Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4b. 1911 and 1823 Johnson Ave. (ARCH-0161-2019) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PHASED EXPANSION OF THE FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-LEVEL 5,800-SQUARE-FOOT PARKING STRUCTURE AND A NEW FOUR-STORY 89,775- SQUARE-FOOT PATIENT TOWER PROJECT ADDRESS: 1911 and 1823 BY: Cassidy Williams, Contract Planner Johnson Avenue Phone Number: (805) 539-2867 Email: cassidy.williams@swca.com FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0161-2019; FROM: Rachel Cohen, Senior Planner USE-0500-2019; VAR-0499-2019; & ER # 0742-2021 APPLICANT: Dignity Health Corporation REPRESENTATIVE: Ariana Melendez, SDG Architects RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission . 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The proposed project consists of the phased expansion of French Hospital Medical Center campus including the construction of a two-level, 234-space parking structure with 5,800 square feet of future lab and storage space and a 2,000 -square-foot helistop (Phase 1), and a four-story 89,775-square-foot patient tower, an 1,800-square-foot generator yard, and various related site improvements (Phase 2) (project). The project includes the reconfiguration of surface parking, addition of bicycle parking spaces, realignment of an existing bicycle path, tree removal and trimming on - and off-site, landscaping, and exterior lighting and signage. The proposed project also includes a modification to the existing Open Space Easement to remove 0.11 acres from the south side of the easement area and add 0.17 acres of open space to the north side of the easement area (see Attachment A, Project Description, and Attachment B, Project Plans, for further details). The project includes a request for a height variance to allow for the construction of the patient tower building up to 68 feet tall above average natural grade with an additional 10-foot mechanical screening clearance, where a maximum height of 35 feet is currently allowed by the Zoning Regulations in the Office Zone. The proposed parking structure would be 19 feet above average natural grade (to the top of the guardrail on the highest level and the helistop). The elevator penthouse extends an additional 10 feet as allowed by the Zoning Regulations. The project also includes a request for a creek setback exception to allow for the construction of paving, parking areas, and a portion of the parking structure within 20 feet of the top of bank of an on-site creek. Meeting Date: 3/21/2022 Item Number: 4b Time Estimate: 45 Minutes Page 43 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 Some of the proposed eucalyptus tree trimming that would be n ecessary to meet FAA standards to accommodate the flightpath of helicopters using the proposed helistop would be located on privately-owned parcels adjacent to the hospital property. Access to these parcels and the right to conduct the proposed tree trimmi ng has not yet been secured; therefore, it is uncertain whether the adjacent property owners will permit the hospital to trim offsite trees as needed for the helistop. Therefore, the project applicant has developed an alternative plan for helicopter access to the helistop, in the event tree trimming on adjacent parcels is not allowed. As an alternative to offsite tree trimming, two 125-foot-tall obstruction light poles would be located west of the parking structure and helistop. If this alternative is selected, the creek setback exception would also be required. The overall development pattern in the project area is an integrated mix of residential single-family, multi-family, commercial, and institutional uses. The institutional development is in the form of medical facilities, educational facilities, public health services, and churches. This variety of uses results in an established suburban visual character surrounding the project. No single architectural theme is evident in the surrounding area. Existing development on-site consists of the one-story French Hospital building, the three-story Copeland Health Education Building, the three -story Pacific Medical Plaza to the south of the hospital (under separate ownership), and the Ella Street medical condominiums located further to the south (under separate ownership). General Location: The project site is located within the existing French Hospital Medical Center campus located at 1911 and 1823 Johnson Avenue. The site is primarily accessed from the signalized intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street, with secondary access provided at Ella and Breck Streets, and gated access from Iris Street. Zoning and General Plan: O-S (Office), Office Surrounding Uses: East: Johnson Ave, (R-2) Single Family Residences West: Railroad, (R-3) Multi-family Residences North: (R-3) Single Family Residences, Breck Street South: (R-2) Single Family and Multi-family residences, Iris Street Figure 1: Subject Property Page 44 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Architecture: Contemporary, same design theme as Copeland Health Education Building Design details: Parking structure: painted concrete walls and painted concrete guardrails. Patient tower: deep frame glazed windows, smooth stucco walls, natural concrete, a ground-level outdoor garden patio, a covered garden patio on the second floor, metal drop-off canopies, and a flat roof with screened mechanical equipment . Generator yard: block walls and landscaping. Materials: Parking structure: painted concrete, corrugated box metal siding, planter boxes Patient tower: Elastomeric1 finish stucco walls, metal siding, glass railing along terraces, glazed windows Colors: Cream and tan stucco colors with slate gray horizontal rib accent panels 1 Elastomeric coatings are protective barriers applied to concrete structures. Elastomeric refers to the rubber-like properties of the finish and its ability to regain its original shape when a load is removed from the material. Figure 2: Proposed Patient Tower Rendering Figure 3: Proposed Parking Structure and Helistop Rendering Page 45 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 3.0 BACKGROUND In 1993, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) approved the French Hospital Master Plan and the mitigated negative declaration (MND) (ER 109-93). The Master Plan outlined the ultimate build-out of the project site and included facilities to provide a range of medical services. The plan included the future construction of four buildings in addition to the existing hospital building built in 1972, and a substantial expansion of the parking area on-site. These four buildings included a 35,000-square-foot Copeland Pavilion, a 6,000- square-foot hospital office, a 30,000-square-foot medical arts building, and a 6,000- square-foot hospital expansion building. Build-out of the 1993 Master Plan envisioned a total of approximately 231,300 square feet of hospital uses on -site. Proposed additional parking associated with these new facilities included the addition of 365 parking spaces, which would have resulted in a total of 749 parking spaces on-site. On March 15, 2013, the City approved a Minor Use Permit (A 140-11) which amended the 1993 Master Plan to modify the configuration and placement of proposed buildings at French Hospital. The Copeland Pavilion was redesigned to be 18,000 square feet in size, and the square footage for the proposed hospital expansion building increased t o 17,550 square feet, and a new 5,450-square-foot emergency room (ER) expansion building was added to the Master Plan. The overall gross area of proposed facilities was less than what was previously analyzed and approved, and the associated transportation and other environmental impacts associated with the amended Master Plan remained generally consistent with what was evaluated under the 2013 Master Plan. Therefore, the 2013 Master Plan Amendment was found to be consistent with the analysis of the mitigate d negative declaration prepared for the 1993 Master Plan. In 2014 the Master Plan was amended again to accommodate a slightly larger medical arts building (31,471 square feet where 30,000 was previously approved), which was also found to be consistent with the analysis of the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the 1993 Master Plan. In 2016, the City approved another amendment to the French Hospital Master Plan to accommodate an expanded 58,600-square-foot four-story medical office building and new parking garage. While a portion of the approved square footage for new uses in the Master Plan have been constructed with the addition of the Copeland Education Pavilion, the remaining unused approved square footage of the Master Plan was reconfigured to accommodate most of these new uses, resulting in an increase of gross floor area from the approved Master Plan from 231,300 square feet to 248,661 square feet (a difference of 17,361 s.f.) and a reduction in required parking spaces from 749 to 700. The 2016 Master Plan Amendment was found to be consistent with the analysis of the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the 1993 Master Plan. The four -story medical office building included in the 2016 Master Plan Amendment was not constructed and is no longer being proposed as a part of the Master Plan moving forward. Page 46 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 4.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW On September 16, 2019, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (ARC Report). At the time of this review, the project included a four-level, 234-space, 91,500-square-foot parking garage with 6,400 square feet of laboratory and storage uses and a roof-top helistop, and a four-story, approximately 90,000-square-foot medical patient tower. Based on the conceptual review of the project, the ARC provided nine recommendations to the project applicant team for consideration (Meeting Minutes). 5.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, Sign Regulations, and applicable City Standards, and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning the proposed project design, focusing on building architecture and site layout. The requested deviations from the maximum height allowed under the Office zoning designation will be evaluated in more detail by the Planning Commission proceeding the ARC’s recommendation, and subject to findings and conditions. Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104 Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24661/637100098653570000 6.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS The ARC recommended 9 directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking action on the project. The applicant has updated the project plans (Attachment B) and made the following changes in response to the directional items: ARC Directional Item #1: Increase vertical and horizontal articulation on the southwest and northeast elevations. Response: The project applicant has indicated that due to program requirements and cost considerations, the proposed patient rooms must be stacked. The proposed floor plan was designed to maximize efficiency and accommodate the consideration of placement of utilities for service and future maintenance purposes. Since the previous ARC review of the project in September 2019, the design of the exterior planes of the patient tower have been revised with outward extrusions of 4 inches and the colors, patterns, and materials have been revised to highlight articulation (see Attachment C, September 2019 and March 2021 Project Renderings Comparison). ARC Directional Item #2: Address wayfinding; route to parking needs to be made easily evident and clear for all users. Response: The project would result in the minor modification of internal circulation features on-site, including shifting the location of the existing internal roadway and bike path and reconfiguration of parking areas to accommodate the proposed patient tower and provide access to the proposed parking structure. On-site circulation components have been designed in accordance with applicable City design standards. Page 47 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 Vehicle circulation improvements would include construction of a circular drop -off/pick-up plaza located at the entrance of the patient tower, construc tion of new internal roadway segments, and reconfiguration of existing parking areas to accommodate the patient tower and parking structure building footprints. The modified circulation features would include construction of a pedestrian plaza located adjacent to the parking structure and a raised crosswalk between the pedestrian plaza and the patient tower entrance to maximize pedestrian visibility and safety. ADA ramps would provide additional access to the patient tower building from designated parking areas. Proposed landscaping would also benefit the pedestrian experience on -site. Upon completion of construction activities, the location of the portion of the bike path that traverses the parking area would be shifted slightly to accommodate the propose d patient tower. The project would not result in any significant change to the existing bike path route location or length. ARC Directional Item #3: Consider open space study for neighborhood views, suggest cross-section through the open space easement showing the height of trees and structures, and show size of trees on plans. Response: A Visual Impact Assessment for the French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project was prepared by licensed landscape architect Bob Carr (see Attachment D). This study shows the proposed project components as seen from surrounding public viewpoints, including residential roadways such as the Iris Street cul - de-sac, Ruth Street near Iris Street, Ruth Street near George Street, Ella Street near Henry Street, and Leff Street. In addition, Sheet PA311 of the project site plans provide a height comparison of the proposed project components in relation to the adjacent open space tree canopy (see Figure 7). ARC Directional Item #4: Stake garage location for neighborhood communication/understanding; suggested height study analysis of effect on view corridors. Response: The proposed parking structure would be 19 feet above average natural grade (to the top of the guardrail on the highest level and the helistop). This reflects a significant height reduction from the proposed parking structure evaluated in September 2019, which was 46 feet above average natural grade. The elevator penthouse extends an additional Figure 7: Cross-Section of Open Space Canopy and Project Components Page 48 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 10 feet as allowed by the Zoning Regulations. A Visual Impact Assessment for the French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project was prepared (see Attachment D). This study shows the proposed project components as seen from surrounding public viewpoints, including residential roadways such as the Iris Street cul-de-sac, Ruth Street near Iris Street, Ruth Street near George Street, Ella Street near Henry Street, and Leff Street. Because of its location at the southwestern portion of the site, combined with the substantial amount of surrounding vegetation and development, the parking structure and helistop would have limited noticeability from the surrounding area. The parking structure and helistop would be partially visible from neighborhoods to the southeast such as from Toro Street, Leff Street, and the San Luis Obispo Train Station area. However, from those viewing locations, because of topography, intervening vegetation and de velopment, scenic views of the surrounding hills, including the Santa Lucia Foothills would not be affected. ARC Directional Item #5: Create a long-range plan for loss of mature trees that are currently on-site. Response: Proposed tree removal will be reviewed by the Tree Committee on March 28, 2022 in compliance with the City’s Tree Ordinance standards for tree removal., The applicant is proposing to remove 110 trees, trim 8 trees, and replant 120 trees. These tree removals would facilitate the proposed expansion including the helistop that has specific FAA clearance requirements for flight paths. Mitigation measures