done in a remote setting with little background noise. Table 1: Leq values for combined parking lot activities In the mathematical averaging of sound events, the louder sounds dominate. In this analysis it will be assumed that a parking lot event, heard at 50 feet, will produce a Leq at the 50 dB level. The maximum sound level output of the various events was also evaluated. The test was repeated for several events from the same source. The maximum sound for a car door slamming was 60 dB. For a trunk lid closing the maximum was 61. The brief chirp of the horn on locking produced a maximum level of 73 decibels. The elevation difference between the parking levels and the closest property line is substantial. The floor of the upper parking lot level is at 311 feet and the boundary with the closest residences is at a 280 foot elevation; a difference is 31 feet. A person standing at the property line would be looking upward toward the parking levels and only see the closest row of parked vehicles. The lower level of the parking structure is at 301 feet, an elevation difference of 21 feet. The closest edge of the parking area is 165 feet from the property line. The best local analogy for parking lot noise exposure was found to be the back side of the City’s Chinatown parking structure. This backs up to apartment structures that front onto 9 References to studies go here. Event Leq Level 1 48.1 2 49.7 3 47.1 4 48 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 57 David Dubbink Associates 16 of 18 Mill Street. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the setting. The red “X” is the measurement position which is 70 feet from the wall of the parking structure. Figure 2 shows a photo of the parking structure taken from this location. The floor of the parking on the top of the structure is estimated to be 27 feet above ground level compared to the measurement location. The floor surface of the level below this is 16 feet above the measuring point. The perimeter of both levels is enclosed by “headlight walls” but these consist of a row of flat plates with spaces between. They would block some parking lot noise but not as well as would a solid wall. We evaluated the changes associated with an elevated parking level with no covering and a parking level enclosed within a structure but open on the side toward the receiver. A car was parked on the top level in the closest rank of spaces, directly opposite the measuring point. The horn was sounded for five seconds to establish a sound reference level. Then the car was moved to the enclosed area of the structure, directly below the previous location and parallel to the measuring point. Again the horn was sounded. This experiment was done on two different days using two different cars. Table 2 shows the results. Table 2: Effects of open and enclosed parking levels (and elevation differences) In the first experiment the horn sounded on the open rooftop parking level, at an elevation above the monitoring point, the average decibel reading was 64 decibels. The same event, but with the horn sounded within an enclosed structure and at a lesser elevation, was 8 decibels louder. In the second experiment the car horn was not as loud, but the decibels difference between the open rooftop parking level and the enclosed level was the same. This difference is due mostly to the echo effects of the enclosure but would also reflect Oct. 2, 2014 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Average Roof Level 64.9 64.8 64.9 62 64 Level Below 70.9 72.5 71.8 Not done 72 Oct. 3, 2014 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average Roof Level 59.7 60.1 60.4 60 Level Below 69.9 66.5 69.0 68 Figure 1 (Appendix): Location of Monitoring Site for the Chinatown Parking Structure and the View from the Monitoring Location. $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 58 David Dubbink Associates 17 of 18 the varying elevation of the source and the slightly closer measurement distance, but mostly to the echo effects of the enclosure. It should be noted that steady horn soundings, as done in the experimental setting are not a typical parking lot event. The most common horn sounding is the brief beep made when a remote is used to lock or open a car. (This sound was included with the staged events with the door and trunk closings and motor noise.) To determine the frequency of the sort of parking lot events that were measured, we consulted the Trip Generation Manual compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The ITE manual contains averages of trip generations for a multiplicity of land use activities, including hotels and motels. For a “Resort Hotel” the PM period trip generation rate is .49 per occupied room. For a “Motel” the PM trip generation rate is .47 per occupied room. It would be likely that not all trips made to the hotel would involve guests loading and unloading equipment or that the hotel would always operate at full occupancy. However, this 100% number is used to insure estimates are conservative. Applying the ITE data (assuming .48 trips per occupied room) the peak hour “events” would number 49. The cumulative time period with events occurring would be a bit over 12 minutes in an hour if these were to occur sequentially. In the analysis, we chose to examine the Leq levels produced by different activities independently by floor level. The reasoning is that noise events such as loud voices on a balcony or car unloading in the parking lot would occur at different times. In considering the frequency of car unloading there needs to be a proportioning of events to the two parking levels. People typically park as close to their rooms as possible and in a parking area, closest to the elevators. The analysis makes the assumption that two thirds of the parking lot activity will take place on the upper level of parking with one third on the lower level. The associated time durations are 8 minutes of activity for the upper level and 4 minutes of activity at the lower level. Car Alarms We did try to establish the likelihood of car alarms sounding, even though The City code exempts sound produced by warning devices. We questioned personnel working at several of the City’s downtown parking structures, asking them to estimate the frequency of such events. The following estimates were received: Parking Structure Spaces Estimated Events Chinatown 412 Once Daily 919 Palm 192 Infrequent Marsh Street 520 Several Daily It was noted that the Marsh Street structure serves a different clientele than the others and there is more in and out activity. Table 3: Frequency of Car Alarm Events in City Parking Structures $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 59 David Dubbink Associates 18 of 18 The Monterey Hotel along with the restaurant will have 141 spaces. A comparison with the City experience suggests that car alarm events will be “infrequent”; on the order of one or two a week. $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 60 Gray Electrical Consulting + Engineering, LLC P.O. Box 368, Santa Maria, CA 93456 Tel: (805) 234-6058 E-mail: info@GECELLC.com 1 | Page October 8, 2014 Garcia Architecture + Design 1330 Monterey Street, Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attention: George Garcia RE: The Monterey Hotel Photometric Analysis Dear George: Our office has prepared photometric analysis for the above referenced project, specifically focusing on the East project boundary. Exterior luminaire selections are consistent with Architectural sheet A9.0, with the exception of the ceiling mounted light fixture “2” located in the parking garage area. Please see the attached luminaire specification sheets. The following summarizes our review, outlining any assumption made, with regard to the schematic level lighting design proposed. 1. Hotel guest units are provided with a single wall sconce (type “B”) at each exterior balcony. This luminaire is orientated down, and considered full cut off. Mounting for these luminaires has been assumed at +8’ AFF of the balcony. 2. Parking garage lighting is provided with a type five (5) wide distribution. As noted in the photometric analysis, the iso-curve has been placed at a 0.2fc threshold. This luminaire was selected for its performance, and ability to minimize light spill beyond the covered parking area. The proposed luminaire is capable of bi-level control through integral motion sensors, where when vacant, luminaire output can reduce by 50% (or any other desired increment). 3. Photometric calculation planes have been defined at the project boundary, 15’ offset of the project boundary, and the creek area. Refer to photometric plan sheet 2 of 6. Statistics indicated that each of these areas have a maximum foot-candle level of 0, which complies with California Green Building Code 5.106.8, “Light Pollution Reduction”, whereas no more than 0.01fc is allowed to escape 15’ and beyond the project site boundary. Feel free to contact our office should you have any questions. Sincerely, Heather A. Gray, P.E., LEED AP BD+C Principal Electrical Engineer Gray Electrical Consulting + Engineering, LLC Attachments: (1) Photometric Analysis, (2) Luminaire Specification Sheets Attachment 5 ARC2 - 61 ! "#$%&' ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( () ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Attachment 5 ARC2 - 62 ! "#$%&"'!() * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Attachment 5 ARC2 - 63 !"#$%# & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & Attachment 5 ARC2 - 64 !"#$% & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &' & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & Attachment 5 ARC2 - 65 !"#$% & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & Attachment 5 ARC2 - 66 ! " "! "#$%"$ $ $ &$'($)%* !+ , * - .* * /! "#$%"$ $ $ &$'($)%* !+ , * %010!"#%" &'()%2%)%3!-)4"#!5&01!5!60#75(0%01013 !"50)53 &%" 3'(0*%" ."%(!(0"%"(8,39 3 3'(%"399 3/(%010!"#%" &'()%2-!1%)%3-%(4"#!5&01!5!60#75(0%01013 !"50)53 &%" 3'(0*%"###" $ % %& $&': ;-,8284<!2=84<=24%>8;-,8284 * * * 1?!1?! * * * 1?!1?! * * * 1?!1?! * * * 1?!1?!Attachment 5 ARC2 - 67 D-Series LED Parking Garage Specifications Catalog Number Notes Type Introduction The D-Series LED Parking Garage luminaire provides energy savings of 88% when replacing 175W metal halide luminaires. With an expected service life of over 100,000 hours (10+ years of 24/7 operation), up to ten metal halide lamp changes are avoided over the life of the product. All of this adds up to quick paybacks and a very low total cost of ownership. Five dedicated precision refractive optics allow the D-Series Parking Garage luminaire to meet the desired criteria for minimums, verticals and uniformity. Exceptional glare control is achieved while delivering the required vertical illumination. Length:17-3/4” (45.1 cm) Width:8-1/2” (21.6 cm) Height:3-7/16” (8.7 cm) Weight (max): 16 lbs (7.3 kg) 0OF-JUIPOJB8BZt$POZFST (FPSHJBt1IPOFt'BYtwww.lithonia.com © 2013-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. DSXPGYK DWHXD U Yoke/trunnion accessory, white (other finishes available) DSXPGHS U House-side shield (1 per light engine) DSXPGBDS DWHXD U Bird shroud for pendant or yoke, white (other finishes available) DSXPGBDSSJ DWHXD U Bird shroud for SRM on surface J-box only, white (other finishes available) Accessories Ordered and shipped separately. Mounting OptionsMotion Sensing 0 ft 10 0 m 3 31 23 15.5 8 0 ft 8 15.5 23 31 9.4 7 4.8 2.3 0 m 2.3 4.8 7 9.4 SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW W 31 15.5 0 ft 15.5 31 9.4 4.8 0 m 4.8 9.4 The motion sensor options (PIR360SS or PIRH360SS) have 360° of passive infrared sensing and adjustable bi-level dimming to save energy when there is no occupancy. L H W Surface Mounting Yoke/Trunnion Mounting NOTES 1 Available with 700mA or 1000mA option only. 2 Not available with 347 or 480V. 3 AMBPC only available with 530mA or 700mA. 4 MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120- 277V (50/60 Hz). Specify 120, 208, 240 or 277 options only when ordering with fusing (SF, DF options). 5 N/A with one light engine (10C). Only available with 700mA or 1000mA. 6 Compatible with 3/4” NPT pendant stem, by others. 7 Also available as a separate accessory; see Accessories information at left. 8 Single fuse (SF) requires 120, 277 or 347 voltage option. Double fuse (DF) requires 208, 240 or 480 voltage option. 9 Not available with XAD. 10 PIR360SS specifies the SensorSwitch SBOR-10-ODP control; PIRH360SS specifies the SensorSwitch SBOR- 6-ODP control; see Motion Sensor Guide for details. Dimming driver standard. 11 See the electrical section on page 3 for more details. 12 Dimming driver standard. Available 120v or 277v only. Not available with fusing, PIR360SS or PIRH360SS. 13 Available with DNAXD or DDBXD only. Ordering Information EXAMPLE: DSXPG LED 20C 1000 40K T5M MVOLT DWHXD DSXPG LED Series LEDs Drive current Color temperature Distribution Voltage Mounting Options Finish (required) DSXPG LED 10C 10 LEDs (one engine) 1, 2 20C 20 LEDs (two engines) 30C 30 LEDs (three engines) 350 350 mA 530 530 mA 700 700 mA 1000 1000 mA (1 A) 30K 3000 K 40K 4000 K 50K 5000 K AMBPC Amber phosphor converted3 T5E Type V, entryway T5M Type V, medium T5W Type V, wide T5R Type V, rectangular ASY Asymmetric MVOLT 4 120 4 208 4 240 4 277 4 347 5 480 5 Shipped included (blank)Pendant mount 6 SRM Surface mount Shipped separately YK Yoke/ trunnion mount 7 Shipped installed DMG 0-10V dimming driver (no controls) HS House-side shield (housing visor) 7 SF Single fuse (120, 277, 347V) 8,9 DF Double fuse (208, 240, 480V) 8,9 PIR360SS Motion/ambient sensor, 8-15’ mounting height 9,10 PIRH360SS Motion/ambient sensor, 15-30’ mount- ing height 9,10 SPD Separate surge protection 11 XAD XPoint Wireless enabled 12 CFMH Cover finish matches housing13 Shipped separately SLVRD Pendant swivel cover for round or octagonal j-box SLVSQ Pendant swivel cover for 4” square j-box BDS Bird shroud 7 DWHXD White DNAXD Natural aluminum DDBXD Dark bronze Attachment 5 ARC2 - 68 Lumen values are from photometric tests performed in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. Data is considered to be representative of the configurations shown, within the tolerances allowed by Lighting Facts. Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. Actual wattage may differ by +/- 8% when operating between 120-480V +/- 10%. Performance Data Lumen Output Electrical Load Use these factors to determine relative lumen output for average ambient temperatures from 0-40°C (32-104°F). Lumen Ambient Temperature (LAT) Multipliers Ambient Lumen Multiplier 0°C 32°F 1.02 10°C 50°F 1.01 20°C 68°F 1.00 25°C 77°F 1.00 30°C 86°F 1.00 40°C 104°F 0.98 Projected LED Lumen Maintenance Data references the extrapolated performance projections for the platforms noted in a 25°C ambient, based on 10,000 hours of LED testing (tested per IESNA LM-80-08 and projected per IESNA TM-21-11). To calculate LLF, use the lumen maintenance factor that corresponds to the desired number of operating hours below. For other lumen maintenance values, contact factory. Operating Hours 0 25,000 50,000 100,000 Lumen Maintenance Factor DSXPG LED 10C 1000 1.0 0.97 0.94 0.90 DSXPG LED 30C 1000 1.0 0.93 0.89 0.80 DSXPG LED 30C 700 1.0 0.98 0.97 0.95 Current (A) LEDs Drive Current (mA) System Watts 120 208 240 277 347 480 10C 700 26W 0.25 0.15 0.13 0.11 – – 1000 37W 0.37 0.21 0.18 0.16 – – 20C 350 25W 0.23 0.13 0.12 0.10 – – 530 37W 0.33 0.19 0.17 0.14 – – 700 46W 0.43 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.11 1000 74W 0.68 0.39 0.34 0.29 0.23 0.17 30C 350 35W 0.33 0.19 0.16 0.14 – – 530 53W 0.50 0.29 0.25 0.22 – – 700 67W 0.66 0.38 0.33 0.29 0.23 0.17 1000 107W 1.01 0.58 0.50 0.44 0.35 0.25 Light Engines Drive Current (mA) Performance Package System Watts Dist. Type 30K (3000 K, 80 CRI) 40K (4000 K, 70 CRI) 50K (5000 K, 65 CRI) Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW Lumens B U G LPW 10C (10 LEDs) 700 mA 10C 700--K 26W ASY 1,792 0 0 1 69 2,253 1 0 1 87 2,428 1 0 1 93 T5E 1,882 1 0 0 72 2,366 1 0 0 91 2,550 1 0 0 98 T5M 1,889 1 0 0 73 2,375 2 0 0 91 2,560 2 0 0 98 T5R 1,860 2 0 2 72 2,339 2 0 2 90 2,521 2 0 2 97 T5W 1,771 2 0 1 68 2,226 2 0 1 86 2,399 2 0 1 92 1000 mA 10C1000 --K 37W ASY 2,444 1 0 1 66 3,074 1 0 1 83 3,314 1 0 1 90 T5E 2,566 1 0 0 69 3,227 2 0 0 87 3,479 2 0 0 94 T5M 2,576 2 0 0 70 3,241 2 0 1 88 3,493 2 0 1 94 T5R 2,537 2 0 2 69 3,191 2 0 2 86 3,440 3 0 3 93 T5W 2,414 2 0 1 65 3,037 2 0 1 82 3,274 3 0 1 88 20C (20 LEDs) 350 mA 20C 350 --K 25W ASY 1,995 1 0 1 80 2,511 1 0 1 100 2,705 1 0 1 108 T5E 2,095 1 0 0 84 2,637 1 0 0 105 2,840 2 0 0 114 T5M 2,103 2 0 0 84 2,647 2 0 0 106 2,851 2 0 1 114 T5R 2,071 2 0 2 83 2,607 2 0 2 104 2,808 2 0 2 112 T5W 1,971 2 0 1 79 2,481 2 0 1 99 2,672 2 0 1 107 530 mA 20C 530 --K 37W ASY 2,803 1 0 1 76 3,526 1 0 1 95 3,799 1 0 1 103 T5E 2,943 2 0 0 80 3,702 2 0 0 100 3,989 2 0 0 108 T5M 2,955 2 0 1 80 3,717 2 0 1 100 4,005 2 0 1 108 T5R 2,910 2 0 2 79 3,660 3 0 3 99 3,944 3 0 3 107 T5W 2,770 2 0 1 75 3,483 3 0 1 94 3,754 3 0 1 101 700 mA 20C 700 --K 46W ASY 3,449 1 0 1 75 4,337 1 0 1 94 4,675 1 0 1 102 T5E 3,621 2 0 0 79 4,554 2 0 0 99 4,909 2 0 0 107 T5M 3,636 2 0 1 79 4,572 3 0 1 99 4,928 3 0 1 107 T5R 3,580 3 0 3 78 4,502 3 0 3 98 4,853 3 0 3 106 T5W 3,407 3 0 1 74 4,285 3 0 1 93 4,619 3 0 1 100 1000 mA 20C 1000 --K 74W ASY 4,632 1 0 1 63 5,828 1 0 1 79 6,283 1 0 2 85 T5E 4,864 2 0 0 66 6,119 2 0 0 83 6,597 2 0 1 89 T5M 4,883 3 0 1 66 6,143 3 1 1 83 6,623 3 0 1 90 T5R 4,808 3 0 3 65 6,050 3 0 3 82 6,522 3 0 3 88 T5W 4,577 3 0 1 62 5,758 3 0 2 78 6,207 3 0 2 84 30C (30 LEDs) 350 mA 30C 350 --K 35W ASY 3,022 1 0 1 86 3,799 1 0 1 109 4,097 1 0 1 117 T5E 3,172 2 0 0 91 3,989 2 0 0 114 4,302 2 0 0 123 T5M 3,185 2 0 1 91 4,005 2 0 1 114 4,319 3 0 1 123 T5R 3,137 2 0 2 90 3,944 3 0 3 113 4,253 3 0 3 122 T5W 2,985 2 0 1 85 3,754 3 0 1 107 4,048 3 0 1 116 530 mA 30C 530 --K 53W ASY 4,239 1 0 1 80 5,333 1 0 1 101 5,748 1 0 1 108 T5E 4,451 2 0 0 84 5,599 2 0 0 106 6,035 2 0 0 114 T5M 4,468 3 0 1 84 5,622 3 0 1 106 6,059 3 0 1 114 T5R 4,400 3 0 3 83 5,536 3 0 3 104 5,967 3 0 3 113 T5W 4,188 3 0 1 79 5,269 3 0 1 99 5,679 3 0 1 107 700 mA 30C 700 --K 67W ASY 5,170 1 0 1 77 6,504 1 0 2 97 7,011 1 0 2 105 T5E 5,428 2 0 0 81 6,829 3 0 1 102 7,362 3 0 1 110 T5M 5,450 3 0 1 81 6,856 3 0 1 102 7,391 3 0 2 110 T5R 5,367 3 0 3 80 6,752 3 0 3 101 7,278 3 0 3 109 T5W 5,108 3 0 1 76 6,426 3 0 2 96 6,927 3 0 2 103 1000 mA 30C 1000 --K 107W ASY 6,775 1 0 2 63 8,520 2 0 2 80 9,187 2 0 2 86 T5E 7,113 3 0 1 66 8,946 3 0 1 84 9,646 3 0 1 90 T5M 7,141 3 0 1 67 8,982 3 0 2 84 9,685 3 0 2 91 T5R 7,032 3 0 3 66 8,845 4 0 4 83 9,537 4 0 4 89 T5W 6,693 3 0 2 63 8,418 4 0 2 79 9,077 4 0 2 85 0OF-JUIPOJB8BZt$POZFST (FPSHJBt1IPOFt'BYtwww.lithonia.com © 2013-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSXPG 3FW Note: Available with phosphor-converted amber LEDs (nomenclature AMBPC). These LEDs produce light with 97+% >530 nm. Output can be calculated by applying a 0.7 factor to 4000 K lumen values and photomet- ric files (for 530mA and 700mA drive currents only). Attachment 5 ARC2 - 69 To see complete photometric reports or download .ies files for this product, visit Lithonia Lighting’s D-Series Parking Garage homepage. Photometric Diagrams FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE The energy savings, long life, and easy-to-install design of the D-Series LED Parking Garage luminaire make it the smart choice for commercial and municipal garage applications. It is designed to meet or exceed recommended illuminance criteria when installed as a direct replacement of most HID parking garage luminaires. CONSTRUCTION Two-piece die-cast aluminum housing has integral heat sink fins to optimize thermal management through conductive and convective cooling. Modular design allows for ease of maintenance and future light engine upgrades. The LED drivers are mounted in direct contact with the casting to promote low operating temperature and long life. Housing is completely sealed against moisture and environmental contaminants (IP66) and is suitable for hose-down. FINISH &YUFSJPSQBSUTBSFQSPUFDUFECZB[JODJOGVTFE4VQFS%VSBCMF5(*$UIFSNPTFU powder coat finish that provides superior resistance to corrosion and weathering. A tightly controlled multi-stage process ensures a minimum 3 mils thickness for a finish that can withstand extreme climate changes without cracking or peeling. OPTICS Precision-molded proprietary acrylic lenses provide five different photometric distributions tailored specifically to parking garage applications. Light engines BSFBWBJMBCMFJO, NJO$3* , NJO$3* PS, NJO$3* configurations. ELECTRICAL Light engines consist of 10 high-efficacy LEDs mounted to a metal-core circuit board to maximize heat dissipation and promote long life. The electronic driver IBTBQPXFSGBDUPSPG 5)% BOEBNJOJNVN,7TVSHFSBUJOH8IFO ordering the SPD option, a separate surge protection device is installed within UIFMVNJOBJSFXIJDINFFUTBNJOJNVN$BUFHPSZ$MPXPQFSBUJPO QFS"/4**&&& $ INSTALLATION 4UBOEBSEDPOmHVSBUJPOBDDFQUTBSJHJEPSGSFFTXJOHJOHw/15TUFN CZ others) for pendant mounting. The surface mount option attaches to a 4x4” recessed or surface mount outlet box using a quick-mount kit (included); kit contains galvanized steel luminaire and outlet box plates and a full pad gasket. Kit has an integral mounting support that allows the luminaire to hinge down for easy electrical connections. Luminaire and plates are secured with TFUTDSFXT"MTPBWBJMBCMFXJUIBZPLFUSVOOJPONPVOUPQUJPOXJUIw/15 provision for flexible conduit entry (conduit by others); height can be adjusted from 10-18”. Supply leads are 12” in length as standard. For longer supply leads, please consult factory. LISTINGS $4"DFSUJmFEUP64BOE$BOBEJBOTUBOEBSET-JHIUFOHJOFTBOEMVNJOBJSFBSF IP66 rated. Rated for -40°$NJOJNVNBNCJFOU %FTJHO-JHIUT$POTPSUJVN¥ %-$ RVBMJmFEQSPEVDU1BSLJOH(BSBHF -VNJOBJSFTDBUFHPSZ/PUBMMWFSTJPOTPGUIJTQSPEVDUNBZCF%-$RVBMJmFE 1MFBTFDIFDLUIF%-$2VBMJmFE1SPEVDUT-JTUBUwww.designlights.org to confirm which versions are qualified. WARRANTY 'JWFZFBSMJNJUFEXBSSBOUZ$PNQMFUFXBSSBOUZUFSNTMPDBUFEBU XXXBDVJUZCSBOETDPN$VTUPNFS3FTPVSDFT5FSNT@BOE@DPOEJUJPOTBTQY. Note: Specifications subject to change without notice. 