have been identified within the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Attachment E) to require in-kind compensatory plantings for each native tree species removed as a result of the project and subsequent monitoring over a 5-year period to ensure native tree plantings are established successfully in order to offset the loss of native trees within the project site and reduce long-term impacts to habitats on-site. ARC Directional Item #6: Consider incorporation of green wall(s). Response: At the time the project was reviewed in September 2019, the proposed project included a four-story parking structure and the ARC recommended incorporation of green walls along portions of the structure. The proposed project now includes a parking structure that provides one additional level of parking above ground level with landscaping around the perimeter of the structure. The preliminary landscaping planting plan includes screening trees, parking lot trees, pedestrian plaza trees, shrubs, vines, perenni als, and groundcover plantings (see Attachment B, pages 36 through 38). ARC Directional Item #7: Conduct a night sky study addressing effects of light/glare on residential areas. Response: A Visual Impact Assessment for the French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project was prepared (see Attachment D). This assessment evaluates the potential for the proposed project components and uses to create glare and/or affect nighttime views of the site and surrounding areas. Page 49 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 Exterior project site lighting not associated with aviation would be subject to compliance with Zoning Ordinance 17.70.100 Lighting and Night Sky Preservation, which must demonstrate that project site lighting does not exceed a maintained value of 10 foot - candles, when measured at finished grade. The helistop structure would include FAA-required lighting. Helistop lighting would operate only during nighttime landings and takeoffs and would be controlled and used by pilots, at their individual discretion, to provide a visual guide. Based on San Luis Obispo County Emergency Service records, the anticipated projected flight frequency is expected to be approximately four helicopter trips per month. County Emergency Service records also show that only approximately 25% of those trips (one trip per mo nth) would occur during the nighttime hours. Photometric data provided by the project applicant indicates that at eye-level standing on the ground at the property line surrounding the hospital facility, there would be 0 footcandles and light trespass from the helistop lighting, as all light would be directed horizontally and upward from the light fixtures (see Attachment F). Because of wide-ranging viewpoint factors such as elevation, orientation, topography, and intervening development, the extent of helis top lighting visibility within the surrounding community would be varied and dispersed throughout the area. However, in general, as seen from much of the surrounding area, intervening mature vegetation (e.g., within the immediately adjacent open space easement area north and south of the project site) and surrounding development would block or filter direct views of the new helistop lighting. In addition to helistop lighting, the helicopters themselves would have lighting. Helicopter landing lights would potentially affect the largest area of the community because those lights could be activated from more than a mile out along the approaching flight path . Assuming the helicopter’s landing light would be mounted at a 45-degree down angle, when the helicopter is level, the search light would produce an approximately 70 -foot- diameter cone of light on the ground when the helicopter is 200 feet off the ground, and the search light would produce an approximately 35 -foot-diameter cone of light when the helicopter is 100 feet off the ground. The project applicant has provided plans showing the approved flight path for helicopters’ descent and ascent (see Attachment G). ARC Directional Item #8: Address possible noise, headlight, and yard overlook impacts on the neighborhood from the parking garage. Response: The proposed two-level parking deck would be 19 feet above average natural grade, with an additional 10-foot-tall elevator penthouse. Based on the reduced height and number of levels proposed since the previous ARC meeting review of the project in September 2019, headlight and yard overlook impacts on the adjacent residential uses would be greatly reduced. In addition, as shown in Figure 4, the parking deck and vehicle headlights associated with use of the parking deck would be heavily screened by existing vegetation within the Open Space Easement on-site. Page 50 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 A Noise Impact Assessment for the Proposed French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project was prepared by Ambient Air Quality and Noise Consulting (see Attachment H). Based on a conservative assumption that all parking spaces would to be accessed over a one-hour period, predicted noise levels from proposed parking areas, including the parking deck, would be 29 dBA Leq, or less at the nearest residential land use. Predicted operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s noise standards and would be largely masked by ambient noise conditions. ARC Directional Item #9: Massing of hospital expansion west stair tower is not well integrated with other elements and does not mesh visually; review overhanging element and how it works with the west stair tower. Response: The project applicant team has revised the west stair tower to extend upward and beyond a lowered roof line at the west elevation. This lowered roof line is ‘accepted’ into the stair tower rather than ‘floating’ above it. This clarification is shown on the project renderings (see Attachment C, Pages 4 and 5). 7.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* Setbacks Front/Street (Johnson) Street (Iris)* Side* 150 ft (min) (Patient Tower) 35 ft (min) (Patient Tower) 35 ft (min) (Patient Tower) 91 ft (min) (Parking Structure) 15 feet 23 feet 23 feet 23 feet Creek Setback Patient Tower (floors 1 and 2) Patient Tower (floors 3 and 4) Parking Deck Paving/Parking Area Generator Yard 107 ft (min) 107 ft (min) 6 ft (min) 4 ft (min) 4 in (min) 20 feet 30 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Maximum Height of Structures** Patient Tower Parking Deck 68 ft with 10-ft mechanical screening 19 ft with 10-ft-tall elevator penthouse 35 feet 35 feet Max Lot Coverage 24% (total) 60% Affordable Housing In-lieu fee On-site or In-Lieu fee Northwest Wall Sign Zone Office All zoning districts Height Top of fourth story Uppermost point of the second story1 Size 77 sf 100 sf or 15% of building face Illumination N/A Internal or external Page 51 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 *2019 Zoning Regulations North Wall Sign Zone Office All zoning districts Height Bottom of fourth story Uppermost point of second story1 Size 77 sf 100 sf or 15% of building face Illumination N/A Internal or external Monument Sign Zone Height Size Illumination Office 2 ft 6 in 24 sf N/A All commercial districts and PF zone 6 ft 24 sf External illumination or halo illumination preferred Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Number of Vehicle Spaces EV Ready EV Capable 752 10 25 543 10 25 Bicycle Spaces Short-term Long-term 10 3 9 3 Motorcycle Parking 14 4 Environmental Status An Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been drafted and is being circulated for public review. Page 52 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 8.0 PROJECT SIGNAGE The proposed project includes five signs (see table below and Attachment B, Sheet A302); one monument sign, three wall signs, and a hanging sign (see Figure 8). All the proposed signs are new, except the proposed monument sign would replace the existing monument sign in front of the Copeland Health Pavilion. Sign and Location Proposed Signage Allowed* Parking Structure – East Wall Sign Zone Office All zoning districts Height Bottom of second story Uppermost point of the second story1 Size 50 sf 100 sf or 15% of building face Illumination N/A Internal or external Parking Structure – North Hanging Sign Zone Office All zoning districts Height Bottom of second story Uppermost point of the second story1 Size 25 sf 100 sf or 15% of building face Illumination N/A Internal or external Figure 8: Proposed North-facing Parking Deck Hanging Sign Page 53 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 Sign and Location Proposed Signage Allowed* Patient Tower - Northwest Wall Sign Zone Office All zoning districts Height Top of fourth story Uppermost point of the second story1 Size 77 sf 100 sf or 15% of building face Illumination N/A Internal or external Patient Tower - North Wall Sign Zone Office All zoning districts Height Bottom of fourth story Uppermost point of second story 1 Size 77 sf 100 sf or 15% of building face Illumination N/A Internal or external Patient Tower - Monument Sign Zone Height Size Illumination Office 2 ft 6 in 24 sf N/A All commercial districts and PF zone 6 ft 24 sf External illumination or halo illumination preferred *Per Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 – Sign Regulations (https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/15.40) 1Unless additional height is approved through a sign pro gram or exception as provided in Section 15.40.485 and 14.40.600 of Sign Regulations. 9.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 9.1 Recommend findings of consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. An action recommending approval of the application based on consistency with the Community Design Guidelines will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 9.2 Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An action continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 9.3 Recommend findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. An action recommending denial of the application should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, or other policy documents. Page 54 of 223 Item 4b ARCH-0161-2019, USE-0500-2019, VAR-0499-2019; & EID-0742-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – March 21, 2022 7.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Project Description B - Project Plan Set C - September 2019 and April 2021 Project Renderings Comparison D - Visual Impact Assessment E - Photometric Plan F - Approved Helicopter Flight Plan G - Noise Impact Assessment H - Parking Structure Materials Board I - Patient Tower Materials Board Page 55 of 223 Page 56 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Dignity Health Proposed Patient Tower, Chapel and Parking Structure Prepared by Studio Design Group Architects Inc. April 27, 2020 PROJECT INTRODUCTION In 1993, the City approved a Master Plan for the French Hospital campus that anticipated the ultimate build-out of the site with needed facilities for a range of different services. The plan included four new buildings, an addition to the hospital, and a substantial expansion of site parking. The 1993 City approval included a mitigated negative declaration (MND) that addressed significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. On March 15, 2013, Administrative Use Permit A 140-11 was approved amending the original 1993 Master Plan. Although the configuration and placement of proposed buildings were modified in the 2013 Master Plan amendment the gross area and potential impacts considered by the 1993 Master Plan remained substantially unchanged. The City requested an update to the original 1993 traffic study, which concluded the original 1993 traffic report was still relevant and the proposed changes to the master plan would not adversely affect the baseline intersection operations or level of service on Johnson Avenue. The revised master plan was approved by the City in 2013. In 2016, the master plan was revised and approved by the City once again to accommodate a new four-story Medical Office Building and parking garage. Similar to the master plan amendment three years earlier, building areas approved in the 2013 Master Plan amendment were reallocated to new the buildings shown on the 2016 Master Plan. No increase in the gross area approved for the campus by the 1993 Master Plan was proposed. Rather, the total building area approved for the campus in the original 1993 Master Plan was once again reallocated in the 2016 Master Plan so as to comply with the original 1993 MND. For the last sixteen years Dignity Health has continually upgraded and improved all patient care departments inside the original 1971 hospital building. After several years of detailed study, planning and projection of community healthcare needs over the next 50 years Dignity Health has determined that all of the previously approved building allocations spread across several future buildings should be consolidated into a single 89,775 SF, 4-story, 82 bed Patient Tower Expansion. This current Master Plan proposal also includes a new 1,000 SF Chapel to be constructed within the existing Entry Portico (under separate ARC submittal) and a new parking deck with a helistop. The helistop will serve the Emergency Department expansion project currently under construction as well as the proposed Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). PROJECT INFORMATION Hospital Patient Tower Expansion Area: 89,775 SF Additional Beds: 82 Stories: Four Height above average natural grade: 68 feet Occupancy: I-2 Page 57 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Dignity Health Proposed Patient Tower, Chapel and Parking Structure 2 Generator/Oxygen Yard Area: 1,800 SF Occupancy: U Parking Deck Parking Deck Area: 31,000 SF (over surface level parking and 5,800 SF shell space for future Laboratory & Storage) Number of Parking Spaces: 82 on deck level Helistop Area: 2,000 SF Stories: 2 (including helistop) Height above average natural grade: 19 feet (with 10’ elevator tower projection) Occupancy: S-2/B Parking Statistics Existing number of on-site parking spaces: 709 Number of on-site spaces at completion Patient Tower & Parking Deck: +/-677 Number of spaces at off-site Church parking lot: 95 (+/-10), final number to be determined. SITE INFORMATION & SETTING The overall hospital campus property is about 18 acres in size and extends generally from Johnson Avenue to the railroad tracks. The developed part of the hospital property is fairly flat, but there is a steep slope bank between Johnson Avenue and the front parking lot, and another steep slope bank between rear parking areas and the undeveloped property owned by the hospital to the west. The overall campus site development presently includes the one- story French Hospital building, the three story Copeland Health Education Building, the three-story Pacific Medical Plaza to the south of the hospital (separate ownership), and the Ella Street medical condominiums (separate ownership) further to the south. A 1,800 square- foot modular building that serves as a business office is located on the north side of the hospital. Surface parking lots surround the buildings on the perimeter of the campus. Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the west, and residential uses to the north, south and east. A summary of all buildings (existing and proposed) is shown on Sheet R-102 of plans The campus several underlying legal parcels, some of which are under separate ownership. In conjunction with this application Dignity Health is planning to merge their parcels 2, 3 and 4 with a portion of Parcel 6 (under separate ownership) as required to construct the proposed Patient Tower and Parking Structure. Refer to sheet A002 of the Schematic Plan documents for location of property lines to be extinguished. The main hospital access is at the traffic signal at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. There is also a traffic signal at Johnson Avenue and Ella Street providing access to the site from Ella Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Tower Expansion and Parking Deck buildings are described on Sheet R-101 as Building G and Building H respectively. Specific information for each building is shown in the Page 58 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Dignity Health Proposed Patient Tower, Chapel and Parking Structure 3 Project Information section above. The footprint of each building is currently paved and used for surface parking. Tower Expansion Building The proposed Tower building has been designed to coordinate with the surrounding existing buildings. The main stucco building color (Lanyard) and slate gray horizontal rib accent panels are borrowed from the adjacent Pavilion Building. The new Main Entry façade has deep recessed and broad overhangs with large areas of glazing to take advantage of the views of downtown and Cerro San Luis Mountain beyond. Aluminum shading devices similar to those used on the Pavilion Building are included in the glazing system surrounding the main entry. A large, covered terrace on the second level provides visitors and patients with access to fresh air, sunshine and views. Recessed stucco control joints relieve large wall surfaces and three- dimensional aluminum window surrounds at the patient rooms. Roof mounted HVAC equipment is screened from view with horizontal metal panels similar to the panels used on the adjacent Pavilion Building. Parking Deck The proposed single level Parking Deck over surface level parking maintains strong horizontal lines typical of parking structures. The bottom level shell space (future Lab & Storage) sits below the parking deck and includes a pedestrian plaza. The cast-in-place concrete structure will be painted with exterior colors to match those of the Pavilion Building and proposed Tower building. The parking structures at Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center and at Mindbody on Tank Farm Road are examples of the exterior finishes proposed. BUILDING HEIGHT The four-story Patient Tower building height is proposed to be 68 feet above average natural grade. Stair/Elevator penthouses and mechanical screening extend an additional 10 feet as allowed by the Zoning Regulations. The previous master plan approval included a variance of up to 62 feet high for a new medical office building (where the current parking structure is proposed to be located) that was never constructed. The proposed Tower is sited at the rear of the site and substantially set back from adjacent streets. Although the proposed Patient Tower is the same height as the previously approved medical office building it will be constructed on the lower portion of the site to the west of the hospital. Accordingly the top parapet of the proposed Patient Tower (353.75’) will actually be less than the height of the existing Pacific Medical Plaza building (354.80’). The proposed Parking Deck will be 19 feet above average natural grade (to the top of the guardrail on the highest level and the helistop). The elevator penthouse extends an additional 10’ feet as allowed by the Zoning Regulations. This is below the allowable maximum height of 35’. Given past precedent, the placement and the design of the proposed Tower and Parking Deck buildings, Dignity Health is requesting the previously granted variance of 68 feet be re-affirmed for the present project. TRAFFIC/FLOW Presently an estimated 80-90% of all traffic enters the site at a signaled intersection at Johnson Avenue. Driveway widening to ease traffic flow from the Johnson Ave entrance through the site to the proposed Tower entry is included as part of this project. Two secondary traffic entries are via Ella Street and access the rear of the property. A fourth vehicular access (from Breck Street) Page 59 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Dignity Health Proposed Patient Tower, Chapel and Parking Structure 4 was constructed with the recently completed parking lot expansion north of the Pavilion Building. The reallocation of use from medical offices (previously approved Master Plan) to hospital use (current Master Plan) results in a slightly decreased overall traffic impact. This is due to the higher trips and turnover associated with medical offices when compared with trips and turnover typical for hospital patients, visitors and staff. An updated traffic report (July 15,2019) is included with the current application concludes the proposed project “would result in fewer trips being generated than the 1993 Master Plan and would not significantly impact the existing roadway conditions.” An easement for a public bike path was granted to the City in conjunction with the 2012 Master Plan update. The proposed plan includes a slight modification to the existing bike path and Open Space Easement. PARKING All parking is presently surface parking and includes spaces for approximately 709 cars, well in excess of City requirements for the current uses. A reciprocal parking and drive agreement with the two neighboring medical office building parcels (Parcels 5 & 6) allow shared parking and drive areas between all three ownerships for all areas of the combined campus. The majority of existing site parking is provided at the rear of the hospital site. The proposed Tower (and future Lab space on the lower level of the proposed Parking Structure) will require a total of 96 additional spaces. To offset the loss of 85 parking spaces due to the placement of the proposed Tower and 13 spaces due to the entry drive modifications, Dignity proposes a new Parking Deck located over the existing parking lot located at the rear of the site. The completed Parking Deck will provide an additional 66 parking spaces for a total of 677 spaces on the campus, still in excess of the City requirements for the proposed uses. Sheet R-102 of plans provides a complete parking summary that includes the requirements for all existing and proposed buildings. The summary specifies the existing number of space and the number of spaces proposed to be removed/added as well as the number of spaces available at the conclusion of both Phase I and Phase II. In addition to the parking available on campus Dignity Health has leased an area that will provide approximately 95 parking spaces nearby at the ‘Renovate’ First Baptist Church at 2075 Johnson Street. These spaces are for employees and construction personnel and are available 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM Mon, Tues, Thurs and Fri and from 6:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Wed. HELISTOP As noted in the introduction above this Master Plan proposal includes a new helistop over parking to serve the existing Emergency Department and the proposed Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Based on San Luis Obispo County Emergency Medical Services records the anticipated flight frequency is three helicopter trips per month. A preliminary Noise Analysis Study is included in the attached planning application. Page 60 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Dignity Health Proposed Patient Tower, Chapel and Parking Structure 5 PUBLIC ART French Hospital Medical Center strongly supports the cultural and wellbeing values that art can add to our environment. The existing hospital includes art in the interior public spaces as well as sculptures by local artists in the existing Healing Garden. The Hospital proposes to continue their commitment to art as a healing element in collaboration with the City’s Public Art Proposal program. Potential areas for new Public Art include the main entry plaza of the proposed Patient Tower, an interior garden court adjacent to the new cafeteria and a second floor exterior terrace above the main entry. Once the hospital has engaged an artist(s) a separate application will be submitted for review and approval of the proposed Public art in these areas. PROJECT SCHEDULE The Parking Deck (Phase I) will break ground in February 2021. The Tower construction (Phase II) will start approximately four months later. There will be a period of approximately six months where both the Parking Deck and the Tower will be under construction. The following exhibits illustrate the proposed phasing, schedule and available parking throughout the project. Total Campus & Off-Site Parking Summary Approx. Date Net Add/Loss Cumulative 2020 -709 Feb. 2021 95 804 Parking Deck New Medical Tower After start Feb. 2021 -216 588 After start Aug. 2020 -119 469 At completion Feb. 2021 242 711 At completion Oct. 2022 61 772 Current At start of construction Notes: Structure footprint plus adjacent laydown bay Regain laydown area back 243 spaces in structure + 63 in adjacent surface parking bay & regained laydown area (plus 20 motorcycle spots) Tower + laydown area (plus 6 motorcycle spots) Addition of spaces due to First Baptist Church parking agreement Page 61 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Dignity Health Proposed Patient Tower, Chapel and Parking Structure 6 CONCLUSION The completion of the proposed Patient Tower, Chapel and Parking Structure will ensure that state-of-the-art patient care is provided for the health of the entire community. The investment by Dignity Health in this project demonstrates the strength of their commitment to a shared vision for a healthy future for San Luis Obispo. Page 62 of 223 PA402 Obstruction Light Poles Page 63 of 223 tpobSD 30" 30" 24" 12"24" 24" 24" 3-4"CLUMPS 8" 24" TR 12" TR 8" 5" 8" OAK 12" 12" 18" 12' 18" 24" 12" 12"4" 12" 6" 18" 14" 12"TR 24"TR 18" 4"TR 8" 10"TR4 8"OAK 72"STUMP 12"STUMP 60"STUMP 48"STUMP 60"STUMP 24"STUMP 48"STUMP 60"STUMP 48"STUMP 60"STUMP 10" 12" TREE 13" TREE 12" TREE 13" TREE 19" EUC. 10" TREE 19" EUC. 21" EUC.15" EUC. 19" EUC.17" EUC. 15" EUC. 10" EUC. 19" EUC. 13" EUC.13" EUC.2702752802806" S.S. UNDERFLOOR PERIMETER DRAIN 6" S.D. SD SD S S S D S S S D SS SD 3"OAK5"OAK5"OAK3"OAK16"PINE28"PEPPER40"PALM3"OAK3"OAK72"EUCC LUMP26"EUC60"48"48"30"36" 48" 10" 24" 18" 36" 10" 4" 8" 8" 132" 18" 6"4" 8" 24" 30"12" 36" 24" 12" 24" 24" 18"60" 24" 6" 18" 24"40" 18" 6" 60" 60" 60" 12"14" 60" 18" 18" 72"72" 12" 36"36" 24" 24" 24" 6" 30" 54" 30" 18" 40" 4"PALM 10" 12"TR 48" 6"TR 4" 4" TR 10" 8" 40"TR 4"PEP W/2'RAD WPL TR29 TR26 TR28 TR27 TR25 TR24 TR22 TR23 48" TR21 36" TR20 TR19 TR18 TR17 TR16 48" PALM 36" PALM 36" PALM 48" PALM 24" PALM 36" PALM 36" PALM 12"PEP TR2TR3 12" PALM TR6 TR7 30"EUC TR15 TR12 TR13 TR14 60" TR11 18"PEP 48"TR 36" 24"PEP 14"CEDAR36"PALM36"CLUMP 8"TR 36"PALM CLUMP 24"EUC 28"EUC 24"TR 24"4" 28" 10" J O H N S O N A V E.ASPHBIKE 6" S.D. 12" St.D. 12" S.D. 18" S.D. 24" S.D. 18" S.D.SDSDSDSDSD SD SD SDSD SD SD FC FC FC FC FCEEEP G E P GE FIREFIREFIRE FIRECLEAN AIR/VAN POOL/ EV369.16CANOPYCANOPY369.24349.58349.48CANOPY370.91CANOPY370.43CANOPY367.66CANOPY369.34CANOPYCANOPY333.88CANOPY361.96CANOPY372.47CANOPY372.65CANOPY370.28CANOPY368.85CANOPY348.14CANOPY1037348.90CANOPY346.10CANOPY1039345.17CANOPY346.59CANOPY386.37CANOPY380.06CANOPY388.49CANOPY382.42CANOPY381.91CANOPYCANOPY368.63CANOPY369.27CANOPY379.94CANOPY378.88CANOPY387.45CANOPY398.46CANOPY386.52CANOPY380.55CANOPYTOP TREE365.79260.63 60' N 4 6 °0 0 '52"W (N36°26'20"W 273.16) N 43°43'0 7"W 283.94 (281.73)N50°48'00"E 115.50N52°58'00"E 166.00N37°02'00"W 199.60 N36°22'09"W 230.05 51.03N53°05'00"EN52°58'00"E 289.60N 52°58'00" E50.7448.60 6 3.95 19 6 .68 213.4576.24N36°27'52"W 273.33 N8°37'12"E 178.19N8°39'17"E 225.94D=10D =64 °37'2 2"R =20.00L=22.56 D =1 78°12 '04"R =5 0.00L=1 55.511 3 .15D =64 °3 7'2 2"R =20.00L=22.56 D =1 78°12 '04"R =5 0.00L=1 55.5113 .15JOHNSON AVE. 1 4 5 6 2 7 3 7 7 7 7 7BRECK ST.RAILROAD TRACKSPROPERTY LINE 8 GROUND FLOOR FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION 100'-0" GROUND FLOOR FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION 100'-0"ELLA ST.IRIS ST.8 FIRE HRDRANT FIRE HRDRANT FIRE HRDRANT FIRE HRDRANT EXISTING DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL1 EXISTING COPELAND EDUCATION PAVILLION2 EXISTING LOADING DOCK3 EXISTING ENTRY TO HOSPITAL4 EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT5 EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING6 EXISTING SURFACE PARKING7 EXISTING STAIR & RAMP TO BE DEMOLISHED8 BLD-00955 - MAIN HOSPITAL - Bldg 01 BLD00957 - SURGERY ADDITION - Bldg03 BLD-00956 - CATH LAB ADDITION - Bldg 02 BLD-03600 - MECHANICAL BLDG. - Bldg 04 BLD-05622 - ELECTRICAL ROOM - Bldg05 BLD-06242 - EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT ADDITION - Bldg07 Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Site Plan -Existing Conditions A001 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal A001 1" = 40'-0" 1 Site Plan Existing NORTH Existing Site Plan Legend A001 1" = 80'-0" 2 Site Plan -Key Plan No. Date Description Page 64 of 223 UP tpob30" 30" 24" 12"24" 24" 24" 3-4"CLUMPS 8" 24" TR 12" TR 8" 5" 8" OAK 5"OAK3"OAK16"PINE28"PEPPER40"PALM3"OAK3"OAK72"EUCC LUMP26"EUC12"WILLOW6"DBLEUC6"EUC60"PLEUC24"EUC60"48"48"30"36" 48" 10" 24" 18" 36" 10" 4" 8" 8" 132" 18" 6"4" 8" 24" 30"12" 36" 24" 12" 24" 24" 18"60" 24" 6" 18" 24"40" 18" 6" 60" 60" 60" 12"14" 60" 18" 18" 72"72" 12" 36"36" 48" 18" 24" 24" 24" 6" 30" 54" 30" 18" 40" 4"PALM 10" 12" TR 48" 6"TR 4" 4" TR 10" 8" 40"TR 24"PEP 24"PEP 12"PEP 12"PEP 4"PEP W/2'RAD WPL 12"TR TR10 TR9 TR29 TR26 TR28 TR27 TR25 TR24 TR22 TR23 48" TR21 36" TR20 TR19 TR18 TR17 TR16 48" PALM 36" PALM 36" PALM 48" PALM 24" PALM 36" PALM 36" PALM 12"PEP TR2TR3 12" PALM TR6 TR7 30"EUC TR15 TR12 TR13 TR14 60" TR11 18"PEP 48"TR 36" 24"PEP TR8 16"8" 36"PALM 14"CEDAR36"PALM36"CLUMP 8"TR 36"PALM CLUMP 24"EUC 28"EUC 24"TR 24"4" 28"14"24"10"TR 12"PEP 40"PALM 18" 10" BIKE 18" S.D. 18" S.D.SDSDSDSD SD SD SD SDFC FC FC FC FCEEEP G E P GE FIREFIREFIRE FIRE369.16CANOPY366.10CANOPY365.18CANOPY362.97CANOPY367.39CANOPY366.08CANOPY366.30CANOPYCANOPY369.24369.48CANOPY349.58349.48CANOPY370.91CANOPY370.43CANOPY367.66CANOPY369.34CANOPYCANOPY333.88CANOPY360.49CANOPY359.34CANOPY363.47CANOPY361.96CANOPY372.47CANOPY372.65CANOPY370.28CANOPY364.67CANOPY368.85CANOPY348.14CANOPY1037348.90CANOPY346.10CANOPY1039345.17CANOPY346.59CANOPY386.37CANOPY380.06CANOPY388.49CANOPY382.42CANOPY381.91CANOPY377.18CANOPY368.63CANOPY364.34CANOPY361.97CANOPY369.27CANOPY379.94CANOPY378.88CANOPY387.45CANOPY398.46CANOPY386.52CANOPY380.55CANOPYTOP TREE365.79260.63 60' N46 °00'52"WN58°33'05"W RADIAL(N36°26'20"W 273.16)N8°37'12"E 60.00N4 3°43'07"W 283.94 (281.73) N81°22'48"W 10.00 N50°48'00"E 115.50N52°58'00"E 166.00N37°02'00"W 199.60 N36°22'09"W 230.05 51.03N53°05'00"EN8°37'12"E 160.00N 52°58'00" E50.74N52°58'00"E 171.91N37°02'00"W 170.00 9030 179S36°53'00"E 9048.60 6 3.95 19 6 .68 76.24N36°27'52"W 273.33 N8°37'12"E 178.19N8°39'17"E 225.94D=10°27'35"R=2000.00L=365.111 °22'48"W 10.0 0°37'1 2"E 17.63 N 43°43'07"W 31 .11D =50°28'38"R =15.00L=1 3.21D =125°38 '40"R =40.00 L=87.72 N 8 1°22'48"W 10.0 0D =64 °3 7'22 "R =2 0.00L=2 2.56D =1 78°12 '04"R =5 0.00L=1 55.511 °22'48"W 10.0 0°37'1 2"E 17.63 N 43°43'07"W 31 .11D =50°28'38"R =15.00L=1 3.21D =125°38 '40"R =40.00 L=87.72 N 8 1°22'48"W 10.0 0D =64 °3 7'22 "R =2 0.00L=2 2.56D =1 78°12 '04"R =5 0.00L=1 55.51T JOHNSON AVE.ELLA ST.RAILROAD TRACKSPROPERTY LINE LOADING DOCK 12 1110 1 9 5 6 2 3 GROUND FLOOR FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION 100'-0" 13 14 24 14 PARCEL 6 PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4 IRIS ST.BRECK ST.1516 17 18 19 7 7 7 7 20 A006 1 A005 1 20' REQUIRED FIRE LANE 18'-0" 4'-0" 18'-0"FIRE LANE26'-0" 18'-0" 4'-0" VAN 26' REQUIRED FIRE LANE 20' FIRE LANE 8 21 20'-0" 22 23 35'-0"35' -11"107'-0"20'-0" FIRE HRDRANT FIRE HRDRANT FIRE HRDRANT FIRE HRDRANT 79'-6"78'-3"8'-7"18'-0"51'-6"EXISTING TRANSFORMERS TO REMAIN LANDSCAPE PER LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS 25 OPEN SPACE EASEMENT TO REMIAN OPEN SPACE AND DRAINAGRE EASEMENT TO BE ADJUSTED TO FIT THE GENERATOR ENCLOSURE AND PARKING STRUCTURE BIKE PATH EASMENT TO BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH REALIGNED PATH 26 20'-0" 14'-0" 14' ONE-WAY FIRE LANE 104'-6"339'-0"91'-6"1'-2" "SHORT TERM BIKE RACKS PER L103, REFER TO PA100 FOR CALCULATIONS" EXISTING DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL1 EXISTING COPELAND EDUCATION PAVILLION2 EXISTING LOADING DOCK3 EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT5 EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING6 EXISTING PARKING7 NEW CHAPEL AS PART OF SEPARATE ARC SUBMITTAL9 NEW ACCESSIBLE RAMP10 NEW ACCESSIBLE PARKING11 NEW GENERATOR YARD, PARKING DECK AND TRASH ENCLOSURE 12 NEW TRANSFORMER FOR PATIENT TOWER ELECTRIC SERVICE 13 PROPERTY LINES TO BE