0OF-JUIPOJB8BZt$POZFST (FPSHJBt1IPOFt'BYtwww.lithonia.com © 2013-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. DSXPG 3FW *TPGPPUDBOEMFQMPUTGPSUIF%491(-&%$,%JTUBODFTBSFJOVOJUTPGNPVOUJOHIFJHIU LEGEND 5.0 fc 10.0 fc 0.1 fc 0.5 fc 1.0 fc 20.0 fc 5FTU/P1UFTUFEJOBDDPSEBODFXJUI*&4/"-.4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 43210 4321 T5W 5FTU/P1UFTUFEJOBDDPSEBODFXJUI*&4/"-.4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 43210 4321 T5M 5FTU/P1UFTUFEJOBDDPSEBODFXJUI*&4/"-.4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 43210 4321 T5E 5FTU/P1UFTUFEJOBDDPSEBODFXJUI*&4/"-.4 3 2 1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 43210 4321 T5R Attachment 5 ARC2 - 70 422 Bulb: COB LED (incl.) 2x 3,5W Material: Aluminum/glass Accessory/Included parts: LED driver (incl.) Versions: Art. No.: 3000K, 460lm, CRI 80 white 3230791U silver grey 3230794U DELWA WIDE Design by CDC 1.76 LED 2pce.30000 5.51 2.36 7.09 120VAC SLV Lighting North America, Inc. 5731 Benjamin Center Drive tTampa, FL 33634 Main Line: (813) 349–tFax Line: (813) 349–1907 twww.slvlighting.com Photometric Type "B" (Also referenced as "3" on A9.0)Attachment 5 ARC2 - 71 FF irma Consultants Incorporated David W. Foote ASLA 187 Tank Farm Road Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805 )781-9800 • fax (805)781-9803 October 8, 2014 George Garcia Garcia Architecture + Design Sent via email RE: The Monterey –Project No. ER 143-13 Dear George, We have reviewed the required mitigation measure related to creek vegetation, visited the site to review the nature and extent of non-native vegetation in the creek setback as well as the creek bank. The applicable mitigation measure reads: 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. 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 type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized while working within the creek corridor. In advance of the final plan to be prepared, and to respond to the ARC information request, we offer the following: • The existing creek setback area between the limit of construction and the C/OS-5 line consists of six Pittosporum undulatum, two small Pear trees, Cotoneaster lacteus, Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and three small Oaks (Quercus agrifolia). • The proposed landscape plan retains the existing pepper tree and other vegetation due to its screening value. Where the basement excavation occurs, the disturbed area will be re-vegetated with drought tolerant natives. • The creek bank area subject to MM BIO-2 contains one Eucalyptus tree and a fairly dense planting of California natives including Monterey Pines (Pinus radiata), small Oaks (Quercus agrifolia), Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and Poison Oak (Toxicodendron diverilobium). It is our opinion that removal of the introduced trees should be limited to the Eucalyptus tree near top of bank. The $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 72 Monterey pine trees along the creek bank should remain to maintain bank stability and screening. Understory plants that are non-native include two small Olive trees (Olea europaea), and four-stressed Pittosporum undulatum. In addition, thin patches of Vinca major (approximately 250 sf) are located along the creek bank and 50 sf of English Ivy (Hedera helix) can be found at the top of the bank. The following native plants that offer habitat and screening would suitably replace the these non-native plants: Fremont Cottonwood / Populus fremontii Toyon / Heteromeles arbutifolia Snowberry / Symphoricarpos albus laevigatus California rose / Rosa californica Coffeberry /Rhamnus californica California Bay Laurel / Umbellularia californica The replacement planting would be mulch and temporary irrigation provided to establish. A suitable monitoring / establishment period is 3 to 5 years. Sincerely, David Foote ASLA $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 73 Meeting Date: August 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 (Attachment 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 Monterey 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 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 [see section 4.0 below]. $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 74 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) $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 75 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 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 76 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… $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 77 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. $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 78 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. $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 79 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 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 80 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 81 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 82 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 83 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 84 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 85 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 86 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 87 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 88 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 89 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 90 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 - 91 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 - 92 Reference Vicinity Map $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 93 VP #1:Visual simulation of proposed project from Monterey Street looking southeast $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 94 VP #2:Visual simulation of proposed project from Monterey Street looking northeast $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 95 VP #3:Visual simulation of proposed project from San Luis Drive looking northwest $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 96 VP #4:Visual simulation of proposed project from San Luis Drive looking northwest $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 97 VP #5:Visual simulation of proposed project from San Luis Drive looking northwest $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 98 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 - 99 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 - 100 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 101 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 102 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) Attachment 8 ARC2 - 103 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)). Attachment 8 ARC2 - 104 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 105 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. 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. 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 106 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 107 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 108 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 109 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 110 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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-- Attachment 8 ARC2 - 111 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 112 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 113 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 114 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 115 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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-- Attachment 8 ARC2 - 116 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 117 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 118 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 119 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 120 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 121 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 122 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 123 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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-- Attachment 8 ARC2 - 124 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 ([LVWLQJ 5HVLGHQFH +RWHO 5HVWDXUDQW 1R&KDQJH 1HW7ULSV 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 125 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 126 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 127 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 128 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 129 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 130 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 31 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 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 131 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. 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. 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 Attachment 8 ARC2 - 132 ,VVXHV'LVFXVVLRQDQG6XSSRUWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ6RXUFHV (5$$5&//$(5 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. 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 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. Attachment 8 ARC2 - 133 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 134 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 135 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 136 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 137 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 138 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 139 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 140 $WWDFKPHQW ARC2 - 141 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT:Review of the remodel of and addition to an existing commercial building to accommodate a residential care facility, including a request for a Variance to allow a second- story sunroom above the ground floor of the existing building with a 2-foot street yard, and a fence height exception to allow up to a 10-foot tall combination retaining wall and fence. PROJECT ADDRESS:467 Hill Street BY:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: ARC 140-14 FROM:Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7168 E-mail: pricci@slocity.org RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Tim Ronda & Brian Starr Representative Studio Design Group Architects Zoning R-1 (Single-Family Residential) General Plan Low-Density Residential Site Area 15,225 square feet (0.35 acre) Environmental Status Categorically exempt under Class 32, Infill Development, of the CEQA Guidelines. SUMMARY The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2, reduced scale plans) to remodel the building for use as a residential care facility. The building was the former home for KSBY television and has been used for decades as commercial uses. It has been a long-standing goal to have the site occupied by a conforming residential use. The applicant is asking for final approval of the project plans by the ARC. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Relevant excerpts from the CDG are included or referenced in the analysis where pertinent. Meeting Date: October 20, 2014 Item Number: 3 ARC3 - 1 ARC 140-14; 467 Hill Street (Residential Care Facility–October 20, 2014) Page 2 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size 15,225 square feet Present Use & Development 9,400 sq.ft building used for broadcast studios Topography Moderately slopping Access Hill Street Surrounding Use/Zoning R-1 development The generally rectangular lot contains about 15,225 square feet and is developed with the 9,400 square-foot commercial building and associated site improvements and landscaping. The building has been occupied by various broadcasting related uses since the 1930s. The site is surrounded by single-family homes on all sides. 