EXTINGUISHED. PARCELS 3, 4 AND PORTION OF PARCEL 6 TO BE MERGED WITH PARCEL 2 14 NEW DROP-OFF PLAZA15 LOCATION OF PROPOSED PUBLIC ART. DESIGN TO BE SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE SUBMITTAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS REQUIRED BY ZONING CODE 17.70.140 16 NEW VEHICULAR RAMP17 OUTDOOR DINING AREA.18 EXISTING LOCKERS AND SHOWERS FOR EMPLOYEES PROVIDED ISIDE THE EXISTING HOSPITAL 19 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION AT TOWER20 NEW PARKING STRUCTURE W/ FUTURE LAB AND HELISTOP. REFER TO PA SHEETS 21 RECONFIGURED SURFACE PARKING AREA. REFER TO PA SHEETS 8 RECONFIGURED HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE AREAS. REFER TO PA SHEETS 22 RECONFIGURED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN AND PARKING.23 NEW MEDICAL TOWER24 MODIFIED ENTRY DRIVEWAY25 PATH OF TRAVEL AREA RESERVED FOR PARKING DECK AND TRANSFORMER. REFER TO PA DRAWINGS 26 Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Site Plan -Proposed A002 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal NORTH A002 1" = 40'-0" 2 Site Plan Proposed No. Date Description Site Plan Legend Page 65 of 223 LOADING DOCK 24'-0"C C D B B B B B B C C C B D B B BB B B BB D BA A ROOF GARDEN LEVEL ILLUMINATIOND ROOF GARDEN LEVEL ILLUMINATIOND A DROP OFF CANOPY B E A LOADING DOCK CANOPY ROOF OVERHANG D MEDITATION GARDEN OVERHANG A NEW PARKING STRUCTURE. REFER TO PA SHEETS COPELAND EDUCATION PAVILLION EXISTING HOSPITAL EXTERIOR DINNING NEW TOWER PARKING LIGHT GLEON GALLEONLED 120 WATT, PHOTOCELL, 20' MAX HEIGHT A ARCHITECTURAL LED WALL PACK ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS LED 42 WATT B BOLLARD. ABB ARBOR BOLLARD 25 WATT, PHOTOCELLC CANOPY LIGHT. TOP TIER LEDD IN-GROUND LED LUMINAIRE. SIGNAGEE Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com Key Plan 7/16/2020 4:45:30 PMBIM 360://18-0327 - Dignity French Hospital MC/18-0327_French_Hospital_Site-Central.rvtSite Lighting Exhibit A.003 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR18-0327 07/16/2020I -MR KM ARC Submittal No. Date Description A.003 1" = 20'-0" 1 PATIENT TOWER -SITE LIGHTING Page 66 of 223 UP UP BIKE WB-50 - Intermediate Semi-Trailer WB-50 - Intermediate Semi-TrailerWB-50 - Intermediate Semi-TrailerELLA ST.EAST ELEVATIONLOADING DOCK RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL EXISTING HOSPITAL 3 A005 PARKING SPACE TO BE ELIMINATED A 1 278.66' SHORING WALL 8.55% PROPERTY LINES 23'-9"8'-6"277.25' 278.08'RAMPUPR 28' - 0" 4' - 0" STRIPED PATH OF TRAVEL 4' - 0" 18' - 0"26' - 0"18' - 0"4' - 0"5' - 10 3/8"281.43' EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN SIDEWALK ELECTRICAL ROOM ELECTRICAL ROOM PUMP ROOM E FIRE LANE26' - 0"FIRE LANE 24' - 0" 4 A005 5 A005 1'-4"16'-1"11'-0"IRIS ST. 4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 3 4 8 7 6 1 2 5 9 20'-0"8'-0"24'-10"10'-0"7 10 10 10 11 TOWER LOADING DOCK TRUCK ACCESS 282.42' PROPERTY LINE 1 Main Level 297.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58'4'-0"6' X 6' DOCK LEVELER ON DEPRESSED SLAB LOADING DOCK LOADING DOCK CANOPY 5 A005 STORM WATER DRAIN. SEE CIVIL 8.55% EMERGENCY FOOD STORAGE SOLDIER BEAM TIP SEE SHORING DRAWINGS BOOSTER PUMP 1 Main Level 297.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' LOADING DOCK CANOPY ELECTRICAL ROOM 282.50' LOADING DOCK COMPACTOR BEYOND 1 Main Level 297.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' UNDERGROUND WATER STORAGE TANK BOOSTER PUMP LOADING DOCK LOADING DOCK CANOPY 27"1 EMERGENCY FOOD STORAGE 2 BOOST PUMP SHED 3 30 YARD SELF CONTAINED COMPACTOR 4 BALER 5 UNDERGROUND WATER STORAGE TANK 6 DEPRESSED LOADING DOCK 7 RAILING 8 6'X6' DOCK LEVELER. DEPRESSED CONCRETE 9 PLANTER AREA TO BE REPAIRED 10 LANDSCAPE 11 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Enlarged Site Plan -Tower Loading Dock A005 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal A005 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 Loading Dock Area Enlarged Plan A005 2 Loading Dock Area A005 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 Loading Dock A005 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 Loading Dock -Section 1 A005 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 Loading Dock Section 2 EXISTING HOSPITAL NEW PATIENT TOWER Site Plan Keynote 1 2 4 3 11 5 No. Date Description Page 67 of 223 T MINIMUM CLEAR DRIVE AISLEGENERATOR 1 GENERATOR 2 (FUTURE) O2 STOR. FUEL TANK LANDSCAPE32'-9"18'-0"(E) BIKE PATH34'-4"16'-9"2'-3"A0063 A006 4 A006 2 A006 51 1 2 3 17 18 15 141310 12 9 8 7 5 19 20 2222 22 (N) BIKE PATH 5 21 OPEN SPACE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE ADJUSTED TO FIT THE GENERATOR ENCLOSURE AND PARKING STRUCTURE BIKE PATH EASMENT TO BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH REALIGNED PATH 72'-0"24 23 PROPERTY LINE 16 33'-6"45'-2" 10'-0" H CMU BLOCK WALL. 4” AND 8” HIGH BLOCK, SAND BLASTED / SPLIT FACE FINISH COMBINATION WITH RADOM PATTERN, BLOCK COLOR TO BE RANDOMIZED USING (SOURDOUGH MW, BURNISH; NUFAD MW, BURNISH; CALIFORNIA GOLD MW, BURNISH; BROWN MW, BURNISH) TRASH ENCLOSURE GENERATOR 10' - 0"SOLID DECORATIVE GATE 10'-0" H CMU BLOCK WALL. 4” AND 8” HIGH BLOCK, SAND BLASTED / SPLIT FACE FINISH COMBINATION WITH RADOM PATTERN, BLOCK COLOR TO BE RANDOMIZED USING (SOURDOUGH MW, BURNISH; NUFAD MW, BURNISH; CALIFORNIA GOLD MW, BURNISH; BROWN MW, BURNISH)10' - 0"GENERATORS, BEYOND GENERATOR A006 6 6' CHAINLINK FENCE 10'-0" H CMU BLOCK WALL. 4” AND 8” HIGH BLOCK, SAND BLASTED / SPLIT FACE FINISH COMBINATION WITH RADOM PATTERN, BLOCK COLOR TO BE RANDOMIZED USING (SOURDOUGH MW, BURNISH; NUFAD MW, BURNISH; CALIFORNIA GOLD MW, BURNISH; BROWN MW, BURNISH) GENERATOR TRASH ENCLOSURE 10'-0" H CMU BLOCK WALL. 4” AND 8” HIGH BLOCK, SAND BLASTED / SPLIT FACE FINISH COMBINATION WITH RADOM PATTERN, BLOCK COLOR TO BE RANDOMIZED USING (SOURDOUGH MW, BURNISH; NUFAD MW, BURNISH; CALIFORNIA GOLD MW, BURNISH; BROWN MW, BURNISH) CHAIN LINK FENCE SURROUNDING O2 STORAGE GENERATORS, BEYOND 10'-0"6' - 0"EXISTING TREE TO BE PROTECTED, IN PLACE1 EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE2 OPEN SPACE AND DRAINAGE EASMENT TO BE ADJUSTED TO FIT THE GENERATOR ENCLOSURE 3 BIKE PATH EASMENT TO BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH REALIGNED PATH 4 BIKE PATH TO BE REMOVED6 REFER TO THE NEW PARKING STRUCTURE DRAWINGS7 4 EMERGENCY BACKUP CYLINDERS REFER TO PLUMBING DRAWINGS 9 DAY TANK10 2X2 MANIFOLD WITH DEWARS, REFER TO PLUMBING DRAWINGS11 10'-0" H. PRECISION BLOCK - CMU BLOCK RADOM PATTERN12 REALIGNED BIKE PATH13 DECORATOVE DOUBLE GATES TO MATCH TRASH ENCLOSURE GATES 14 FUEL TANK ACCESS LADDER15 6' H CHAINLINK FENCE ENCLOSURE16 6" HIGH CONTAINMENT CURB SURROUNDING FUEL TANK17 GENERATOR SET ON CONCRETE PAD, TYP.18 6' H CHAINLINK GATE INTO ENCLOSURE, 3'-0" GATE OPENING8 EXISTING BIKE PATH5 NEW CURB TO MATCH EXISTING19 RESTRIPED PARKING AREA20 NEW CURB AT RECONFIGURED MEDIAN, TYP.21 LANDSCAPE22 TRASH ENCLOSURE23 TRANSFORMER - REFER TO PA DRAWINGS248"4"4"8"8"Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Enlarged Site Plan -Service Yard A006 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal A006 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 Generator and Oxygen Tank Enclosure -Enlarged Site Plan N A006 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 Generator Yard -North Elevation A006 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 Generator Yard -East Elevation A006 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 Generator Yard -South Elevation A006 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 Generator Yard -West Elevation Enlarged Service Yard Legend No. Date Description A006 1/2" = 1'-0" 6 02 Gen Yard -East Elevation -Callout 1 Page 68 of 223 UP DIETARY DINING GARDEN HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION ICU IMAGING IT LOBBY / WAITING MED/SURG MEP NICU OFFICE SHELL SUPPORT VERTICAL CIRCULATION LOBBY WAITING ELECTRICAL ROOM CORRIDOR ELECTRICAL ROOM SERVERY KITCHEN CORRIDOR ALL-GENDER STAFF TOILET ALL-GENDER STAFF TOILET DRY STORAGE WALK-IN COOLER WALK-IN COOLER WALK-IN FREEZER CATERING HSKP DIETARY MANAGER LOCKER AREA STAIR PUBLIC ELEV. #2 ENTRY VESTIBULE ALL-GENDER TOILET ALL-GENDER TOILET MDF SECURITY STAIR MEDITATION AREA DRY STORAGE ALL-GENDER TOILET ALL-GENDER TOILET TRASH STORAGE PUBLIC ELEV. #1 CORRIDOR WAITING HELLO DESK CORRIDOR ICE MEDITATION ROOM WARE WASHING CORRIDOR WAITING HOT LAB CT SCANNER PATIENT HOLDING MRI TOILET PRE-ADMIT CONTROL WAITING DRESS NUC MED CONTROL / DOSE CONTROL CONTROLADA DRESS PAT. TLT.PAT. TLT ADA DRESS X-RAYFILES WORK MRI EQ. DRESS ADMITTING R/F PAT TLT SOILED UTILITY CLEAN UTILITY READING PFT / EEGCONTROL STAFF TLT SHARED OFFICE HSK Room Room BLOOD DRAW STAFF BREAK VOLUNTEER OFFICE OUTPATIENT CARDIO / ECHOEKG STAFF TLT. PAT. TLT. TECH WORK ROOM DIRECTOR OFFICE PRE-ADMIT GIFT SHOP WHEELCHAIR OFFICE CORRIDOR PATIENT ELEVATOR SERVICE ELEVATOR CORRIDOR DINING DINING PATIO ALCOVE Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Ground Level Overall Plan A100 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal No. Date Description A100 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 Ground Level Floor Plan -Overall Page 69 of 223 UP HALLWAY3 BEDROOM3 BEDROOM3 BEDROOM2 BEDROOMSTAFF LOUNGE3 BEDROOMCORRIDOR3 BEDROOM3 BEDROOM3 BEDROOMOFFICENURSERYSTOR.ADABATH1 BEDROOMEXAMGOWNMENSSTAFFBATHWOMENSSTAFFBATH1 BEDROOM1 BEDROOM1 BEDROOMICU RM. #11ISOLATIONANTE RM.ICU RM. #10CONSULT1 BEDROOM1 BEDROOM1 BEDROOMBATHBATHBATHBATHC.C. GROUND LEVEL ROOF GROUND LEVEL ROOF GROUND LEVEL ROOF GROUND LEVEL ROOF OPEN TO PATIO BELOW COPELAND EDUCATION PAVILLION EXISTING HOSPITAL DIETARY DINING GARDEN HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION ICU IMAGING IT LOBBY / WAITING MED/SURG MEP NICU OFFICE SHELL SUPPORT VERTICAL CIRCULATION NICU #2 FAMILY NICU #3 MULTIPURPOSE / CONSULT ISO NICU #4 ISO NICU #5 NICU #6 NICU #7 NICU #8 PUBLIC TLT ALL-GENDER TOILET FAMILY WAITING NURSE WORK NURSE WORK PHYSICIAN'S SHARED OFFICE MED NS LACTATION CLEAN SUPPLY SOILED UTILITY HSK ALL-GENDER STAFF TOILET NURSE STATION ALCOVE ALCOVE HALLWAY RT WORK NOURISH. / FORMULA PREP & CLEAN UP EQ STORAGE CORRIDOR CORRIDOR SHAFT STAIR PUBLIC ELEV. #2 CORRIDOR LINK 3 IDF ELECT. NURSE WORK DOCTOR SLEEP STAIR ANTE NURSEWORK CORRIDOR SERVICE ELEV. #3 CORRIDOR LINK 2CORRIDOR LINK 1 FAMILY ANTE TLT/SHWR NICU #1 STAFF BREAK STAFF TLT NURSE WORK ALL-GENDER STAFF TOILET DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ELEVATOR LOBBY PUBLIC ELEV. #1 STAFF LOCKERSTOILET/SHOWER CHANGE CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR SHELL (FUTURE NS)SHELL (EQ STOR.) SHELL (FUTURE STORAGE) NICUNICUNICUISO NICU ISO NICU NURSE WORK ANTE NURSE WORK NICU NURSEWORK NICU NICU NURSE WORK ICU ICU PAT TLT ICU ICU ISOLATION ICU ISO ICU (BARIATRIC) PAT TLT ICUICU ICU (BARIATRIC) PAT TLT NURSE STATION NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK MEDS AREA ICU STAFF TLT/SHO M/S & ICU. WAITING STAFF BREAK PUBLIC TLT. DIRECTOR'S OFFICE TLT PAT TLT NURSE WORK EQ STORAGE ANTE PAT TLT HSK OFFICE / DR SLEEP TLT TLT RT WORK ROOM Room C.C. CORRIDOR WOMEN'S WAITING SHELL (FUTURE STORAGE) PATIENT ELEV. #4SHAFT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR ANTE CLEAN SUPPLY SOILED UTILITY NOURISHMENT CONSULT Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Main Level Overall Plan A101 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal No. Date Description A101 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 Main Level Floor Plan -Overall Page 70 of 223 UP UP PATIENT ROOM (BARIATRIC) ALL-GENDER TOILET ALL-GENDER TOILET PATIENT ROOM FAMILY CARE SUITE PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM (BARIATRIC) ISO PATIENT ROOM PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. ANTE ROOM ANTE ROOM ISO PATIENT ROOM (BARIATRIC)PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOMPATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK MEDS ROOM DICT. CLEAN SUPPLY NOURISH ALL-GENDER STAFF TOILET STAFF LOUNGE SPECIAL BATHING HSK SHAFT SERVICE ELEV. #3 IDF SHARED OFFICE MEDS ROOM NURSE STATION SOILED UTILITY NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK FAMILY WAITING PUBLIC ELEV. #1 MULTIPURPOSE C.C. GARDEN PATIO CORRIDOR ? STAIR PATIENT ELEV. #4 EQ STORAGE ALCOVE CORRIDOR ALL-GENDER STAFF TOILET ALCOVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW COPELAND EDUCATION PAVILLION DIETARY DINING GARDEN HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION ICU IMAGING IT LOBBY / WAITING MED/SURG MEP NICU OFFICE SHELL SUPPORT VERTICAL CIRCULATION PUBLIC ELEV. #2 NURSE STATION ALCOVE SUPPLY SHAFT SUP. OFFICE MULTIPURPOSE ROOM SHARED OFFICE CORRIDOR NOURISH EQ STORAGE CORRIDOR ELECT CLEAN SUPPLY CORRIDOR ALCOVE Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Second Level Overall Plan A102 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal No. Date Description A102 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 Second Level Floor Plan -Overall Page 71 of 223 UP UP DIETARY DINING GARDEN HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION ICU IMAGING IT LOBBY / WAITING MED/SURG MEP NICU OFFICE SHELL SUPPORT VERTICAL CIRCULATION PATIENT ROOM (BARIATRIC) ALL-GENDER TOILET ALL-GENDER TOILET PATIENT ROOM FAMILY CARESUITE PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM (BARIATRIC) ISO PATIENT ROOM PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. ANTE ROOM ANTE ROOM ISO PATIENT ROOM (BARIATRIC)PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOMPATIENT ROOMPATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PATIENT ROOM PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. PAT. TLT. NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK MEDS ROOM DICT. CLEAN SUPPLY NOURISH ALL-GENDER STAFF TOILET STAFF BREAK SPECIAL BATHING HSK SHAFT SERVICE ELEV. #3 IDF SHARED OFFICE MEDS ROOM NURSE STATION SOILED UTILITY NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK NURSE WORK FAMILY WAITING PUBLIC ELEV. #1 FAMILY SUPPORT C.C. CORRIDOR STAIR STAIR PATIENT ELEV. #4 EQ STORAGE ALCOVE CORRIDOR ALL-GENDER STAFF TOILET ALCOVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ALCOVE PUBLIC ELEV. #2 FUTURE P.T. N.S. P.T. CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR NOURISH EQ STORAGE CLEAN SUPPLY ELECT MULTIPURPOSE ROOM SHARED OFFICE SUP. OFFICE SOILED UTILITY ALCOVE CORRIDOR CORRIDOR SHAFT Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Third Level Overall Plan A103 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal No. Date Description A103 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 Third Level Floor Plan -Overall Page 72 of 223 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' LOADING DOCK TRANSFORMER 1 3 2 9 3 RETAINING WALL BEYOND 2 11 5 8 3 AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE 0' (285.75) MAIN LEVEL +11.75' (297.5) HIGHEST POINT +68' (353.75) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PROJECTION +10' (363.75)68'-0"10'-0"795.000"12 131 1 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' 4 10 3 29 LINKS TO EXISTING HOSPITAL AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE 0' (285.75) MAIN LEVEL +11.75' (297.5) HIGHEST POINT +68' (353.75) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PROJECTION +10' (363.75)68'-0"10'-0"795.000"1 1 13 OUTDOOR DINING AREA 7 347.00' 351.62' 354.08' ELEVATOR TOWER 1 MECHANICAL SCREEN ELEVATOR TOWER 2 STAIR TOWER 347.00' 300.08' 317.58' S A300 N A300 AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE (A.N.G.) (See Civil Plan) 294.00 - 277.50 2 ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT (w/Variance) : 285.75 + 62' + 294.00 = 285.75 347.75 Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package 201 Main St. SE, Suite 325, Minneapolis, MN 55414 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com Key Plan 7/17/2020 11:29:58 AMBIM 360://18-0327 - Dignity French Hospital MC/18-0327_French_Hospital_Site-Central.rvtExterior Elevation A300 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR18-0327 07/16/2020I -MR KM ARC Submittal 3/32" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION No. Date Description ROOF REFERENCE PLAN Key Plan 1" = 1'-0" ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MATERIAL FINISH LEGEND ELASTOMERIC FINISH: COLOR: SW7680 LANYARD, SUPERFINE DARK 1 ELASTOMERIC FINISH: SW 7508 TAVERN TAN2 METAL SIDING: MC ELROY MEGA RIB; SLATE GRAY3 EIFS REVEAL 1/4" X 3/4"4 STOREFRONT5 DROP-OFF CANOPY: GLASS AND STEEL6 EIFS REVEAL 3/4" X 3/4"7 CONCRETE FINISH - FORM LINER8 DEEP FRAME WINDOW9 HOSPITAL SIGNAGE - REFER TO A30210 GLASS RAILING AT TERRACE11 METAL SCREEN ; COLOR: SLATE GRAY12 MECHANICAL LOUVERED SCREEN; COLOR: SLATE GRAY13 353.75'68' Page 73 of 223 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' 2 3 1 9MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PROJECTION +10' (363.75) HIGHEST POINT +68' (353.75) MAIN LEVEL +11.75' (297.5) AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE 0' (285.75)68'-0"10'-0"795.000"13 13 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' 10 2 1 1 11 6 8 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PROJECTION +10' (363.75) HIGHEST POINT +68' (353.75) MAIN LEVEL +11.75' (297.5) AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE 0' (285.75)68'-0"10'-0"795.000"5 13 2 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 1 2 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 1 2 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 12 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 1 2 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 12 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 1 2 EA301WA3011A3017A3015A3016A3012A3014A301Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Exterior Elevation A301 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal 3/32" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION A301 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 Connecting Link 1 -East Elevation A301 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 Connecting Link 2 -East Elevation A301 3/32" = 1'-0" 4 Connecting Link 2 -West Elevation A301 3/32" = 1'-0" 5 Connecting Link 3 -East Elevation A301 3/32" = 1'-0" 6 Connecting Link 3 -West Elevation A301 3/32" = 1'-0" 7 Connecting Link 4 -West Elevation Key Plan No. Date Description ELASTOMERIC FINISH: COLOR: SW768 LANYARD, SUPERFINE DARK 1 ALUMINUM FINISH2 METAL SIDING: MC ELROY MEGA RIB; SLATE GRAY3 SCREED: 3/4" X 3/4"4 123 4 5 PALETTE OF EXTERIOR FINISHES AT COPELAND HEALTH EDUCATION PAVILION BUILDING STOREFRONT5 6 DROP-OFF CANOPY: GLASS AND STEEL6 NEW PATIENT TOWER TO CONTINUE SAME DESIGN THEME WITH SIMILAR MATERIALS 5 MATERIAL FINISH LEGEND ELASTOMERIC FINISH: COLOR: SW7680 LANYARD, SUPERFINE DARK 1 ELASTOMERIC FINISH: SW 7508 TAVERN TAN2 METAL SIDING: MC ELROY MEGA RIB; SLATE GRAY3 EIFS REVEAL 1/4" X 3/4"4 STOREFRONT5 DROP-OFF CANOPY: GLASS AND STEEL6 EIFS REVEAL 3/4" X 3/4"7 CONCRETE FINISH - FORM LINER8 DEEP FRAME WINDOW9 HOSPITAL SIGNAGE - REFER TO A30210 GLASS RAILING AT TERRACE11 METAL SCREEN ; COLOR: SLATE GRAY12 MECHANICAL LOUVERED SCREEN; COLOR: SLATE GRAY13 Page 74 of 223 2 A3023A3024A302 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' A302 5 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' A302 6 0 Ground Level 282.58'2'-6"4'-1 1/2"1'-0"7"8"8'-9" 12'-1" 3 Level 327.58' 15'-7" 19'-6"8'-8"3'-11"1'-0 1/2"1'-0"1'-9 1/2"3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 15'-7" 19'-6"2'-4 1/2"3'-11"1'-9 1/2"1'-0"1'-0 1/2"4'-4 1/2"Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Exterior Signage A302 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal Key Plan A302 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 North -Wall Sign A302 3/32" = 1'-0" 3 Northwest -Wall Sign A302 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 MONUMENT SIGN A302 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 NORTH WALL SIGN -ENLARGED A302 1/4" = 1'-0" 6 NORTHWEST WALL SIGN -ENLARGED No. Date Description Page 75 of 223 PROPERTY LINE NEW PATIENT TOWER NEW SHADOWS EXISTING HOSPITAL NEW PARKING DECK EXISTING TREES ELLA ST.RAILROAD TRACKSIRIS ST.BRECK ST.LEFF ST. EXISTING HOSPITAL JOHNSON AVE. EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES EXISTING SHADOWSNORTH PROPERTY LINE NEW PATIENT TOWER EXISTING HOSPITAL EXISTING TREES ELLA ST.RAILROAD TRACKSNEW PATIENT TOWER IRIS ST.BRECK ST.LEFF ST. EXISTING HOSPITAL NEW PARKING DECK JOHNSON AVE. EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES NEW SHADOWS EXISTING SHADOWSNORTH ELLA ST.RAILROAD TRACKSPROPERTY LINE NEW PATIENT TOWER IRIS ST.BRECK ST.LEFF ST. EXISTING HOSPITAL NEW PARKING DECK JOHNSON AVE. EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES NEW SHADOWS EXISTING SHADOWSNORTH Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Solar Study A303 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal 9.00 am 12.00 pm 3.00 pm SOLAR STUDY -WINTER SOLSTICE No. Date Description Page 76 of 223 ELLA ST.RAILROAD TRACKSPROPERTY LINE NEW PATIENT TOWER IRIS ST.BRECK ST.LEFF ST. EXISTING HOSPITAL NEW PARKING DECK JOHNSON AVE. EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES NEW SHADOWS EXISTING SHADOWSNORTH ELLA ST.RAILROAD TRACKSPROPERTY LINE NEW PATIENT TOWER IRIS ST.BRECK ST.LEFF ST. EXISTING HOSPITAL NEW PARKING DECK JOHNSON AVE. EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES NEW SHADOWS EXISTING SHADOWSNORTH ELLA ST.RAILROAD TRACKSPROPERTY LINE NEW PATIENT TOWER IRIS ST.BRECK ST.LEFF ST. EXISTING HOSPITAL NEW PARKING DECK JOHNSON AVE. EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES NEW SHADOWS EXISTING SHADOWSNORTH NORTH ELLA ST.RAILROAD TRACKSPROPERTY LINE NEW PATIENT TOWER IRIS ST.BRECK ST.LEFF ST. EXISTING HOSPITAL NEW PARKING DECK JOHNSON AVE. EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES NEW SHADOWS EXISTING SHADOWSNORTH Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Solar Study A304 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal A304 1 : 1500 1 Site Plan Solar Study -Fall Equinox 9AM A304 1 : 1500 2 Site Plan Solar Study -Spring Equinox 9AM A304 1 : 1500 3 Site Plan Solar Study -Summer Solstice 5PM A304 1 : 1500 4 Site Plan Solar Study -Summer Solstice 9AM SUMMER SOLSTICE SPRING EQUINOX SOLAR STUDY 9.00 am FALL EQUINOX 5.00 pm 9.00 am 9.00 am No. Date Description Page 77 of 223 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' MEDITATION ROOM LOBBY 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' NEW TOWER BEYOND ACCESS DRIVEWAY EXISTING HOSPITAL LOUVERED EQUIPMENT SCREEN 363.62' NEW PATIENT TOWER EXISTING HOSPITAL KITCHEN 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' LOADING DOCK DROP OFF PENTHOUSE ROOF SCREEN KITCHEN EQUIPMENT KITCHEN 363.62' ELEVATOR SHAFT LOUVERED EQUIPMENT SCREEN NEW PATIENT TOWER 1 Main Level 297.58' 2 Level 312.58' 3 Level 327.58' Roof 342.58' 0 Ground Level 282.58' 363.62' KITCHEN NEW PATIENT TOWER EXISTING HOSPITAL EXISTING HOSPITAL A A310 A A310 B A310 B A310 1 A310 1 A310 B1 A310 B1 A310 Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package 201 Main St. SE, Suite 325, Minneapolis, MN 55414 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com Key Plan 7/16/2020 5:23:36 PMBIM 360://18-0327 - Dignity French Hospital MC/18-0327_French_Hospital_Site-Central.rvtBuilding Sections A310 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR18-0327 07/16/2020I -MR KM ARC Submittal A310 3/32" = 1'-0" A SITE SECTION A A310 3/32" = 1'-0" B SITE SECTION B A310 3/32" = 1'-0" B1 SITE SECTION B1 No. Date Description A310 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 SITE SECTION A1 Key Plan Page 78 of 223 Sheet Number Sheet Title ©Copyright by Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (All Rights Reserved) Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Increment: Registration Agency Approval Drawing Package 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 ® Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. www.cuningham.com OSHPD No.: H190224-40-00 Renderings A320 A01 DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MC -NEW TOWER PR18-0327 07/16/2020 KM ARC Submittal No. Date Description Page 79 of 223 Page 80 of 223 ENLARGED DECK PLAN PA101 ENLARGED DECK PLAN 0 16 32 Sheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 DD 06/10/20ENLARGED LOWER LEVEL PLAN 0 16 32270255260265252253254256257258259261262263264266266 267 388 .49 CANOP Y 4 8 .6 0XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXX XXX XXX XXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X XX X X X X X X XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXAMBULANCE HELISTOP 290' Page 81 of 223 265265270270275 280266266267267268268269273274276277278279281282 255260265256257258259261262263264266277 27 8 27 9 267 4 8 .6 0XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX XXX X X X X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 DD 06/10/20 PARKING DECK - SITE LIGHTING GREEN BUILDING CHECKLIST PA102 A PARKING LIGHT GLEON GALLEONLED 120 WATT, PHOTOCELL, 20' MAX. HEIGHT B WALL PACK ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS MLB-1 LED 42 WATT, MOTION DETECTOR C BOLLARD ABB ARBOR BOLLARD 25 WATT, PHOTOCELL D RECESSED DOWNLIGHT (OIL RUBBED BRONZE TRIM NOT SHOWN) LITHONIA L7XLED T24 11 WATT, PHOTOCELL E HELISTOP LIGHTING AS REQUIRED (WHEN IN USE) PARKING STRUCTURE - SITE LIGHTING PLAN 0 16 32 LEED v4 for BD+C: New Construction and Major Renovation Project Checklist Y ?N Credit 1 12 0 0 16 Credit 16 1 Credit 1 Credit 2 5 Credit 5 4 Credit 5 1 Credit 1 Credit 1 1 Credit Green Vehicles 1 3 0 0 10 Y Prereq Required 1 Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 1 Credit 3 1 Credit 2 1 Credit 1 0 0 0 11 Y Prereq Required Y Prereq Required Y Prereq Building-Level Water Metering Required Credit 2 -Credit 6 -Credit 2 Credit Water Metering 1 0 0 0 33 Y Prereq Required Y Prereq Required Y Prereq Required Y Prereq Required -Credit 6 -Credit 18 -Credit 1 -Credit 2 -Credit 3 -Credit 1 -Credit 2 Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat Location and Transportation Sensitive Land Protection LEED for Neighborhood Development Location Bicycle Facilities Integrative Process Construction Activity Pollution Prevention High Priority Site Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses Sustainable Sites Green Power and Carbon Offsets Heat Island Reduction Outdoor Water Use Reduction Indoor Water Use Reduction Outdoor Water Use Reduction Indoor Water Use Reduction Enhanced Commissioning Building-Level Energy Metering Water Efficiency Fundamental Commissioning and Verification Demand Response Renewable Energy Production Enhanced Refrigerant Management Optimize Energy Performance Advanced Energy Metering Access to Quality Transit Reduced Parking Footprint Open Space Site Assessment Rainwater Management Light Pollution Reduction Energy and Atmosphere Minimum Energy Performance Fundamental Refrigerant Management Cooling Tower Water Use 1 0 0 13 Y Prereq Required Y Prereq Required Credit 5 Credit 2 Credit 2 Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Material Ingredients 2 1 Credit 2 0 0 0 Indoor Environmental Quality 16 Y Prereq Required Y Prereq Required -Credit 2 -Credit 3 -Credit Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan 1 -Credit 2 -Credit 1 -Credit 2 -Credit 3 -Credit 1 -Credit 1 1 0 0 Innovation 6 Credit 5 1 Credit 1 0 0 0 Regional Priority 4 Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 17 0 0 TOTALS Possible Points: 110 Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Sourcing of Raw Materials Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning Materials and Resources Storage and Collection of Recyclables Construction and Demolition Waste Management Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Environmental Product Declarations Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction Certified: 40 to 49 points, Silver: 50 to 59 points, Gold: 60 to 79 points, Platinum: 80 to 110 Interior Lighting Daylight LEED Accredited Professional Innovation Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Acoustic Performance Quality Views Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies Low-Emitting Materials Indoor Air Quality Assessment Thermal Comfort PARKING STRUCTURE - LEED CHECKLIST A B A ABA C A BD A A A E BAA A D C B BBB B A A A PARKING STRUCTURE - TRASH ENCLOSURE 0 4 8 Page 82 of 223 6/8/20FHMC Parking Structure 3.6.vwxSheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 DD 06/10/20 PARING DECK - ELEVATIONS PA300 AMBULANCE +/-267 LOWEST POINT +/-269 +/-275 HIGHEST POINT AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE: 271 ELEVATOR TOWER +/-274 HELISTOP AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE CALCULATION SOUTH ELEVATION 0 10 20 GENERATOR, TANK ENCLOSURE, & TRANSFORMER IN FRONT PAINTED CONCRETE WALLS WITH 1" X 1/4" REVEAL, TYP. PAINTED CONCRETE RAILINGS, 42" TALL, TYP.8'-0"HELESTOP FF: 290' LEVEL 2B FF: 282' AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE 0' (271)35'-0"MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT+35 (306.0') FF: 274.5' LEVEL 1 FF: 285.5' LEVEL 2 11'-0"14'-0"FF: 299.5 ELEVATOR 28'-6"19'-0"WEST ELEVATION 0 10 20 EAST ELEVATION 0 10 20 NORTH ELEVATION 0 10 20 FRENCH HOSPITAL HELIPORT OPTIONAL SIGNAGE (+/-14" TALL) OPTIONAL SIGNAGE (+/-20" TALL) 03/01/22 Page 83 of 223 Sheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 DD 06/10/20 PARKING DECK - SECTIONS PA310 SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0"B SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0"C SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0"D SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0"A Page 84 of 223 Sheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 DD 06/10/20 SITE SECTIONS PA311 0 30 60ENLARGED SITE SECTION A 0 40 80A - SITE SECTION 275 280 285 290 295 276 277 278 279 281281281 28 2 283 284 286 287 288 289 291 292 293 294 296250255260265265265270270275280 28 5249251252253254256257258259261262263264 266266266267267267268268268269269 273274 276277278279281 282 28 3 284 28 6 28 7 290 295288 289291292293294296297 250255260265280 248249251252253254 256257258259261262263264266277 278 279 28 128228328 3 283 25 5 260 265 270 256 257 258 259 261 262 263 264 266 267 268 269 271 272 27 3 240 245 250 255 260 265 239 241242 243 244 246 247248249 251252253254 256 257 258259 261262263264 266 267 26 0 .63 N4 6 ° 0 0 ' 5 2 " W S68°4 1 ' 0 4 " E RADIA L (N 53°3 3' 4 0 " E 175 .37) (N 3 6 ° 2 6 ' 2 0 "W 2 7 3 .1 6 ) N53° 2 4' 3 9 " E N 4 3 ° 4 3 ' 0 7 "W 2 8 3 .9 4 (2 8 1 .7 3 ) N 3 6 ° 0 2 ' 0 7 " W 6 1 .6 3 50 .4 0 N4 3 ° 5 5 ' 3 2 " W 3.9 8 N 5 3 ° 2 0 ' 1 3 " E S 8 1 ° 2 0 ' 0 6" E10 .5 5 ' N53° 2 4' 3 9" E 91 .63' N53° 3 9 '54"E 42 .98' N53°32'16"E 87 .50 S 3 6 ° 2 0 ' 0 6" E 40 .5 5 ' N 5 3 ° 3 9 ' 5 4" E 9.9 7 ' (N 3 6 ° 2 6 ' 2 0 "W ) N 3 6 ° 2 7 ' 4 4 "W 4.0 0 S 8 1 ° 2 0 ' 0 6 " E 1 1 .6 0 ' N 3 6 ° 2 6 ' 2 0 " W 1 0 0 .0 0 N 3 6 ° 2 2 ' 0 0 "W 1 5 0 .0 0 N50°4 8' 0 0" E 93.54 N50° 4 8' 0 0" E 115.50 N3 6 ° 2 6 ' 2 0 "W 4 0 3 .2 3 N52°5 8'0 0" E 166.00 N 3 7 ° 0 2 ' 0 0 "W 1 9 9 .6 0 N 3 6 ° 2 2 ' 0 9 "W 2 3 0 .0 5 51 .03 N53°0 5'0 0" E N3 6 ° 2 8 ' 2 1 "W 6 9 .9 3 N 5 3 ° 2 0 ' 1 3 " E 2 5 .0 2N8°37'12"E 160.00N52° 5 8' 0 0 " E 289.60 N 52°5 8' 0 0 " E 50 .74 N 3 6 ° 2 8 ' 1 9 "W 6 1 .6 6 N50° 4 8'00 " E 50.00 N36°26'2 0 " W 6.00 N81°22'4 8 " W 10.00 D=64°37' 2 2 " R=20.00L=22.56 D=178°12' 0 4 " R=50.00L=155.51 13.15 (N36°26'2 0 " W ) N36°27'4 4 " W 26.91 S 3 6 ° 2 0 ' 0 6 " E 1 1 7 .2 3 ' N52° 5 8' 00" E 171.91 N 3 7 ° 0 2 ' 0 0 "W 1 7 0 .0 0 90 3 0 17 9 S 3 6 ° 5 3 ' 0 0 " E 4 8 .6 0 63 .9 5 19 6 .68 213.45 76 .24 N 3 6 ° 2 7 ' 5 2 "W 2 7 3 .3 3 N53° 3 2' 1 6 " E 175.77 N 53°32'1 6 " E 253.01 N53° 3 2' 1 6 " E 258.13 N53° 2 9' 50" E 138.36 N50°4 8' 0 0 " E 100.00 N8°37'12"E 178.19N8°39'17"E 225.94D=10°27'35"R=2000.00L=365.11N36°26'2 0 " W 6.00 N81°22'4 8 " W 10.00 D=64°37' 2 2 " R=20.00L=22.56 D=178°12' 0 4 " R=50.00L=155.51 13.15 (N36°26'2 0 " W ) N36°27'4 4 " W 26.91 24526 0 .6 3 N 3 6 ° 2 6 ' 2 0 "W 2 4 5 .0 2 6 0 ' N4 6 ° 0 0 ' 5 2 " W S68°4 1 ' 0 4 " E RADIA L (N 53°33' 4 0 " E 175 .37)(N 3 6 ° 2 6 ' 2 0 "W 2 7 3 .1 6 ) APPROXIMAT E LOCATION OF CREEK N53° 2 4'3 9" E N4 3 ° 4 3 ' 0 7 "W 2 8 3 .9 4 (2 8 1 .7 3 ) N 3 6 ° 0 2 ' 0 7 "W 6 1 .6 3 50 .4 0 N4 3 ° 5 5 ' 3 2 " W 3.9 8N5 3 ° 2 0 ' 1 3" E S 8 1 ° 2 0 ' 0 6" E 1 0 .5 5 ' N53° 2 4' 3 9" E 91 .63' N53° 3 9 '54"E 42 .98' N53°32'16"E 87 .50 S 3 6 ° 2 0 ' 0 6" E 4 0 .5 5 ' N 5 3 ° 3 9 ' 5 4 " E 9.9 7 ' (N 3 6 ° 2 6 ' 2 0 "W ) N 3 6 ° 2 7 ' 4 4 "W 4.0 0 S 8 1 ° 2 0 ' 0 6 " E 1 1 .6 0 ' N 3 6 ° 2 6 ' 2 0 "W 1 0 0 .0 0 N 3 6 ° 2 2 ' 0 0 "W 1 5 0 .0 0 N50° 4 8' 0 0" E 93 .54 N50° 4 8' 0 0 " E 115.50N 3 6 ° 2 6 ' 2 0 "W 4 0 3 .2 3 N52° 5 