2.2 Project Description The project would remodel and add on some floor space to the existing 9,400 square-foot commercial building to create a 19-room residential care facility. Each of the 19 rooms would have their own private bathroom. The project includes additions with a net total of 2,500 square feet. The additions include a 676 square-foot sunroom at the second level to provide a protected, but semi-exterior space above the current first floor space that currently has a non-conforming street yard. The total net area of the remodeled building is 11,900 square feet. Meals are provided in a common dining room. The applicant anticipates full occupancy to be 22 people, assuming that most of the 19 rooms would be single occupancy, but that there may be a few couples. With full occupancy, there are five employees in the daytime and two at night. The existing on-site parking area will be re-graded and striped to provide a total of seven conforming parking spaces. Required parking is based on one space per four beds (19 beds / 4 = 5 spaces). 2.3 Project Statistics Statistics Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard2 Street Yard 2 feet (existing non-conforming) 20 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 22’2” feet max 25 feet Building Coverage (footprint) 13% (building footprint) 100% (C-R); 75% (C-T) Parking Spaces 7 spaces 5 spaces Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans submitted June 18, 2014 2. City Zoning Regulations ARC3 - 2 ARC 140-14; 467 Hill Street (Residential Care Facility–October 20, 2014) Page 3 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The original structure was built in 1937. Since that time, there have been numerous additions and remodels. This on- going remodeling over the years has resulted in a building that is somewhat of a hodgepodge of forms with little articulation and interesting features. Staff finds that the current project will result in major improvements to the site and the building. Not only will the project add a conforming land use to the site, but it will also provide a much more aesthetically pleasing development within the neighborhood. 3.1 Site Plan: The project site is at the base on San Luis Mountain and increases in elevation from east to west. A new parking lot is planned at the back of the building and will provide seven conforming parking spaces. An existing retaining wall will be removed and a new retaining wall with fence erected further up the hill on the west side of the property to create a wider parking bay. Access to the parking lot is provided by a 27-foot wide private easement. A paved driveway on the south side of the street serving a house located to the west of the project site will be maintained. Parking Lot Design Staff’s Analysis:The changes to the parking lot will provide parking spaces that conform to City standards. This should encourage employees and guests to park on-site, rather than spilling out into the neighborhood. The parking out of view at the back of the site is consistent with the following Community Design Guidelines (CDG): CDG 3.1 C.2.e Locating buildings near the front of the property, together with substantial landscaping, strengthens the overall streetscape, and helps screen off street parking areas. CDG 3.1 C.2.i The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized by locating these facilities to a portion of the site least visible from the street and by providing adequate screening and parking lot landscaping. Retaining Wall/Fence The applicant will be excavating soil and building a new retaining wall along the western property line to accommodate the expansion of the parking lot to create conforming parking Figure 1. Photo of existing building ARC3 - 3 ARC 140-14; 467 Hill Street (Residential Care Facility–October 20, 2014) Page 4 spaces. The property line is currently marked by a combination of fencing types to provide screening for uphill residences. The applicant’s proposal includes a 6-foot high wood fence with cap above a 3-4 foot high split-face block retaining wall. This combination of fencing and retaining wall without a 5-foot separation requires the processing of a fence height exception. Figure 2. Section showing retaining wall and fence Staff’s Analysis: Staff supports the fence height exception for the following reasons: 1. The fence height regulations allow for a 9-foot maximum height for fences built on walls on the low side in side and rear yards under certain circumstances. 2. The uphill neighbors will see a 6-foot high fence at the back of their yards, which is the same as current conditions. 3. The aesthetic impacts of the combination wall/fence on the downhill side will be mitigated by an 18-inch minimum offset between the retaining wall and fence that will be planted. Finding 3 in the attached resolution approves the fence height exception and provides documentation on the rationale to support the design in this case. Condition No. 9 provides guidance on planting materials for the 18-inch minimum strip available between the retaining wall and fence. 3.2 Building Design: The applicant’s proposal is to utilize the existing building, but to provide a new contemporary exterior with some pitched roof mansard elements. There are also nods to Craftsman architecture with extended eaves, stacked ledgestone on pilaster/wing wall, knee braces, and divided lights in the upper portions of windows. Sheet A-8 of project plans shows project colors and materials; a colors and materials board with actual samples will be available for Commission review at the meeting. ARC3 - 4 ARC 140-14; 467 Hill Street (Residential Care Facility–October 20, 2014) Page 5 Staff’s Analysis:The existing site is an eyesore and appears rundown. The proposed addition of the second floor sunroom and facelift to the building will be a marked improvement. The new roof forms, additional windows, awnings, new stucco finish, stone surfaces, and new trim elements help beautify the structure and give it a more residential feel and appearance. Selected colors and materials have neutral tan, brown, and green palette that tie in nicely with the site’s hillside location and complement adjacent residential structures. Most of the guidance from the Community Design Guidelines for remodels to existing structures speaks to the preservation and rehabilitation of character-defining features and using similar details. This guidance is not particularly germane to the project as the extensive remodeling over decades to the building has resulted in a structure without an identifiable style and little architectural character. Figure 3. Proposed Street (East) Elevation One of the most distinctive new elements of the remodeled building is the second floor sunroom addition. The large windows with heavy frames and overhead trellis add a functional space for residents as well as create a more interesting streetscape. The following CDG excerpt supports the use of this type of addition and detailing: CDG 5.4 C3 Balconies, porches, and patios. The use of balconies, porches, and patios as part of multi family structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These elements should be used to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures. In the R-1 zone, a 20-foot street yard is typically required. The original building was constructed in 1937 and is considered legal non-conforming as the ground floor of the building below the sunroom addition has a 2-foot setback. City staff has supported the sunroom addition, including the requested variance, for the following reasons: 1. The building is already developed at the two-foot setback. ARC3 - 5 ARC 140-14; 467 Hill Street (Residential Care Facility–October 20, 2014) Page 6 2. The large expanses of glazing with trellis of the sunroom addition give the building a more open and transparent feel. 3. The addition does not result in any greater lot coverage as the addition is proposed over the existing first floor footprint, and a driveway with a substantial setback exists between the remodeled building and the closest residence to the south. Finding 4 in the attached resolution approves the street yard variance and provides documentation on the rationale to support the design in this case. 3.3 Other Site Improvements: a. Lighting: The applicant’s lighting plan is included on Sheets A-2 & A-16. The selected light fixtures all have completely shielded light sources that are consistent with the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. Decorative wall sconces are proposed at the building’s front entry and two rear entries off of the parking lot. Recessed can lights in the soffits of the front canopy provide for additional low level light. Wall packs are proposed on the south wall next to the trash enclosure nearest the parking lot. No parking pole lights are proposed with the wall sconces and step lights in the retaining wall supplying necessary light to the area. The intention of the lighting proposal is to provide for adequate site and building light, but also to minimize impacts to adjacent residential neighbors. Staff finds that the applicant adequately accomplishes these goals and that the selected fixtures complement building architecture. Condition 5 in the draft resolution provides additional lighting guidance. b. Landscaping: The applicant’s preliminary landscape plan (Sheet L-1) includes a three-dimensional palette of trees, shrubs, and groundcover within the street yard, along with raised planter walls. The raised planters will be finished with the same ledgestone used on the main vertical pilaster element of the building and have a trim cap. The raised planters provide a lower visual element in the foreground of the entry stairwell and building wall beyond. This provides for a pleasing transition between the street and building and helps to minimize the building scale. Condition 8 is a standard condition related to final landscaping plans. Condition 9 provides guidance about planting the space between the retaining wall and fence. Two existing trees of minimal size and importance are proposed for removal. One is a eucalyptus tree in the rear parking lot area and the other a ligustrum on the building’s north side. Proposed new tree planting will more than compensate for the removal of these two rangy trees. In addition to street trees, two new parking lot trees are proposed. Public Works Conditions 29 & 30 provides guidance on showing the status of trees and street tree requirements. ARC3 - 6 ARC 140-14; 467 Hill Street (Residential Care Facility–October 20, 2014) Page 7 c. Trash and Storage Areas: Plans show a recycling enclosure in the southern portion of the site off the parking lot which will house waste wheelers that will be moved out to Hill Street on collection day. An enclosure to accommodate a regular trash bin is also planned near the street yard along the southern driveway. San Luis Garbage has approved the plan. Pick up will abide by the City’s regulations not to begin before 6:30 a.m. Condition 12 requires the final design details of the two enclosures to be included in plans submitted for a building permit. d. Roof-mounted equipment: All roof-mounted equipment will be properly screened from offsite views through strategic placement behind taller wall portions and parapets of mansard elements. See Sheet A-15 in plans where screening is illustrated in Section A and on Page 4 of this report. 4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution as conditions of approval. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 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 & reduced-scale project plans Included in Committee member portfolio: project plans ARC3 - 7 RESOLUTION NO. ####-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, STREET YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, AND FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 20, 2014, FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 467 HILL STREET (R-1 ZONE; ARC 140-14) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering project plans for final approval in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 20, 2014, pursuant to an application filed by Tim Ronda and Brian Starr of Studio Design Group Architects, applicant, for the purpose of considering ARC 140-14, a proposal to remodel and add new building area to a building located at 467 Hill Street for a residential care facility, and associated requests for a street yard variance to accommodate a second-floor sunroom addition and a fence height exception for a retaining wall with fence combination along the rear property line; 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 hearing. WHEREAS, the notice of said public hearing was 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 proposed project, street yard setback variance, and fence height exception (ARC 140-14), based on the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the project’s design is appropriate and will be compatible with surrounding development. 2. As conditioned, the project design maintains consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, specifically CDG 3.1 C.2.e & C.2.i which recommend that the visual impact of parking lots be minimized, and CDG 5.4 C3 which recommends that balcony type of features like the proposed sunroom be added to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures. 3. The Architectural Review Commission approves a fence height exception to allow a combination of an approximately 4-foot high retaining wall with a 6-foot high wood fence separated by a minimum of 18 inches, based on the following findings: Attachment 1 ARC3 - 8 Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 2 467 Hill Street, ARC 140-14 a. No public purpose is served by strict compliance with the City’s fence height standards because the uphill neighbors will see a 6-foot high fence at the back of their yards, which is the same as current conditions. b. The proposed combination retaining wall and fence will architecturally compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed wall and fence are consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies which call for screening and privacy between neighbors and CDG Section 6.1 B related to the design of fences and walls. d. The visual impact of the combination of retaining wall and fence from the project side will be mitigated by the intervening planting strip provided. 4. The Architectural Review Commission approves a variance from property development standards to allow a second-story sunroom above the ground floor of the existing building with a 2-foot street, based on the following findings: a. The existing legal non-conforming 2-foot street yard setback exists for a building that has been in place since the 1930s, which constitutes circumstances which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning. b. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, because the addition does not result in any greater lot coverage as the addition is proposed over the existing first floor footprint. c. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons working on the site or in the vicinity, given the building footprint exists and a driveway with a substantial setback exists between the remodeled building and the closest residence to the south. 5. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32 (Section 15332), Infill Development, of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is within the City limits, consistent with applicable City policy, surrounded by urban uses, and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by require utilities and public services. SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project, street yard setback variance, and fence height exception (ARC 140-14), with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and 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 Attachment 1 ARC3 - 9 Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 3 467 Hill Street, ARC 140-14 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. The color board for the project presented at the meeting was supported by the Architectural Review Commission. Plans shall clearly note that all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth hand-finish (steel-troweled) to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Any modifications to the approved palette shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of working drawings. 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. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include details for railings, stairwells, and patio fencing/gates. 5. The locations of all site and wall-mounted building lighting shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. 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 shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. 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. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that “Lenses of exterior wall- mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare.” 6. A comprehensive sign program for the project shall be developed to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types and illumination of signage proposed for the building and the overall site. Project signs shall be designed to be smaller in scale, understated, and use minimal illumination to complement the architecture of the building and to be compatible with the site’s setting in a residential neighborhood. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the design characteristics of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 7. 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, Attachment 1 ARC3 - 10 Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 4 467 Hill Street, ARC 140-14 which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-sight diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 8. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with submittal of working drawings for a building permit. 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 surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. 9. The planting space between the rear retaining wall and 6-foot high fence shall be planted with a combination of miniature shrubs and trailing groundcover to minimize the scale and height of the combination retaining wall and fence along the west property line. 10. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. 11. 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. 12. Final design details for the proposed trash and recycling enclosures shall be included in working drawings for a building permit and shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development and Utilities Departments. The ultimate design shall be consistent with the Solid Waste Guidelines and coordinate with the exterior design of the buildings. Public Works 13. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance. Credit for the removal and/or conversion of existing floor area will be applied based on the use and floor area of the existing broadcast uses. 14. The building plan submittal shall show and note the right-of-way width, location of frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing and proposed improvements located within the public right-of-way shall be shown for reference. 15. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed public or private easements for reference. Attachment 1 ARC3 - 11 Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 5 467 Hill Street, ARC 140-14 16. Projects involving the construction of new structures, the addition of dwelling units, or the substantial remodel of existing structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 17. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The building plan submittal shall clarify the extent of repairs or replacement of the existing infrastructure. 18. The building plan submittal shall clarify whether the existing driveway located on the property flag will be included directly or indirectly in this project. If included or further damaged by construction staging or access, the existing driveway approach shall be upgraded to ADA and city standards for accessibility and compliance with current City Engineering Standards. The current city and ADA standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. 19. A new curb ramp shall be installed at the corner of Hill Street and Mountain View per current ADA, Cal Trans, and City Engineering Standard #4440. 20. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. 21. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed drainage improvements. City records available at the time of this review indicated that two separate storm drain systems may cross through the development site and/or adjoining access driveway. At least one plan shows a drain pipe running under a portion of the building. The applicant shall confirm the existence and/or absence of the old corrugated metal pipe storm drains and if existing, any proposals to maintain, abandon, or relocate them. 22. New and existing wire utilities including electrical service, phone, and cable TV shall be placed underground. The undergrounding of utilities shall be completed without a net increase in the number of utility poles within the public right-of-way. 23. Unless otherwise waived, a soils report shall be submitted with the building permit submittal. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 25. The building plan submittal shall include an erosion control plan and/or erosion control notes on the grading plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Public Works Director. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained for construction involving Attachment 1 ARC3 - 12 Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 6 467 Hill Street, ARC 140-14 any ground disturbing activities. A Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) shall be summarized and submitted on a form provided by the Building Division. 26. The building plan submittal and project drainage report shall show and note compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for re-development projects. Compliance checklists are available on the City website or by request. 27. The building permit plan submittal shall include all required parking lot improvements, dimensions, space dimensions, maneuverability, materials, space and aisle slopes, drainage, pavement marking, signage, and striping in accordance with the Parking and Driveway Standards and disabled access requirements of the CBC. 28. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/or easements shall be considered in the final design. 29. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3" or greater. Off-site 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, and 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. 30. One 15-gallon street tree is generally required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. Additional street trees per City Engineering Standards may need to be included in addition to or in-lieu of the proposed Palm trees. 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. Utilities 31. 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 project. The CCTV inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the Utilities Department. 32. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clarify the square footage of proposed landscaping. New non-residential development with a landscape area of 1,000 square feet or greater shall install an irrigation meter and pay the associated impact fee per the Green Building Code 5.304.2. Attachment 1 ARC3 - 13 Resolution No. ARC-####-14 Page 7 467 Hill Street, ARC 140-14 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 20th day of October, 2014. _____________________________ Pam Ricci, Secretary Architectural Review Commission Attachment 1 ARC3 - 14 R-1 R-1 R-1-S R-1 C/OS-20 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1-S C-N R-1-S C-N HILL BROADLINC O L N VICINITY MAP File No. 140-14 467 HILL ST.¯ Attachment 2 ARC3 - 15 10/14/1412:46:40 PMHill St FP 29.vwx Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14COVERA-1AREA PLANHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYNORTHPASSIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURESDESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE001-181-038PUBLIC ART PROPOSALHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CAREFACILITYSHEET INDEXAttachment 2 ARC3 - 16 Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14SITE PLAN-PROPOSED-A-2217 OR 130366 OR 183R1981OR 67 HILL STR E E T KSBY BUILDING25' 2 5 ' ALTA/ A CSU25'25'Official Records Doc. No. 1994-051511WMPPPP PPTOP TOE BRICK PLANTERSOUTH 55° 10' WEST 102.00'S 2° 00' 17" ESOUTH 34° 50' EAST 115.00' Dd7S 34° 50' 00" E 37.00'N 10° 10' 00" E 14 .14'NORTH 55° 10' 00" EAST 88.00'N 34° 50' W6.00'N 71° 40' 03" W 20.00'SOUTH 55° 10' WEST 28.00' Dd7WMPPPP PPSOUTH 55° 10' WEST 102.00' 9.22' Dd7SOUTH 34° 50' EAST 115.00' Dd7NORTH 55° 10' EAST 125.00'S 34° 50' 00" E 37.00'N 10° 10' 00" E 14 .14'NORTH 55° 10' 00" EAST 88.00'S 87° 55' 34" E 20.00'SOUTH 55° 10' WEST 28.00' Dd7N 34° 50' 00" W 17.00'NORTH 34° 50' WEST 115.00'10/14/1412:46:41 PMHill St FP 29.vwxSITE PLAN - PROPOSEDHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYNORTH0163210'10'10'10'WESTWESTWESTWEST 1020210202.00'.00'.00'.00 555°°55555 0'10'101110010100 EEEASAAASASTEASTEASTEASTSTEASTEAEASTEATEASASTTEASTAASTSSSS 5551251112522512151112525121155122252251251112555221112555225511122551125111111 000000000'0000000'.0.00000000000000000000'0000000000000000'SSSS34°34°34°34°3350'5050'505500"0000"000EEEEEEE777777777737373773777777773733777777777777777777777737'0'.00'0.00'00.0.00.0.0.'0'0000000000..'00000NNNNNNNNNNNN 110°10101000110°1010100 101010100110101000011010101001101000001 00"00"0000"00"0000 EASTEASTEASTEASTEASTST 888888888888888888.00'0.0000.00'0.000000000 HHHHTHHTHTHHTHHHTTTTTTRTTTTRTRTRTRRORORRRROROOOOOOOOOOOOOONONONONONONONNNNNNNN34°34°3443434°43433350'50'5050'50050555WESTTWESTWESTWESTWESTWESTSTTWESTWESTWESWESSSESSESSWESWEWEWEW55555555155515111111111111111100.00'.00.000.00000SSSSSTTTTTTSTTEAAAEAEEEEEEE000'0DRAINAGE STATEMENTRETAINING WALL11TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONSAttachment 2 ARC3 - 17 10/14/1412:46:46 PMHill St FP 29.vwxSITE PLAN - EXISTINGHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYNORTH01632DDDWMWMBIKERACKRT DRIVECONCRIP-RAPWOOD PLANTER BOXEP / BLOCK WALLCONC DRIVEWAYROC K WAL L CON C SWA L E CONC WALKCONC WALK PARKING SIGNPARKING SIGNTREEELECA.C.PRIVATE PROP SIGNWMACACACACOVERHEAD CABLETRASHENCLBLDG OVERHANGPP2(50' WIDRIGHT OF WAY PFD 1" IP W/ TAGLS 3673, PER R1,R2KSBY SIGN PARKING SIGNCONC SIDEWALKCONC WALKACCEPTED AS P.O.B.217 OR 129HELD DdANGLEKSBY BUILDINGTOP TOE NOTHING FOUND,NOTHING SETLS 3673, PER R1SEE DETAILHELD DdANGLEB.B.2.64STEPPING STONESRET. WALLWOOD FENCEFUSE PANELAWNINGHANDICAP RAMPCONCRETE PADACCEPTDOORDOORDOORSTAIRSDOORDOORAWNINGHANDICAP PARKINGLADDERDRAINAGE GUTTERCONC DRIVEWAYA.C. DRIVEWAYOVER HE A D PHONE/CABLEA.C. DRIVEAC4" STEELUNDERGROUNDROOF DRAINTO STREETTREE4' SIDE OPENING D.I.GAS METERDOORUTILITY VAULTSNOTHING FOUNDNOTHING SETA.C. PAVINGBRICK PLANTEROVERHEAD POWER LINERED CURBINGLOADING ZONE (YELLOW CURBING)RED CURBINGPARKING SIGNOfficial RecordsDoc. No. 1994-051511SOUTH 55° 10' WEST 102.00'S 2° 00' 17" E 9.22' Dd7SOUTH 55° 10' WEST 28.00' Dd7SOUTH 34° 50' EAST 115.00' Dd7NORTH 55° 10' EAST 125.00'NORTH 34° 50' WEST 115.00' Dd7GAS PIPELINEPU(50' WIDE5S 34° 50' 00" E 37.00'N 10° 1 0' 00NORTH 55° 10' 00" EAST 88.00'S 87° 55' 3N 71° 40' 03" W 20.00'N 34° 50' 00" W 17.00'SOUTH 55° 10' WEST 92.00' Dd7 Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14SITE PLAN-EXIST-A-3Attachment 2 ARC3 - 18 10/14/1412:46:46 PMHill St FP 29.vwxFIRST FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSEDHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYNORTH01020 Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14FIRST FLOORPLAN-PROPOSED-A-4Attachment 2 ARC3 - 19 10/14/1412:46:47 PMHill St FP 29.vwxSECOND FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSEDHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYNORTH01020 Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14SECOND FLOORPLAN-PROPOSED-A-5Attachment 2 ARC3 - 20 SSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTT.. RRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDEENNTTIIAALLLLL CCCCCAAAARRRREEEEE FFFFAAAAACCCCCCCCIIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIIITTTTYYYY6/186/18/14/14467467HilHilll.St.St.,SananSaLuiLussObiObiOOspo,spo,CallCaliforiforiforifornianiannFIRSTFLOORPLAN-EXIST-A-6UNDER FLOOR AREA1,232 S.F.465 SFLOBBY101STUDIO100102103104453 S.F.PRODUCTION105846 S.F.CONTROL ROOM106107412 S.F.SHOP10857 S.F.STAIR7/10/143:31:17 PMHill Street Existing Plans ARC.vwxFIRST FLOOR PLAN - EXISTINGHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYNORTH01020Attachment 2 ARC3 - 21 SSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTT.. RRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEENNTTIIAALLLLL CCCCCAAAARRRREEEEE FFFFAAAAACCCCCCCCIIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIIITTTTYYYY6/186/18/14/14467467HilHilllSt.St.,SananSaLuiLussObiObiOOspo,spo,CallCaliforiforiforifornianiannSECOND FLOORPLAN-EXIST-A-77/10/143:31:17 PMHill Street Existing Plans ARC.vwxSECOND FLOOR PLAN - EXISTINGHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYNORTH01020369 S.F.205196 S.F.TV OFFICE201259 S.F.TV OFFICE202191 S.F.LOBBY204345 S.F.220331 S.F.2301,083 S.F.COMMON223RESTROOM221KITCHEN222613 S.F.TV STUDIO203101 S.F.209363 S.F.20720662 S.F.2162102112122132142151604 S.F.226 S.F.208240101 S.F.Attachment 2 ARC3 - 22 Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14FRONTELEVATIONA-810/14/1412:46:47 PMHill St FP 29.vwxFRONT ELEVATIONHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYREFER TO COLOR BOARD FOR COLORSAttachment 2 ARC3 - 23 10/14/1412:46:47 PMHill St FP 29.vwx Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14OVERHEAD-FRONT-A-9OVERHEAD - FRONTHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYAttachment 2 ARC3 - 24 Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14STREET LEVEL-FRONT-A-1010/14/1412:46:48 PMHill St FP 29.vwxSTREET LEVEL - FRONTHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYAttachment 2 ARC3 - 25 10/14/1412:46:48 PMHill St FP 29.vwxSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14OVERHEAD-REAR-A-11OVERHEAD - REARHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYAttachment 2 ARC3 - 26 10/14/1412:46:48 PMHill St FP 29.vwxEAST ELEVATION - STREETHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY01020 Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14ELEVATIONSA-12WEST ELEVATION - REARHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY01020Attachment 2 ARC3 - 27 10/14/1412:46:52 PMHill St FP 29.vwxSOUTH ELEVATIONHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY01020 Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14ELEVATIONSA-13NORTH ELEVATIONHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY01020Attachment 2 ARC3 - 28 10/14/1412:46:56 PMHill St FP 29.vwxBUILDING PHOTOGRAPHSHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14BUILDINGPHOTOGRAPHSA-14Attachment 2 ARC3 - 29 10/14/1412:46:58 PMHill St FP 29.vwxSECTION - BHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY01020SECTION - AHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY01020 Hill St.,SanSSSLuiLuiuLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT....... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIITTYYY8/14/14SECTIONSA-15Attachment 2 ARC3 - 30 217 OR 130366 OR 183 OR 198 61 OR 67HILL STREETKSBY BUILDIN G 25' 25'ALTA/ACSSU25'25'Official Records Doc. No. 1994-051511 10/14/1412:46:58 PMHill St FP 29.vwx HillStS.,SanSSSLuiLuiLusObiObspo, CaliforniaSheet Title:Sheet Number:These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.HHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT...... RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEENNNNNNNTTTTIIIIAAAAAAALLLLLLL CCCCCCCAAAAAAARRRRRREEEEEE FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIILLLLLLLLIIIIITTYYY8/14/14EXTERIORLIGHTINGA-16LIGHTING PLAN - PROPOSEDHILL ST. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITYNORTH01632Attachment 2 ARC3 - 31 Attachment 2 ARC3 - 32 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 2014 ROLL CALL: Present:Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Vice-Chair Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Michelle McCovey-Good Absent: None Staff:Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Contract Planner Jaime Hill, Planning Technician Kyle Bell, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as amended. Public comment on non-agenda items was moved to the beginning of the meeting, before the minutes. MINUTES: The minutes of September 8, 2014, were approved as presented. The minutes of September 15, 2014, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Bob Lucas, SLO, stated that he addressed the Commission at the last meeting and he wanted to be sure that the two elements of the appeal he filed challenging the Administrative Use Permit for the proposed Monterey Hotel at 1845-65 Monterey Street were discussed by the Commission. He stated that this appeal had two elements: 1) a challenge to the openings facing the San Luis Drive neighborhood and 2) a challenge to the size and mass of the hotel. He added that this appeal was never formally discussed at the ARC meeting as he thought it would be. The discussion of the hotel was continued to a date uncertain, and Mr. Lucas felt the issue of size and mass was deemed more appropriate for the Planning Commission so the interim directions to the applicants said nothing about that, leaving the applicants to work on the openings and noise attenuation without addressing whether the project fits the context of the neighboring commercial buildings. He stated he was also concerned that there was no acknowledgment from the ARC of any of the 15 letters sent to the Planning Department before the last meeting and around which the oral presentation was designed as a reminder of the major points made in the letters. He noted that it was later discovered that the Commissioners had been given some of those letters moments before the meeting despite the letters having been submitted at least 100 hours before the meeting. He stated that this and the short letter of direction given to the applicants left Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 2 those who wrote the letters with concerns about whether their voices had been heard and valued during that meeting. He added that he is now alerting the Commission that more information about size and mass will be sent from the neighbors. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.3080 Rockview Place. ARC 202-13; Design review of nine two-story single-family residences and associated improvements in a common-interest subdivision. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was previously adopted by the Planning Commission; R-2-S zone; Covelop, Inc., applicant. (Marcus Carloni) Contract Planner Hill presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution, which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. Commr. Wynn recused himself and left the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commissioners were in consensus for acceptance of the articulation changes made for the front entries of Unit C as presented at the hearing. Commr. Curtis stated the units would look better without the deck supports and he does not agree that having the supports go down to the ground is a characteristic of mid- century modern design. He added that the supports look awkward and are not consistent with the rest of the architecture. Commr. Root agreed with Commr. Curtis but noted that tying the decks into the building can make waterproofing problematic. He added that there might be another way to do the posts to take away the pedestrian looking column. Commr. Nemcik suggested pulling the support post on the right back to be in line with the wall. Commr. Root stated that he likes that idea. Commr. Ehdaie agreed with Commr. Curtis in terms of aesthetics and expressed concern about the sturdiness of the posts should they be hit by cars going in and out of the garages under the deck. Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 3 Commr. Nemcik noted that the posts will look better with landscaping. Commr. Andreen stated that the posts are not a deal breaker and the design has a nice aesthetic, but the applicant might be able to come with something better for the deck supports. Commr. McCovey-Good stated she likes the way the deck plays off the roof eaves and suggested pulling both back to line up with the wall leaving a small portion of the deck cantilevered. Associate Planner Carloni suggested the following wording: “The applicants shall explore alternatives for the deck supports subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.” Commr. Root suggested a small awning be placed over the secondary door of Lot 2. Associate Planner Carloni stated that staff would support this awning addition. Commr. Root asked if the entries were switched on Lot 2, would that unit have a private open space. Associate Planner Carloni stated that Lot 2 does have a yard other than the one facing the street. He noted the need to modify a condition to request the awning with the goal of making this side entrance look more like the other unit facing the street. Commr. Curtis supported the addition of the awning on Lot 2 while Commr. Root suggested that this be done on all the units. Associate Planner Carloni summarized the possible changes to conditions. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution, which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to the conditions and changes to those conditions as listed below: 1. Revise condition #6 to read “The final landscape and hardscape plan for Lot 1 shall be designed to highlight the entrance to this structure from Rockview, subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. The short entrance walls shall be modified to one of the more neutral body colors, rather than an accent color. 2. Both the building entries for Unit C shall be further articulated with a) a 5' x 3' awning over the front entry, and b) addition of a smaller weather- protected awning for the side entries. 3. The applicant shall explore alternative deck support design, subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 4 AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, and Root NOES:None RECUSED:Commr. Wynn ABSENT:None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. Commr. Wynn returned to the meeting. 2.1300 Madonna Road. ARCH-0071-2014; Request to review modifications to the Laguna Village Shopping Center sign program for new proposed tenant signs and new monument signs with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-C zone; Laguna Village Shopping Center, applicant. (Kyle Bell) Planning Technician Bell presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the draft resolution approving the modifications to the sign program including a new proposed canopy sign and approving the proposed shopping center identification signs, based on findings, and subject to conditions of approval. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Andreen stated that the canopy looks nice, the Grocery Outlet sign is attractive, the monument signs look much better, and she agrees with staff that the curved stone walls are enhanced by the Laguna Village lettering. She added that her main concern is reducing the size of the 99 logo sign. There was consensus for approval of the blade signs. Pierre Rademaker, applicant representative, stated that the blade signs are dark anodized aluminum with white lettering and there will be no corporate logos. The project architect stated that the 99 square foot version of the 99 logo wall sign has been approved by the store but he can probably get a little more of the purple shaved off of the sides. Associate Planner Carloni stated that staff likes the 80 square foot version of the sign. Commr. Wynn stated that the “99” is the main part of the sign and he favors the staff recommendation. He added that “99” was chosen by the corporation for their logo so any problems with that belong to the corporation. He noted that the monument sign is Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 5 what gets people into the center, and, after that, the colors identified with a store lead customers to that store more than the lettering. Commr. Curtis agreed with Commr. Wynn. Commr. Root suggested looking at the proportionality on the tower. Commr. Wynn stated that he had thought of that but the fuchsia becomes a huge banner of color, reducing the importance of the letters. Commr. Ehdaie agreed with Commr. Wynn. Commr. Curtis supported centering this sign on the tower. Commr. Andreen agreed and added that the “wings” have to be reduced in width to give emphasis to the letters. The architect stated the sign would be reduced to 48 square feet if the lettering and color are made proportional. Commr. Andreen stated that, if this is true, then the sign should have a bigger bullseye if the size is reduced. Associate Planner Carloni stated that, based on the discussion, staffs choice would be the 80 square foot version with the purple portion of the sign being limited. Mr. Rademaker stated that this will look stupid. Commr. Wynn stated that this is a big sign on a much smaller space than Spencer’s and he is concerned about the increasing size of signs and the demand for bigger and bigger signage. Commr. Root suggested numerals 48” tall and everything else proportional around that. Commr. Wynn supported letting staff work out the proportions, knowing that the Commission wants as little purple as possible. Commr. Curtis stated he disagrees with this compromise and prefers a 3’6” tall sign with 48 square feet. The other Commissioners supported the 48” height for lettering. Associate Planner Carloni suggested amended wording stating that “the 99 Cent store sign letter height shall not exceed 48” while keeping proportion with the 99 Cent letters and the sign shall be centered on the tower..” He noted the 25' height limit could be deleted. Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 6 Commr. Wynn stated that the colors are what are most important and he supported the staff proposal for reduction in size of the Grocery Outlet sign. Commr. Root stated he is recommending a compromise for the canopy sign: reduce the height a little and lift it off the ridge of the canopy so it would look less bulky. The architect noted that there would be 40% more red on the sign if this was done. Mr. Rademaker noted that lifting it up would give somewhere for vines to grow. Randy Poltl stated that his main concern is letter height. Commr. Wynn supported Commr. Root's proposal because it maintains the height of the sign although the size is reduced. He suggested leaving it up to the applicant as to whether to lift the sign or not. Commr. Ehdaie stated it was good either way. Commr. Curtis stated that the staff recommendation is to reduce the size of the letters and that this sign does not need to be so big because the entry signs let you know that the store is there. Commr. Andreen stated she likes raising the sign and reducing it a bit in size and that, with the canopy and vines, it will not look too clunky. Commr. Wynn stated that staff prefers 36” letters so 48” is a compromise with the option to leave the height but lift the bottom of the sign off the ridge, letting it be a sign rather than an architectural element. He added that 125 square feet is acceptable and will allow more red, similar to the wall sign. Associate Planner Carloni suggested wording stating that the top ridge of the sign be left at the current height and the backer for the canopy sign shall not exceed 48” and the applicant may consider raising the bottom of the sign, subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. Commr. Wynn stated he is not a huge fan of a 13’ monument sign. Commrs. Andreen, Nemcik and Root supported the 13' height. Associate Planner Carloni stated the staff position that, beyond precedent setting, a sign of this height and width may appear as a wall at the back of the sidewalk. Commr. Andreen stated that 13’ does look big but 10' looks a little stumpy so maybe it should be 12'. Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 7 Commr. Nemcik supported the 13' height because the sign is located away from the driveway entrance and she supported the removal of the red between the two posts which makes it look more open. Commrs. Wynn and McCovey-Good supported the 12' height. Associate Planner Carloni suggested this wording: “Freestanding sign shall not exceed 12 feet from adjacent grade and the applicant should consider widening the sign width to create shadow.” There were no further comments made from the Commission. On a motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Andreen, recommending adoption of the draft resolution approving the modifications to the sign program including a new proposed canopy sign and approving the proposed shopping center identification signs, based on findings, and subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Revise condition #1 to read “The overall height of the canopy sign is not to exceed 48 inches”. And “The total square footage of signs for the major tenant in Building C is not to exceed 136 square feet”. 2. Revise condition #2 to read “The overall letter height for the major tenant in Building D is not to exceed 48 inches”. And “The sign area shall not exceed 50 square feet”. 3. Revise condition #3 to read “Lower the total height of the signs to a maximum of 12 feet”. 