8' 0 0 " E 166 .00N 3 7 ° 0 2 ' 0 0 "W 1 9 9 .6 0 N 3 6 ° 2 2 ' 0 9 "W 2 3 0 .0 5 51 .03 N53° 0 5'0 0" E N 3 6 ° 2 8 ' 2 1 "W 69 .9 3 N 5 3 ° 2 0 ' 1 3 " E 2 5 .0 2N8°37'12"E 160.00N52° 5 8' 0 0 " E 289 .60 N 52°5 8' 0 0 " E 50.74 N 3 6 ° 2 8 ' 1 9 "W 6 1 .6 6 N50° 4 8'00"E 50.00 N36°26'2 0 " W 6.00 N81°22'48 " W 10.00 D=64°37' 2 2 " R=20.00L=22.56 D=178°1 2 ' 0 4 " R=50.00L=155.51 13.15 (N36°26'2 0 " W ) N36°27'4 4 " W 26.91 N36°28'19 " W 20.00 XX XXXXX X XXXXXX X X X XXXXX X X X XXXXXX X XXXXXXX X XXXXXXXX X X XXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X XXXX X XX XXX XXX XX X XXXX XXX XXX X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XX XXX XX XXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XX XXXX XXXXX X X X XX X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXX XXXXXXXX X XXX XXXXXX X X X XXXXXXX X XXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXX X X X XXX X X X X X X X XX XXXXXXXXX X XXXX X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXX X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X XXX X S 3 6 ° 2 0 ' 0 6 " E 1 1 7 .2 3 ' 108 .38'N52° 5 8' 00" E 171 .91 N3 7 ° 0 2 ' 0 0 "W 1 7 0 .0 0 90 3 0 17 9 S 3 6 ° 5 3 ' 0 0 " E 4 8 .6 0 63 .9 5 19 6 .6 8 213.45 76 .24 N3 6 ° 2 7 ' 5 2 "W 2 7 3 .3 3 N53° 3 2' 1 6 " E 175 .77N 53°32'1 6 " E 253 .01N53° 3 2' 1 6 " E 258 .13 N53°29' 5 0" E 138.36 N53° 3 7' 53" E 144 .30 N50°4 8' 0 0 " E 100.00N8°37'12"E 178.19N8°39'17"E 225.94D=10°27'35"R=2000.00L=365.11N36°26'2 0 " W 6.00 N81°22'48 " W 10.00 D=64°37' 2 2 " R=20.00L=22.56 D=178°1 2 ' 0 4 " R=50.00L=155.51 13.15 (N36°26'2 0 " W ) N36°27'4 4 " W 26.91 N36°28'19 " W 20.00 PM S LO 8 4 - 2 4 4 SITE PLAN 0 30 60SITE SECTION B Page 85 of 223 Page 86 of 223 9/3/20FHMC Parking Structure 3.11.vwxSheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 DD 06/10/20 NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTO SIMULATONS PA401 PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION MAP D FE G PROPOSED PARKING DECK PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER VIEW FROM MITCHELL PARKGVIEW FROM LEFF STREETF VIEW FROM ELLA & HENRY STD AFTER AFTER AFTER AFTERVIEW FROM LEFF STREETE PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER & PARKING DECK PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER PROPOSED HELISTOP PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER PROPOSED PARKING DECK PROPOSED HELISTOP PROPOSED PARKING DECKPROPOSED OBSTRUCTION LIGHT POLE (BEHIND TREES) PROPOSED OBSTRUCTION LIGHT POLE (BEHIND TREES) PROPOSED OBSTRUCTION LIGHT POLE (BEHIND TREES) PROPOSED OBSTRUCTION LIGHT POLE (BEHIND TREES) Page 87 of 223 35 CONCRETE FOUNDATION Sheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 DD 03/29/21 OBSTRUCTION LIGHT POLES PA402 FLIGHTPATH - OBSTRUCTION LIGHT POLES FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 0 40 80 275 280 276 277 278 279 281 281 281 275280 273274 2 7 6 2 7 7 2 7 8 2 7 9 281 282 25 5 2 6 0 2 6 5 280 25 4 25 6 25 7 25 8 25 9 26 1 26 2 26 3 26 4 2 6 6 277 278 279 281 282 283 283 283 255 260 265 270 256257258259 261262263264 266267268269 271272 273 XX XX XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXX X X XX XX XX X XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX X XXX XXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXN52°58'00"E 166.00N37°02'00"W 199.60 N36°22'09"W 230.05 51.03N53°05'00"EN52°58'00"E 289.60N 52°58'00" E50.74D=64° 3 7' 2 2" R=20 .00 L=22 .56 D=17 8° 1 2' 0 4" R=50 .00 L=15 5 .51 13 .15 48.60 63.95 213.4576.24D=64° 3 7' 2 2" R=20 .00 L=22 .56 D=17 8° 1 2' 0 4" R=50 .00 L=15 5 .51 13 .15 275 280 276 277 278 279 281 281 281 275280 273274 2 7 6 2 7 7 2 7 8 2 7 9 281 282 25 5 2 6 0 2 6 5 280 25 4 25 6 25 7 25 8 25 9 26 1 26 2 26 3 26 4 2 6 6 277 278 279 281 282 283 283 283 255 260 265 270 256257258259 261262263264 266267268269 271272 273 XX XX XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXX X XX XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXX XX XX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX1008CANOPY369.161009CANOPY369.2410491TOP TREE365.791029CANOPY370.281028CANOPY372.651027CANOPY372.471007380.91CANOPY1042380.06CANOPY1010379.76CANOPY1043388.49CANOPY1044382.42CANOPY1045381.91CANOPY1026361.96CANOPY1041386.37CANOPY3 OAK #3358 TREE # 3345 TREE #3326 TREE #3338 TREE #3302 TREE #3313-4 TREES # 3244 OAK # 3236 OAK #3256 OAK #3278 OAK #3284 OAK #3292 OAK #3263_36 EUC #37724 EUC #37636 EUC #3742_28 EUC #37328 EUC #37528 EUC #37220 EUC #38430 EUC #3678 EUC #36828 EUC #36950 EUC #37118 OAK #36642 EUC #36536 EUC #36336 EUC #3644 30 EUC #3855_30 EUC #3862_12 EUC #3873_12 EUC #3882_24 EUC #3893 24 EUC #3912_8 EUC #3932_8 EUC #3942_24 EUC #39010 EUC #39530 EUC #3926 OAK #3622_10 OAK #36112 EUC #39736 EUC #3602_36 EUC #338-35936 EUC #3982_30 EUC #37040 EUC 20 EUC20 EUC20 EUC40 EUC #33740 EUC #33820 EUC #33912 EUC #3402_24 OAK #34115 OAK #34220 OAK #34328 OAK #3445_6 OAK #34610 OAK #34542 EUC #3562_10 EUC #39620 EUC #35740 PALM #34740 EUC #3482_10 EUC #3556 EUC #3492_6 OAK #35012 EUC #35312 EUC #3548 OAK #3516 EUC #35212 EUC #35830 EUC #3598 OAK #3226 OAK #3218 OAK #3208 OAK #31912 OAK #318346.9'346.9' 352.55'352.55' 353.75'348.35' 346.9' 353.75' Key Features: - Mil-spec anodized cast aluminum body suitable for the harshest environments - Pre-wired for quick and easy installations - Standard color in Anodized Grey - Blue, Red, and Gold are special order 120v to 277v NVG Compatible Pole Mounted Perimeter Light This newly redesigned Pole perimeter light is the latest addition to the FEC Heliports line of high quality LED lights. Perimeter and Obstruction lights are one of the most important safety features on your heliport. They are used to mark and illuminate the FATO, TLOF, and Obstructions as well as to help the pilot locate the pad and safely land during night operations and inclement weather conditions. Technical Details Operating voltage: 120V to 277V, 50/60Hz Maximum Power 6 watts, .2 amps @ 120V Consumption: 6 watts, .1 amps @ 277V 350mA constant current supply Operating temperature: - 13F to 122F - 25C to +50C Operating LED Lifespan: Rated at 50,000+ hours Light Source: Omni-directional LED Lamp 1x Osram OSLON SSL 150 LED w/ Custom Optic 3 IR LEDs (IR LEDs 850nm) 2"(50mm) diameter aluminum circuit RoHS and 94VO compliant Standard Part Numbers: HP1790P True Green (528nm) HP1705P Blue (470nm) HP1704P White 6000K HP1707P Yellow/Amber (590nm) HP1782P Red Standards & Certification: INTERTEK: - Test Verification of Conformity U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Memorandum, Heliport Perimeter Light for Visual Meteorological Conditions. Engineering Brief No. 87. - International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Aerodromes, Annex 14, Volume 2, Fourth Edition, dated July 2013 - International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Aerodromes, Annex 14, Volume 1, Seventh Edition, dated July 2016 CAP 437 design criteria Result 12.6 cd Pass 36.1 cd Pass 51.5 cd Pass 41.7 cd Pass 30.9 cd Pass Min. Peak Intensity Min. Peak Intensity Min. Peak Intensity 30 cd from 6° - 10° Min. Peak Intensity 15 cd from 2° - 5° Min. Peak Intensity 8 cd from 13° - 20° Parameter 15 cd from 11° - 13° Requirement 3 cd from 21° - 90° Measured Result 12.6 cd Pass 23.3 cd Pass 46.7 cd Pass 10 cd from 0° - 15° Parameter Requirement Measured Min. Peak Intensity 5 cd from 16° - 90° Min. Avg Intensity 15 cd from 0° - 15° Min. Peak Intensity Photometric: Standards U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Memorandum, Heliport Perimeter Light for Visual Meteorological Conditions. Engineering Brief No. 87 Standards Internal Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): Aerodromes, Annex 14, Volume 2, Fourth Edition, dated July 2013 Aerodromes, Annex 14, Volume 1, Seventh Edition, dated July 2016 Test Purpose - Performance Testing (Photometry and Chromaticity) Test Dates - December 11, 2018 cd = Candela Physical Characteristics Light Fixture: Dimensions: Height 5 inches(127mm) Lid Diameter 6-1/2 inches(165.1mm) Materials: Lens Tempered Glass Casting 356 T6 Aluminum Alloy Notes: All machining on the Aluminum casting is done in house by FEC Heliports Mounting: 1"(25.4mm) NPT located on the bottom of each pole light Materials: Casting 356 T6 Aluminum Alloy Notes: All machining on the Aluminum casting is done in house by FEC Heliports Light: 6lbs. 25 OBSTRUCTION LIGHT POLES 65 L-810 OBSTRUCTION LIGHT SPECIFICATIONS - FEC HELIPORTS Page 88 of 223 Sheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 DD 04/27/20 2016 Master Plan - For Reference R100 French Hospital Medical Center Campus San Luis Obispo, California Sheet 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. Medical Arts Building LEGEND ASPHFIRELANEFH24" CMP EL=245.94' FL OUT 54" CMP EL=247.28' FL OUT 18" CPP EL=254.11' FL OUT 250 285 305 310 315 310 305 315 305 295290290 295 285 290 295 285285 290 295 250 260 265270 2 5 5 285285 295305 310 315 310 305 315 305 295 320 290 295290290 295 285 290 295 285285 290 295 297 296 296 297 297 296 285290296296 297 296 300 295 31 0 285 280 275 270 26 5 2 6 0 255 265 270297 275 296 295 275 280 280290300 290 2 5 0 240 240240245 245245 250250250250255 255255 255260 260260260265265265265270270270270 275275280280PROPOSED OVERALL CAMPUS MASTER SITE PLAN FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER Proposed Overall Campus Plan A1.2 9/23/16French Master Site Plan 3.9.vwxPROPOSED FOUR-STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH GARAGE BELOW. NET LOSS OF 32 SPACES.BRECK STREETBRECK STREETFRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER PACIFIC MEDICAL PLAZA ELLA ST. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING E MODULAR BUSINESS OFFICE LEGEND EXISTING BUILDINGS PROPOSED PARKING SUPPORT FOR BUILDING E, WHEN CONSTRUCTED ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PARKING FOR MOB (BLDG E) PROPOSED PARKING SUPPORT FOR FUTURE EXPANSION (BLDG F & C) JOHNSON AVENUEJOHNSON AVENUE ELLA STREET15 PARKING SPACES CONCURRENT WITH BUILDING 'E' CONSTRUCTION (PER U109-93) F PROPOSED EMERGENCY DEPT. EXPANSION (NET LOSS OF 30 SPACES) FAIRVIEW STREET FAIRVIEW STREET PROPOSED 56 PARKING SPACES, MOB EXPANSION PROPOSED 20'-0" WIDE CONNECTOR ROADWAY TO BRECK STREET IRIS STREETIRIS STREET(E) DETENTION BASIN (E) EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS (E) EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS PARCEL 2 PARCEL 1 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4 PARCEL 5 PARCEL 6 PARCEL 7 PAVILION OPEN SPACE EASEMENT A PROPOSED 6,000 S.F. HOSPITAL OFFICE BUILDING & 24 PARKING SPACES B D E A D F C B C PROPOSED 2ND STORY EXPANSION. 14,000 S.F. PROPOSED 29 PARKING SPACES, FUTURE EXPANSION EXISTING BIKE PATH, TYP. PROPOSED 7 PARKING SPACES, FUTURE EXPANSION FOR REFERENCE Page 89 of 223 Building/Use SF (Gross per City standard) # Licenced Beds Parking Calc/Ratio Existing Buildings French Hospital 87,850 98 N/A 173 Pacific Medical Plaza 48,000 N/A 1/260 [2]185 Modular Business Office 1,800 N/A 1/300 6 Health Education and Technology Pavilion (Bldg B), Office 17,742 N/A 1/300 59 ED Expansion (Bldg F)8,669 N/A N/A 4 [3] Proposed Buildings Patient Wing Tower (Bldg G)89775 82 1 per bed 82 [3] Chapel (Bldg I) under separate permit 1000 N/A N/A 0 Lab (Bldg H)4300 N/A 1/300 14 Sub-Total 259,136 523 Ella Street Office Building [1]12,000 N/A 1/200 20 Total 271,136 180 543 Total parking spaces presently provided 709 Net loss of surface spaces at building sites -98 Plus New Parking Structure 66 Total On-Campus Parking Spaces 677 Staff parking available off-site 75 [4] Total parking available to Facility 752 FOOTNOTES [1] '93 Approved Plan did not account for Ella Street MOB (46 spaces total; 26 on Ella site plus 20 on Campus) Per Use Permit U 1100 and ARC 83-39, 20 spaces of the required 46 spaces are required "off-site". (ie shared parking on the Campus). [2] City allowed 1/260 parking ratio for mixed use of Medical Offices and Hospital uses. [3] One parking space per treatment room per 9/17/15 correspondence with City of SLO Planning. [4] 75 spaces +/-10. Final off-site parking count to be determined. Master Plan Proposed 2021 Revisions & Parking Requirements Min. Parking Required XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XX X XX XXXXX XXXX X XX X XXXX XXX XXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX X X XXXX X XX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX X XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX XX XXXX X X X X XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX X X X X X X X X X X XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXX X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XXXX XX X XX SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS3/30/21FH Master Plan Site 5.5.vwx0 120 24060PROPOSED OVERALL CAMPUS MASTER SITE PLAN FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2019 PROPOSED MASTER PLAN R-101 Sheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 03/29/21DD GEN. YARDBRECK STREETBRECK STREETFRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER PACIFIC MEDICAL PLAZA ELLA ST. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING LEGEND EXISTING BUILDINGS PARKING ON GRADE (COMPLETED) E.D. EXPANSION PROPOSED PATIENT WING EXPANSION FUTURE CHAPEL (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) PROPOSED PARKING DECK, LAB & HELISTOP JOHNSON AVENUEJOHNSON AVENUE ELLA STREETPROPOSED PATIENT WING ADDITION. NET LOSS OF 85 PARKING SPACES EMERGENCY DEPT. EXPANSION COMPLETE. PARKING LOT EXPANSION (COMPLETED): +87 PARKING SPACES IRIS STREETIRIS STREET(E) DETENTION BASIN (E) EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4 PARCEL 6 PARCELS 7, 8, 9A PAVILION OPEN SPACE EASEMENT B FF: 297.53' FF: 284.5' 297.5' F PARKING LOT EXPANSION (COMPLETED) +15 PARKING SPACES G SITE ENTRY PROPOSED PARKING DECK, LAB & HELISTOP. NET GAIN OF 66 PARKING SPACES -(E) REMOVED: -15 -(N) SPACES: +81 H PROPOSED PATH OF TRAVEL TO PUBLIC WAY PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO OPEN SPACE MODULAR FUTURE CHAPEL EXPANSION (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) LOADING BAY I PARCEL 1 PROPOSED ADDITION TO OPEN SPACE TO OFFSET AREA USED BY PARKING & GEN. YARD VILLA CALLE HIGHLANDS DRIVEWAY WIDENING NET LOSS OF 13 SPACES JOHNSON ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS F B G H I LEFF STREETPage 90 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center- Campus Master Plan Comparison - 1993 to Present 4/17/20 Building Areas and City Required Parking Building/Use Parking Change Area Parking Area Parking Area Parking Area Parking Area Parking Area Parking from 1993 Plan French Hospital 83,000 173 83,000 173 83,000 173 83,000 173 87,850 173 87,850 173 0 Pacific Medical Plaza (medical offices)48,000 185 48,000 185 48,000 185 48,000 185 48,000 185 48,000 185 0 Modular Business Office 1,800 6 1,800 6 1,800 6 1,800 6 1,800 6 1,800 6 0 OR Expansion (Bldg. D)9,500 0 4,850 0 4,850 0 4,850 0 In Hospital 0 In Hospital 0 0 Copeland Pavilion (Bldg. B-offices)35,000 175 18,000 48 17,742 59 17,742 59 17,742 59 17,742 59 -116 Hospital Office (Bldg. A)6,000 20 6,000 20 6,000 20 6,000 20 0 0 0 0 -20 Medical Arts Building Total (Bldg. E)30,000 150 30,000 150 30,000 150 31,471 157 58,600 229 -150 Surgery Center / Cath Lab Floor 1 16,500 18 Clinic Floor 1 10,600 53 Medical Office Floors 2, 3 31,500 158 ER Expansion (Bldg. F)- 5,450 27 5,450 27 5,450 27 8,669 4 8,669 4 4 Hospital Expansion (Bldg. C)6,000 20 17,550 22 17,550 22 17,550 22 14,000 24 -20 Patient Wing Tower (Bldg G)89,775 82 82 Chapel (Bldg I)1,000 0 4,300 14 14 Sub-Total 219,300 729 214,650 632 214,392 642 215,863 649 236,661 680 259,136 523 -206 Ella Street Office Building 12,000 20 12,000 20 12,000 20 12,000 20 12,000 20 12,000 20 0 Total 231,300 749 226,650 652 226,392 662 227,863 669 248,661 700 271,136 543 -206 2/1/19 Parking provided 709 Parking provided at completion 677 (1)The 1993 Master Plan received a mitigated negative declaration (MND) following the environmental review process. This MND was also used to support the 2013 Master Plan revisions. Therefore the 2018 Patient Wing parking is compared to the parking in the 1993 Master Plan since the MND that evaluated the traffic and parking impacts was based on this Master Plan. (2)City parking requirements for a freestanding Medical Laboratory are 1:300. Propose 1:600 as a compromise for a dedictaed lab and pharmacy that serve only the hospital. (3)"2013 Pavilion ARC" represents the present actual campus conditions as of 2/1/19. Hospital Lab/Pharmacy (Bldg H) (2) 2012 Master Plan 2016 MAB ARC/Master Plan1993 Master Plan (1)2013 Pavilion ARC (3)2014 MAB ARC Not constructed Not constructed SUBSEQUENT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTSORIGINAL MASTER PLAN CURRENT PROPOSAL 2019 Patient Wing Sheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 2012 DD 04/27/20 Master Plan Comparision Spreadsheet R102 Page 91 of 223 EEE E E E E E E E E 280 276 277 278 279 281 2 8 2 283 284 275 276 2752802772782792 8 1 275.33 FS275.93 FS276.00 FS 275.74 FS 276.64 FS 276.92 TC 276.42 FS 274.92 FS 274.55 FS 275.00 TC 274.50 FL 274.69 TC 274.19 FL 274.20 TC273.70 FS ??? TC ??? FS ??? TC ??? FS 275.74 TC 275.24 FS 275.53 TC 275.03 FS 275.97 FS 276.19 FS 278.75 FS 278.82 FS 278.84 FS 280.96 FS 281.03 FS 281.66 FS 282.00 FS 282.58 FS 282.62 FS 284.17 FS 282.88 TC282.38 FS 281.43 FS 281.41 FS 281.66 FS 281.59 FS 281.34 FS 283.86 TC283.36 FS 283.43 FS 284.31 FS 284.55 FS 284.25 FS 284.26 FS 284.35 FS 284.57 FS 282.50 FS 281.49 FS 276.61 FS 276.52 FS276.09 FS 276.51 FS 275.16 FS 275.82 FS275.81 FS 274.27 FS 276.75 TC276.25 FS 276.09 TC 275.59 FS 0.65%2.80%0.86% 0.52% 1.86% 0.96% 1.31%1.30%1.29%4.17%1.61%1.99%3.35%8.21% 6.25% 1.17% 1.51% 0.69% 0.22% 4.94% 3.48% 1.04%4.07%1.87%7.96%2.16%3.94%1.43%2.19%3.35% 282.75 TC 282.25 FS 284.26 TC 283.76 FS 0. 6 4 % 0. 5 1 % 0. 0 5 %10.12%275.58 FS 281.01 FS 282.12 FS 276.04 FS281.90 TS 278.40 BS 9 - 6" STEPS 278.36 TS 276.07 BS 5 - 5.5" STEPS 0.64%1.30%276.61 FS 274.85 FS 274.85 FS 274.25 TC 273.75 FL 274.74 TC 274.24 FL 281.33 TW 281.0 FG 281.33 TW 280.3 FG 282.00 TW 281.2 FG 281.33 TW 281.0 FG 281.33 TW281.0 FG (297.0 EG) 297.0 FG (297.0 EG) 297.0 FG 282.5 FS282.5 FS282.5 FS (297.0 EG)(297.0 EG) (296.9 ES) (290.6 ES) (285.0 ES) 282.2 FS 282.3 FS282.3 FS 298.0 TW 297.0 FG 298.0 TW 297.0 FG 298.0 TW 297.0 FG 298.0 TW 297.0 FG J:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2018 All Jobs\181067 - French Hospital Tower Addition (Civil) - Cuningham\02_Working Drawings\Construction\02_ONSITE\GRADING SHEET.dwg, C100, May 20, 2020 4:49pm, JuanSheet Number Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date: Agency Approval Drawing Package 04/17/2020 No.Date Description Engineer of Record: Plan Prepared By: The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the originalsite for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limitedto such use. Reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part,is prohibited. Title to these plans and specifications remain with Ashley &Vance Engineering, Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plansand specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance ofthese restrictions. Ashley&Vance ENGINEERIN G, IN C. 1413 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.com C I V I L S T R U C T U R A L KM Dignity Health French Hospital MC - New Patient Tower Increment: Sheet Title Registration EENIC 78390 T S CTA E FO IGER AIOFILAC LIV NR RERP SDERETFO NO ILA GNE ISS KENN E T H B. BRO WNPLAN REVIE W SET NOT F OR C ONST R U CTI ON OSHPD Submittal OSHPD No.:H190224-40-00 181067 NDIAL TOLL FREE 811 OR (1-800-227-2600) AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 010 10 20 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10' GRADING PLAN C100 GENERAL NOTES: SEE DEMOLITION AND PROTECTION PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ALL DEMOLITION AND GRADING SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SOILS REPORT PREPARED BY INDEPENDENT SOLUTIONS , FILE NO. 19-3487-01, DATED AUGUST 2, 2019 AND ALL ADDENDA TO THE REPORT SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THESE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO START OF DEMOLITION WORK. CONTACT: WILLIAM H. CHU, PE, GE PHONE: (951) 674-3222 2 PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER MAIN LEVEL 297.50 GROUND LEVEL 282.50 SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: CONSTRUCT ASPHALT DRIVEWAY SECTION PER DETAIL 1, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT PERMEABLE PAVER PARKING STALL SECTION PER DETAIL 4, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SECTION PER DETAIL 2, SHEET C00. CONSTRUCT 3" PCC FLATWORK PER DETAIL 3, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT 0-INCH CONCRETE CURB PER DETAIL 5, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT 6-INCH CONCRETE CURB PER DETAIL 6, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS CONSTRUCT RAISED CROSSWALK PER CITY STANDARD OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7325. CONSTRUCT ADA RAMP WITH HANDRAILS INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PER CALTRANS STANDARD RSP A99A CONSTRUCT BIOFILTRATION PLANTER PER DETAIL 7 ON SHEET C300 CONSTRUCT 6-INCH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PER DETAIL 8, SHEET C300. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MIN1.5%MIN1.5%1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1111 1111 10 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 5 5 4 4 4 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 2 1 12 12 4MAX2.0%MAX2.0%UTILITY YARD REFER TO MECHANICAL PLANS FOR CONCRETE PAD REQUIREMENTS 6 SEE SHEET C100SCHEMATIC DESIGN Page 92 of 223 SSSSE E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEWWWW2 7 5 280274.90 TC 274.50 FS 277.25 TW 275.00 BW/FS (28.00 )S) 282.50 FS - TOP OF DOCK 278.50 FS 298.00 TW 282.50 BW 282.50 TW 281.00 BW/FL 278.40 FS/TW 277.50 BW/EG (28.00 )S) (282.00 )S) 297.50 FS (27.00 )S) 281.50 TW 277.40 BW/FL 274.90 TG 281.66 TG 282.40 TG 278.40 TG 273 274.73 FS 274.61 FS 274.86 FS274.88 FS275.26 FS 275.06 FS 275.33 FS 272.23 FS ??? TC??? FS 272.54 TC 272.04 FS 274.40 TC 273.90 FS ??? TC ??? FS 274.56 FS 274.52 FS 0.68%0.27% 1.64%0.07%1.31%1.30%(272.00 )S) 282.50 FS 290.00 TW 285.26FS 298.00 TW 283.92 FS 284.99 FS (28.50 )S) (28.90 )S) 282.36 FS 282.38 FS 282.40 FS 281.82 FS 282.50 FS 282.50 FS 282.50 FS 277.18 FS 274.85 FS274.95 FS275.36 FS 283.33 FS 282.26 FS 274.66 FS 276.66 TS274.66 BS 4 - 6" STEPS 276.73 FS 277.00 FS 277.01 TS 276.01 BS 2 - 6" STEPS 281.38 TS 277.38 BS 8 - 6" STEPS 282.50 FS 283.09 FS 0.86% 0.66% 0.88%2.01%1.99%273.70 TC 273.20 FL 273.86 FS 297.33 FS 284.40 TW 283.90 FS 283.43 FS - TOP OF DOCK 278.50 FS 283.68 TC 283.18 FS 283.68 TW 282.42 FS 282.42 FS 282.50 FS 282.00 FS 298.00 TW 284.68 FS 290295288289291292293294296297297.0 FG (297.0 EG) 297.0 FG (297.0 EG) 297.0 FG (297.0 EG) 297.0 FG (297.0 EG)(297.0 EG) 297.0 FG J:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2018 All Jobs\181067 - French Hospital Tower Addition (Civil) - Cuningham\02_Working Drawings\Construction\02_ONSITE\GRADING SHEET.dwg, C101, May 20, 2020 4:49pm, JuanSheet Number Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date: Agency Approval Drawing Package 04/17/2020 No.Date Description Engineer of Record: Plan Prepared By: The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the originalsite for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limitedto such use. Reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part,is prohibited. Title to these plans and specifications remain with Ashley &Vance Engineering, Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plansand specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance ofthese restrictions. Ashley&Vance ENGINEERIN G, IN C. 1413 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.com C I V I L S T R U C T U R A L KM Dignity Health French Hospital MC - New Patient Tower Increment: Sheet Title Registration EENIC 78390 T S CTA E FO IGER AIOFILAC LIV NR RERP SDERETFO NO ILA GNE ISS KENN E T H B. BRO WNPLAN REVIE W SET NOT F OR C ONST R U CTI ON OSHPD Submittal OSHPD No.:H190224-40-00 181067 NDIAL TOLL FREE 811 OR (1-800-227-2600) AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 010 10 20 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10' GRADING PLAN C101 GENERAL NOTES: SEE DEMOLITION AND PROTECTION PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ALL DEMOLITION AND GRADING SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SOILS REPORT PREPARED BY INDEPENDENT SOLUTIONS , FILE NO. 19-3487-01, DATED AUGUST 2, 2019 AND ALL ADDENDA TO THE REPORT SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THESE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO START OF DEMOLITION WORK. CONTACT: WILLIAM H. CHU, PE, GE PHONE: (951) 674-3222 IRIS STREETSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: CONSTRUCT ASPHALT DRIVEWAY SECTION PER DETAIL 1, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT PERMEABLE PAVER PARKING STALL SECTION PER DETAIL 4, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SECTION PER DETAIL 2, SHEET C00. CONSTRUCT 3" PCC FLATWORK PER DETAIL 3, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT 0-INCH CONCRETE CURB PER DETAIL 5, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT 6-INCH CONCRETE CURB PER DETAIL 6, SHEET C300. CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS CONSTRUCT RAISED CROSSWALK PER CITY STANDARD OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7325. CONSTRUCT ADA RAMP WITH HANDRAILS INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PER CALTRANS STANDARD RSP A99A CONSTRUCT BIOFILTRATION PLANTER PER DETAIL 7 ON SHEET C300 CONSTRUCT 6-INCH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PER DETAIL 8, SHEET C300. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MIN2.0%MIN1.5%MIN1.5%4.0% 1.0% 10%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0% 2.0%5.3%2 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 7 7 7 12 4 EXISTING BUILDING 2.0% 7 4 7 7 7 6 6 PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER MAIN LEVEL 297.50 GROUND LEVEL 282.50 SEE SHEET C101SCHEMATIC DESIGN Page 93 of 223 S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSS SSS S W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W TTTWWWWW W W ESGGG TTTEEWW W W W WWWWW SDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD G G GE EEE E E E E EESDSDSDSSSGGGEWWW W WW SD SDPP PP est FS = 271.4est. inv. = 271.4-3-.5 = 267.90S SDSD SD SD SD W W WWW W S SDSD SDSDSDSD SDSDSDSD J:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2018 All Jobs\181067 - French Hospital Tower Addition (Civil) - Cuningham\02_Working Drawings\Construction\02_ONSITE\UTILITY SHEET.dwg, C200, May 20, 2020 4:48pm, JuanSheet Number Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date: Agency Approval Drawing Package 04/17/2020 No.Date Description Engineer of Record: Plan Prepared By: The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the originalsite for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limitedto such use. Reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part,is prohibited. Title to these plans and specifications remain with Ashley &Vance Engineering, Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plansand specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance ofthese restrictions. Ashley&Vance ENGINEERIN G, IN C. 1413 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.com C I V I L S T R U C T U R A L KM Dignity Health French Hospital MC - New Patient Tower Increment: Sheet Title Registration EENIC 78390 T S CTA E FO IGER AIOFILAC LIV NR RERP SDERETFO NO ILA GNE ISS KENN E T H B. BRO WNPLAN REVIE W SET NOT F OR C ONST R U CTI ON OSHPD Submittal OSHPD No.:H190224-40-00 181067 N DIAL TOLL FREE 811 OR (1-800-227-2600) AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 040 40 80 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 40' UTILITY PLAN C200 PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER GENERAL NOTES: ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE BEST KNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE ALL POINTS OF CONNECTION AND VERIFY ALL CLEARANCES. MATERIAL DEPTH AND LOCATION SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. IF THERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCES FROM PLAN WITH ANY OF THESE ITEMS, ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. SEE ARCHITECT'S PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN INFORMATION, INCLUDING PROPOSED FENCING AND LANDSCAPING. ELECTRIC, DATA, AND GAS UTILITIES BY OTHERS. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR TREES TO BE REMOVED AND TREES TO BE RETAINED. E;,S7,1G )5E1&+ +2S3,7$/ 0E',&$/ &E17E5 &23E/$1' E'8&$7,21 %8,/',1G E;,S7,1G 3$&,),& 0E',&$/ 3/$=$ E;,S7,1G S7250'5$,1 72 5E0$,1 7<3. E;,S7,1G S7250'5$,1 &$7&+ %$S,1 72 5E0$,1 7<3. /,'S 72 %E $'-8S7E' 72 ),1,S+E' S85)$&E E/E9$7,21 E;,S7,1G E/E&75,&$/ &21'8,7 7<3. E;,S7,1G S7250'5$,1 /,1E 7<3. E;,S7,1G S$1,7$5< SE:E5 7<3. E;,S7,1G S$1,7$5< SE:E5 7<3. E;,S7,1G 6 S$1,7$5< SE:E5 7<3. E;,S7,1G 8 S$1,7$5< SE:E5 7<3. E;,S7,1G 2 &900 :$7E5 /,1E E;,S7,1G 8 &.,.3. :$7E5 /,1E E;,S7,1G 6 &.,.3. :$7E5 /,1E E;,S7,1G ),5E +<'5$17 7<3. E;,S7,1G 1$785$/ G$S /,1E 7<3. E;,S7,1G 6 S$1,7$5< SE:E5 7<3. E;,S7,1G :$7E5 0$,1 7<3. :ATER CONSTRUCTION NOTES: INSTALL 4" WATER SERVICE WITH METER PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6210 AND 6020. SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR SIZE FROM METER TO BUILDING. MECHANICAL ENGINEER TO VERIFY SERVICE SIZE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL ONSITE JOINTS MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED AS NECESSARY. SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR WATER SERVICE POINT OF CONNECTION AT BUILDING. INSTALL 6" FIRE LINE AND BACKFLOW PREVENTER PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6530, 6420, AND 6020. FIRE SPRINKLER ENGINEER TO VERIFY SERVICE SIZE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL ONSITE JOINTS MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED. FIRE SPRINKLER BUILDING CONNECTION POINT WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION. INSTALL 20,000 GALLON WATER TANK, SEE MECHANICAL PLANS. W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 SANITAR< SE:ER CONSTRUCTION NOTES: CONSTRUCT 6" SDR35 SANITARY SEWER LATERAL PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD DETAIL 6810 AND 6020. SEWER POINT OF CONNECTION AT (E) 6" SEWER MAIN. INSTALL SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD 6710. INSTALL 20,000 GALLON SANITARY SEWER TANK, SEE MECHANICAL PLANS. INSTALL MID STATE CONCRETE DISTRIBUTION BOX TO ACT AS A WASTE DIVERTER INSTALL GREASE INTERCEPTOR PER MECHANICAL PLANS SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 SS6 STOR0 DRAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES: INSTALL NDS 1200 CB WITH NDS 1280 GRATE OR APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALL 4" PVC STORM DRAIN LINE PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. CONNECT PLANTER UNDERDRAIN TO STORMDRAIN CONNECT TO EXISTING STORMDRAIN SYSTEM INSTALL NDS 1200 CB WITH NDS 1220 GRATE OR APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALL NDS 1200 CB WITH NDS 1210 GRATE OR APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALL ROOF DOWNSPOUT OUTFALL TO PLANTER. INSTALL MID STATE CONCRETE 18" X 18" CATCH BASIN PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS WITH TRAFFIC RATED GRATE. INSTALL 6" PVC STORM DRAIN LINE PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. SD1 SD2 SD3 SD4 SD5 SD6 SD7 SD8 SD9 SD1 SS1 W1 W1 W3 W4 E;,S7,1G S$1,7$5< $1' S7250'5$,1 /,1ES 72 5E0$,1 ELLA STREETIRIS STREETGEORGE STREETJOHNSON AVENUE LEGEND STORM DRAINAGE WATER SERVICE NATURAL GAS SANITARY SEWER (E) STORM DRAINAGE (E) WATER SERVICE (E) SANITARY SEWER SD W S SD W S OSHPD JURISDICTION FIRE LINE FROM PROPERTY LINE TO TOWER OSHPD JURISDICTION WATER LINE FROM PROPERTY LINE TO TOWER E;,S7,1G S$1,7$5< $1' S7250'5$,1 /,1ES 72 5E0$,1. EXISTING STRUCTURE CONNECTION TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE G E/E&75,&$/ &21'8,7 5E5287E 3E5 SE3$5$7E 3/$1 SD3 SD3 SD5 (IE = 265.8) (27.5 7G) (268.0 ,E 1) (267.85 ,E :) (268.5 ,E E) 274.60 TG 274.10 FG (27.5 ,E 1) 271.10 IE W 271.00 IE S (275.0 7G) (268.85 ,E S) 270.00 IE N 269.95 IE E 274.60 TG 274.10 FG 272.10 IE 281.66 TG 274.30 IE W 274.25 IE S 278.40 TG 275.40 IE (262.90 ,E :) (26.25 ,E E) 274.90 TG 271.90 IE N 271.85 IE W SD6 SD1 SD4 SD7 SD1 SD6 SD7 SD8 SD5 275.10 TG 269.40 IE E 271.4 FS 267.90 MAX. IE E (81.. ,E S ES7. 0$;. 267.90) SS3 SS3 W5 E;,S7,1G S758&785E &211E&7,21 72 E;,S7,1G :$7E5 /,1E E;,S7,1G ),5E :$7E5 /,1E $1' +<'5$17 72 5E0$,1 E;,S7,1G 8 ),5E :$7E5 /,1E $1' +<'5$17 72 5E0$,1 E;,S7,1G ),5E :$7E5 /,1ES $1' +<'5$17 72 5E0$,1 E;,S7,1G 8 ),5E :$7E5 /,1ES $1' +<'5$17 72 5E0$,1 PROP. TRANSFORMER SS1 E;,S7,1G S7250'5$,1 72 5E0$,1 7<3. 282.40 TG 274.64 IESD5 SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 SS6 PROPOSED 6" WATER LINE PROPOSED 6" FIRE LINE 3523E57< /,1E 7<3. SD3 SS1 SS6 E;,S7,1G 8 ),5E :$7E5 /,1E E;,S7,1G 2 &.,.0- :$7E5 /,1E UTILITY YARD REFER TO MECHANICAL PLANS ELLA STREETW2 SD4 SD2 SD2 SD9 SD9 SD9 SD1 SD1 SD2 SD2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN Page 94 of 223 SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDE SD SD SDSDS D 269.51 TC 269.01 FS 268.21 TC 267.71 FS 268.36 TC 267.86 FS 267.35 TC 266.85 FS 271.00 TC270.50 FS 270.66 TC270.16 FS 272.99 TC 272.49 FS 271.37 TC 270.87 FS 273.17 TC 272.67 FS 274.14 TC273.64 FS 274.44 TC 273.94 FS 271.13 FS 270.89 FS 271.28 FS 271.52 FS 272.24 FS 272.64 FS 272.88 FS272.47 FS 272.40 FS 272.22 FS 267.65 TC 267.15 FS 267.56 FS 271.20 FS 268.04 TC 267.54 FS 267.54 TC 267.04 FS 275.03 TC274.53 FS 274.88 TC 274.38 FS 273.41 TC 272.91 FS 273.25 TC272.75 FS 272.44 TC 271.94 FS 272.07 TC 271.57 FS 275.59 TC275.09 FS 275.50 TC 275.00 FS 274.58 TC274.08 FS274.41 TC273.91 FS 275.43 TC 274.93 FS 275.11 TC 274.61 FS 282.06 FS 282.25 FS 14.7% 268.40 FS 269.20 FS 270.71 TC 270.21 FS 269.11 TC 268.61 FS 269.35 TC 268.85 FS 269.47 TC 268.97 FS 268.52 TC 268.02 FS 270.56 TC 270.06 FS 274.85 TC274.35 FS 272.80 FS 269.01 FS 269.70 FS 1.7%4.3%1.3%4.6%1.2%4.3%2.6%3.5%0.3%2.3%3.3%4.5%2.6% 4.5 %0.9%2.2%270.37 FS 1.7% 273.61 FS 273.53 FS 275.16 FS 275.91 TC275.41 FS 272.68 FS 273.76 FS 274.49 FS 274.46 FS 274.45 FS 274.50 FS 274.46 FS 274.43 FS 274.70 FS 4.3%270267268 269 271 272273 280276277278279281273 274270267 268 269 275 27 4 276 274.59 FS 275.29 FS275.09 FS 275.10 FS 275.15 FS 274.15 FS 274.17 TC 273.67 FS 274.00 TC273.50 FS 274.08 FS 1. 9 8 % 271.18 FS 271.18 FS 273.00 FS 270.74 FS 275.30 FS 274.50 FS 274.65 FS 267.25 TC 266.75 FS J:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2018 All Jobs\181474 - French Hospital Parking Structure (Civil) - Cuningham\02_Working Drawings\02_30x42\02_ONSITE\GRADING SHEET.dwg, C-1.1, Jun 22, 2020 12:43pm, JuanThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproductionor publication by any method, in whole or inpart, is prohibited. Title to these plans andspecifications remain with Ashley & VanceEngineering, Inc. without prejudice. Visualcontact with these plans and specificationsshall constitute prima facie evidence of theacceptance of these restrictions.Ashley&VanceENGINEERING, INC.1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A LEngineer of Record:EENIC 78390 TS C TA E FO IGER AIOFILAC LIV NR RERP SDERETFO NO ILA GNEISS KENN E T H B. BRO WNPLAN REVIE W SET NOT F O R C O NST R U CTI ON N010 10 20 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10' JMA 06.20.2020 GRADING PLAN C-1.1 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ---- 156 SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES: PROPOSED ASPHALT SECTION. PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAY. PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER. PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVERS. PROPOSED ADA PARKING STALL. PROPOSED RAMP TO SECOND LEVEL. SAWCUT (E) PAVEMENT. MATCH (E) ELEVATIONS. PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANTER PROPOSED STORMDRAIN PIPE CONNECTED TO EXISTING STORMDRAIN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 5 7 PARCEL 2 DIGNITY HEALTH 003-568-004 PARKING DECK 285.83' FS LAB 274.50 FF MAX 1.5% MAX 1.5% MAX 1.5% MAX 1.5% 5 5 1 1 6 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 (2.5%) (266.8) ES MATCH (E) (266.8) ES MATCH (E) (266.9) ES MATCH (E) (266.9) ES MATCH (E) (268.9) ES MATCH (E) (268.0) ES MATCH (E) (266.2) ES MATCH (E) (265.5) ES MATCH (E) PROPOSED STAIRS TO UPPER DECK PROPOSED STAIRS TO LAB (1. 5 % ) (269.2) ES MATCH (E) (269.8) ES MATCH (E) (270.2) ES MATCH (E) (270.) ES MATCH (E) (27.) ES MATCH (E) (27.2) ES MATCH (E) (27.2) ES MATCH (E) (276.7) ES MATCH (E) 7 7 8 UPPER DECK PARKING OUTLINE UPPER DECK PARKING OUTLINE UPPER DECK PARKING OUTLINE EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN 9 9 10 10 EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING CATCH BASIN 10 EXISTING STORMDRAIN PROPOSED LOADING RAMP Page 95 of 223 S WWWW W GS S SSD SD SD S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D SD SDSDSD E E E E E E E EE E EEE E EE G W WWSD SD SD P PSSSD SDSDSDS WWWWWWWWW W S S W W WWWWW W W WS S WWWWWW W W FM FM FM FM FMJ:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2018 All Jobs\181474 - French Hospital Parking Structure (Civil) - Cuningham\02_Working Drawings\02_30x42\02_ONSITE\UTILITY SHEET.dwg, C-2.1, Jun 22, 2020 12:44pm, JuanThe use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproductionor publication by any method, in whole or inpart, is prohibited. Title to these plans andspecifications remain with Ashley & VanceEngineering, Inc. without prejudice. Visualcontact with these plans and specificationsshall constitute prima facie evidence of theacceptance of these restrictions.Ashley&VanceENGINEERING, INC.1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A LEngineer of Record:EENIC 78390 TS C TA E FO IGER AIOFILAC LIV NR RERP SDERETFO NO ILA GNEISS KENN E T H B. BRO WNPLAN REVIE W SET NOT F O R C O NST R U CTI ON N 020 20 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' JMA 06.20.2020 UTILITY PLAN C-2.1 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ---- 156 PROPOSED LAB/STORAGE 274.50 FF :ATER CONSTRUCTION NOTES: PROPOSED WATER SERVICE PROPOSED FIRE LINE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT WATER LATERAL CONNECTION POINT TO EXISTING LATERAL PROPOSED 1-1/2" WATER LINE TO HELI-CEPTOR PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LINE W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 SANITAR< SE:ER CONSTRUCTION NOTES: PROPOSED FORCE MAIN. PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION POINT TO SEWER LATERAL PROPOSED SEWER LIFT STATION PROPOSED SEWER PIPE PROPOSED SAND/OIL SEPARATOR PROPOSED TRAFFIC RATED BOX MARKED SEWER. BOX WILL SERVE AS 3" FORCE MAIN TO 6" GRAVITY SEWER JUNCTION STRUCTURE. SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 SS6 EX. STORMDRAIN TO REMAIN SS1 SS6 W6 W2 W3 W2 W6 EX. BASIN EX. STORMDRAIN CATCH BASIN EX. STORMDRAIN CATCH BASIN EX. STORMDRAIN STRUCTURE EX. STORMDRAIN TO REMAIN PL PL PL PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER PER SEPARATE PLAN PROPOSED 6" SEWER LATERAL PER SEPARATE PLAN PROPOSED 6" FIRE LINE PER SEPARATE PLAN PROPOSED 4" WATER LATERAL AND METER PER SEPARATE PLAN PROPOSED EMERGENCY WATER TANK PER SEPARATE PLAN PROPOSED EMERGENCY SEWER TANK PER SEPARATE PLAN EX. ELECTRICAL CONDUIT REROUTE PER SEPARATE PLAN PARCEL 2 DIGNITY HEALTH 003-568-004 PARCEL 3 DIGNITY HEALTH 003-578-026 PARCEL 4 DIGNITY HEALTH 003-578-057 PARCEL 1 DIGNITY HEALTH 003-571-025 003-574-014 THOMAS, PRESTON H 003-574-003 WOLCOTT, JEFFREY P TRUST PARCEL 2 DIGNITY HEALTH 003-568-004 PARCEL 5 SLO HEALTH PAVILION DIGNITY HEALTH 003-568-005 IRIS S T EX. WATER MAIN EX. 6" SEWER PROPOSED TRANSFORMER SS3 W5 W5 SS4 SS5 W4 Page 96 of 223 (293.77 TC) (293.54 FS) 293.79 TC (293.29 FS) (293.81 BSW) (293.06 FS) (281.26 FS) 281.3 FS 284.8 FS 289.8 FS 289.8 TC 289.3 FL (287.68 TC) (287.23 FL) 293.6 TC 293.1 FL 289.55 FS/FL 289.6 FS 290.1 TC 289.6 FL 290.15 FS 291.45 FS 291.4 TC 290.9 FL 291.0 LG 293.2 LG 289.4 TC 288.9 FL288.6 TC 288.1 FL 288.1 TC 287.6 FL 289.0 LG 287.7 LG 288.2 LG 290.3 TC 289.8 FS 289.8 FS290.3 TC 289.8 FS 290.45 TC 289.95 FS 290.45 TC 289.85 FS 289.8 FS/TC (288.46 TC) (287.86 FS) 290.25 TC 289.75 FL 289.05 TC 288.55 FL 289.7 TC 289.2 FS 288.5 FS 288.45 TC 287.95 FL 288.65 LG 289.85 LG 290.0 TC 289.5 FS (290.99 FS) (292.27 FS) 7.5%5.0%MAX5.0%MAX2.0%MAX2.0% MAX 5.0% MAX 290.0 TW (289.0 EG)289.33 TW (287.6 EG)288.67 TW (288.0 EG) 287.33 TW 287.0 FG 287.7 FG (281.48 TC) 285.33 TW (284.2 EG) SAWCUT AND MATCH EXISTING SAWCUT AND MATCH EXISTING SAWCUT AND MATCH EXISTING MATCH EXISTING MATCH EXISTING MATCH EXISTING MATCH EXISTING (N) 4' SIDEWALK (N) CURB AND GUTTER PROTECT AND PRESERVE (E) CURB (N) 4' SIDEWALK (N) CROSS-FLOW GUTTER (N) RAISED CURB (N) CURB AND GUTTER (N) 3' RETAINING WALL (N) 2' RETAINING WALL (10) STEPS (7) STEPS (N) 3' RETAINING WALL (N) CURB RAMP (N) CURB RAMP (N) CURB RAMP Sheet Number Sheet Title Current Revision Revisions Project Information Project No.:PIC / AIC: Date:Phase: Agency Approval Drawing Package Key Plan SCHEMATIC DESIGN DIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 200 DD 04/24/20 C1.1 ENTRY DRI9E IMPRO9EMENTS GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN( IN FEET ) 1 INCH = FT. 5 1010 10 200 LEGEND PROPOSED ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC) PAVEMENT PROPOSED CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 3.0 Page 97 of 223 IRIS STREETJOHNSON AVE. U . P . R . R . PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE EXISTING HOSPITAL EXISTING EMERGENCY DEPT. EXISTING COPE- LAND HEALTH EDUCATION PAVILION EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE EASEMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER REMODELED PARKING LOT DRIVEWAY ENHANCEMENTS LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND MODIFIED DRIVEWAY LAYOUT DRIVEWAY ENHANCEMENTS LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND MODIFIED PARKING LOT PLANTERS PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER ARRIVAL COURT AND PATIENT DROP-OFF, SEE SHEET L103 PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE & PEDESTRIAN PLAZA SEE SHEET L102 GENERATOR WATER CONSERVATION STATEMENT The conceptual landscape plan, concurrent with the planting and irrigation construction documents, plan installation, related specifications and notes, qualifies this project as one which embraces the following current water conservation technology and methodologies: 1. Utilization of state of the art irrigation controller(s) allowing for precision incremental water scheduling in all hydrozones. 2. Use of drip-type and/or microspray systems only 3. Integrated plant design. Plant palettes have been formed to reflect parallel watering requirements within each hydrozone group. 4. Plants installed with moisture retentive soil amendments, enabling strong root and plant growth, with the use of less water. 5. 3” Deep mulching of all plant basins and planting areas, inhibiting evaporation. 6. Use of low water use plants. Evergreen and deciduous plants, most requiring low water use have been specifically selected and used relative to the functions they will provide. The proper placement of plantings will offer passive-solar access, wind deflection and screening throughout the seasons. The planting design compliments the site’s architecture with respect to scale, textures and color. CONCEPT NOTES 1. Plant material was chosen for its compatability with the macro/microclimatic conditions of the region and site; tolerance of wind; tolerance of drought conditions; longevity; screening capabilities; and overall attractiveness. 2. Irrigation system shall be designed for maximum water efficiency and shall include an automatic controller, backflow prevention device, and low-gallonage heads for turf and large ground cover areas. A drip-type system shall be used where appropriate. Trees shall be irrigated on separate bubbler systems. 3. Plant material quantities, narrative specifications, site details, and material definitions will be determined and noted on the construction drawings. 4. Complete tree protection notes will be provided on the Construction Documents. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ENHANCEMENTS PLANT LIST SCREENING TREES FICUS MICROCARPA / INDIAN LAUREL FIG 24” BOX M 2 PINUS CANARIENSIS / CANARY ISLAND PINE 24” BOX L 4 MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA / SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 24” BOX M 5 PARKING LOT TREES KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA / GOLDENRAIN TREE 15 GAL M 4 PISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHE 15 GAL L 1 PYRUS CALLERYANA ‘BRADFORD’ / BRADFORD PEAR 24” BOX M 4 ARBUTUS ‘MARINA’ / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 24” BOX L 5 SHRUBS / VINES / PERENNIALS CALAMAGROSTIS × ACUT. ‘KARL FOERSTER’ / REED GRASS 5 GAL M N/A HEMEROCALLIS ‘STARBURST RED’ / DAYLILY 5 GAL M 3 LOROPETALUM RUBRUM ‘HINES PURPLE LEAF’ / FRINGE FLOWER 5 GAL L 5 NANDINA DOMESTICA / HEAVENLY BAMBOO 5 GAL L 1 ESCALLONIA X EXONIENSIS ‘FRADES’ / PINK ESCALLONIA 5 GAL M 3 MYRICA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 5 GAL M 2 PHORMIUM TENAX ‘FIREBIRD’ / NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GAL L 2 PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM ‘SILVER SHEEN’ / KOHUHU 5 GAL M 5 PLUMBAGO AURICULATA / CAPE PLUMBAGO 5 GAL L 3 RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA ‘JACK EVANS’ / PINK INDIA HAWTHORNE 5 GAL L 4 GROUNDCOVER COPROSMA KIRKII / KIRK’S COPROSMA 1 GAL L 1 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘PROSTRATA’ / TRAILING ROSEMARY 1 GAL L 6 SOLLYA HETEROPHYLLA / AUSTRALIAN BLUEBELLS 1 GAL L 3 TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES / STAR JASMINE 1 GAL M 6 *WUCOLS (WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES) IS A GUIDE TO HELP IDENTIFY IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF PLANT SPECIES. DEVELOPED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 2000. **OPALS (OGREN PLANT-ALLERGY SCALE) IS AN INDEX OF PLANT RATINGS ON A (1) TO (10) SCALE BASED ON ALLERGEN-RELATED FACTORS. A RATING OF (1) REPRESENTS THE MOST ALLERGY-FREE SELECTIONS, AND A RATING OF (10) DENOTES PLANTS THAT CAUSE THE MOST ALLERGIES AS A RESULT OF INHALENT POLLEN, ODOR, AND/OR CONTACT. SIZE WUCOLS* OPALS** SCALE: 1”= 40’ HEALING GARDEN REMODEL LANDSCAPE REMODEL AND EXPANSION AROUND PROPOSED CHAPEL ADDITION, SEPARATE SUBMITTAL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O A C B D E F G I J H K L N O M 06/25/2020 Page 98 of 223 12 4 16 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 ENHANCED PAVING AT VEHICULAR ARRIVAL COURT 2 ENHANCED PAVING AT PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AREA 3 PEDESTRIAN RAMP WITH HANDRAILS 4 GRAND STAIRCASE WITH HANDRAILS 5 TERRACED PLANTERS 6 NOT USED 7 NEW EVERGREEN SCREENING TREES 8 NOT USED 9 NOT USED 10 BENCH, TYP. 11 NOT USED 12 EXISTING MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL 13 NEW TREE PLANTING, TYP. 14 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 15 NOT USED 16 BIKE RACK (QTY. 2, 10 TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED) 17 TABLE TOP STYLE CROSSWALK 18 EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN 19 8’ TALL GREENSCREEN TRELLIS WITH EVERGREEN VINES # PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE PROPOSED PATIENT TOWER GENERATOR 2 5 17 13 13 13 13 18 18 12 12 7 14 14 14 14 7 7 1 3 19 PARKING GARAGE - OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1”= 20’ PROPOSED PLANT LIST SCREENING TREES PINUS CANARIENSIS / CANARY ISLAND PINE 24” BOX L 4 MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA / SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 24” BOX M 5 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK 15 GAL L 9 PARKING LOT TREES KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA / GOLDENRAIN TREE 15 GAL M 4 PISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHE 15 GAL L 1 PYRUS CALLERYANA ‘BRADFORD’ / BRADFORD PEAR 24” BOX M 4 PEDESTRIAN PLAZA TREES ARBUTUS ‘MARINA’ / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 24” BOX L 3 ACER PALMATUM / JAPANESE MAPLE 24” BOX M 5 LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA / CRAPE MYRTLE 24” BOX L 5 SHRUBS / VINES / PERENNIALS ANIGOZANTHOS SPS. / KANGAROO PAW 5 GAL L 2 CALAMAGROSTIS × ACUT. ‘KARL FOERSTER’ / REED GRASS 5 GAL M N/A CORDYLINE ‘TORBAY DAZZLER’ / GRASS PALM 5 GAL L 3 DIANELLA TASMANICA ‘VARIEGATA’ / VARIEGATED FLAX LILY 5 GAL M N/A FICUS PUMILA / CREEPING FIG 5 GAL L 2 HEMEROCALLIS ‘STARBURST RED’ / DAYLILY 5 GAL M 3 KNIPHOFIA UVARIA / RED HOT POKER 5 GAL L 4 LEUCADENDRON ‘SAFARI SUNSET’ / CONEBUSH 5 GAL L