4. Delete condition #4, and add new condition that reads, “The applicant shall modify the sign program to include language of the driveway entry signs that includes; dimensions, locations, and the details of the push through halo illumination of the signs”. AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, Root, and Wynn NOES:Curtis RECUSED:None ABSENT:None The motion passed on a 6:1 vote. 3.1126 Marsh Street.ARC 144-14; Review of designs for seven attached three-story single-family residences fronting Marsh Street with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-R zone; MFI Limited, applicant. (Marcus Carloni) Associate Planner Carloni presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the draft resolution which approves the project based on findings, and subject to conditions. Stephen Peck, his own company, two architects from RRM, Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 8 Associate Planner Carloni noted two modifications to the Draft Resolution: 1) Delete Whereas #3 on page ARC 3-6 of the agenda packet and 2) delete the last two sentences from Condition 6 on page ARC 3-7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: David Brodie, SLO, stated that this development is on the edge of downtown and needs to be evaluated with that in mind. He stated it would be good to have a physical model of the massing in relation to the surrounding, not just the adjacent buildings. He noted that there are two categories of buildings in central areas: focus buildings and background buildings. He added that a focus building should have a community orientation which means this project does not qualify with his standard even though the design is striving to be a focus building, while the old French hospital does qualify. He stated that the project has two good points: it is housing and the breakdown of the masses is good, but unfortunately, it does it too much and it is too busy. He stated there is a need to restrict the types of businesses that could be in these houses and a need to consider where trash cans will be located and how the buildings will be served by the garbage trucks. He also expressed concern about the potential for construction of temporary structures on the roof, making the building 6-10 feet higher. He requested that the possibility of having lighting close to the stairways be considered. Bob Schrage, SLO, stated he lives across the street and supports the project as being the best yet proposed for this location. Rob Rossi, SLO, stated this is a good use for the site. He added that the detailing could be simplified but the key thing is to make sure there is depth to the detailing. He stated that faux cornices were used on the Warden Building above the level where they could be touched and they look fine and they could also be used on this project. He stated he disagrees with Condition 10 about the tandem parking being used only for employees, and with Conditions 11 and 12 in relation to the parking lot on Parcel 8. He noted that the dumpsters seen on the property are from adjacent properties. He noted that the Bank of American building is outdated and he would like to redevelop that lot. He stated that the project townhomes do have height but that future projects will go to similar or greater heights on Higuera Street properties. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Associate Planner Carloni stated that there will be covenants on the ground level bedroom/home offices and that any future commercial businesses in these homes (i.e. mixed-use) must meet parking requirements. He noted that the ground floor could be used as a home office with a Home Occupation Permit. He added the homes will either have individual trash containers or a common trash enclosure, and structures on the roof would require building permits. He stated that Condition 10 is intended to avoid Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 9 public parking on that lot and “as it continues to be a parking lot” could be added to the wording. Mr. Rossi stated that the individual parking spaces are leased out and they are self- policing so he does not want it limited to employees only. Commr. McCovey-Good suggested changing “employee” to “private.” Associate Planner Carloni suggested “Shall be used as a private parking lot, rather than parking for the general public.” Commr. Andreen stated that this is beautiful project and she does not think it has to be dumbed down. She supported keeping it sophisticated and noted that there will be sophisticated buyers who want these homes. She added that the applicant should not design away from this level of quality and we may find our tastes are raised a little by buildings like this. She stated she is reluctant to give too much flexibility on design changes and would rather identify the types of changes needed. Commr. Curtis stated the he appreciates and agrees with the applicant about attached townhouses. He noted that the quality is very high but some simplification would be acceptable as shown in the latest design, but he is not sure about changes in materials, such as brick, to something unknown. He stated that his only concern is he wished the applicant could have solved the problem of lowering the ground floor so it is not higher than the old French hospital and would be more in scale with the overall neighborhood and the bungalows across the street. He noted that these homes are more like brick row houses rather than brownstones which are characterized by shorter staircases. He stated that he likes the differentiation of units although there may be too much vertical articulation. He added that, overall, he is pleased with the project and thinks it is in general conformance with the standards. Commr. Ehdaie stated that she likes the design and it complies with the design guidelines. Commr. Root stated he agrees with most of the comments made by his fellow Commissioners but noted the need to be judicious about changes to the details. Commr. Nemcik agreed with Commr. Root and added that the level of simplification shown in the handout from the applicant is the most she would like to see in simplification. Commr. Wynn stated that the project is a gorgeous product but he has some issues he would like the applicant to consider and then return to the Commission with the results of that consideration: 1) Brownstones have stairs less than a full flight and here the stairs are pushed back too far or the building is pushed forward too much. He asked the Commissioners to look at the differences between the Title Sheet on page ARC 3- 11 and A10 on page ARC 3-24 and noted that more of the stairs are shown in A10. He Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 10 stated that having the stairs on the southwesterly side to show more of the details would make for a prettier view for those driving on the one-way Marsh Street. 2. There might be room to push the buildings down a little on the front, excluding the garages at the back. 3. The floor of each home is 10” higher or lower than the neighboring home and maybe the homes should be grouped at the same level, such as a 3-2-3 grouping so the rooftop banding would make those homes relate more to each other and provide more overall rhythm. He noted the design was done with emphasis on facades but there needs to be consideration for neighboring units. 4. The rear elevation is flatter than the front and needs more articulation. 5. The southwest elevation is a complete blank wall that could be softened. 6. Pushing the buildings down by reducing the height of each floor just a little would be more sensitive to the old French hospital. He supported recommending conceptual approval now and continuance to a date uncertain. Andy Mangano, Applicant, stated the design is the way it is because other things would not work, an answer is needed tonight, a lot of time has been spent on the design, and he would rather see it be turned down so he can appeal to the City Council. He noted that the flexibility requested for materials is about a weight problem and the need to make some elements lighter. Commr. Wynn stated that he understands but with a little more work and resolution, this quality project can be even better. Mr. Mangano stated he cannot do things like making the ceilings any lower. Commr. Wynn stated it is frustrating to hear it is either this as presented or nothing.. He added that when the Commission makes a recommendation, it is to help improve a project. Mr. Mangano stated that if the Commission wants changes, then staff should be given flexibility. He added that he cannot add windows and/or other articulation on the blank side because of buildling code requriements and added that a building could be built right up to it and the articulation would never be seen. Associate Planner Carloni stated that, with clear direction, staff could deal with Commr. Wynn’s ideas. On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie, to continue the meeting past 9 p.m. AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, Root, and Wynn NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:None Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 11 The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. Commr. Andreen stated she trusts staff to work with applicant but her concern is the need to give guidance and direction on how much reduction in the design the Commission would find acceptable. She noted it is such a good project, there might be a tendency to overwork it. She stated she would prefer to give approval tonight. Commrs. Nemcik, Wynn, and Root agreed it would be better to make a decision tonight. Commr. Curtis stated that he thinks it will take longer to get on the City Council agenda for an appeal than it will to come back to the Commission and, with everybody thinking it will be a great project with some small further refinements, he does not understand why the applicant objects to a continuance. Commr. Root stated that the applicants have complied with community guidelines, and the Commission can address Commr. Wynn’s concerns now and while other concerns can be dealt with at the staff level. The commission discussed modifications to the design that would be subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On a motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Andreen, to recommend adoption of the draft resolution which approves the project based on findings, and subject to conditions including the following amendments: 1. Delete the 4 th whereas statement and the last two sentences of condition #6 which were inadvertently added to the resolution. 2. Revise condition #10 to read “As it continues to be a parking lot, the proposed reoriented tandem parking spaces shall be used as a private parking lot rather than parking for the general public.” 3. Add conditions 15 through 20a. AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Nemcik, Root, and Wynn NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4.Staff: Draft ARC Minutes October 6, 2014 Page 12 a. Agenda Forecast by Associate Planner Carloni x October 20, 2014—Cal Trans relocation to 2885 S. Higuera Street; Conceptual review for a mixed use project in Miner's parking lot; Residential Care Facility proposal for 467 Hill Street; Monterey Hotel (tentative) x November 3, 2014--ARC budget goals, Conceptual review for public market at the Long-Bonetti Ranch; Faux-calyptus wireless telecommunications tree at 805 Morrison; proposal for a mixed use building next to Wells Fargo at Broad and Marsh (this project will likely not be on this agenda). 5.Commission: x Commr. Andreen stated that people send correspondence and never know if the Commissioners receive it so she would like letters to be acknowledged at the meetings so their receipt would get in the minutes. Associate Planner Carloni stated that staff is working to digitize agenda correspondence and letters will be sent via email to the Commissioners. x Commr. Wynn stated that it would be good for Commissioners to have a Commission City email address. ADJOURNMENT:The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary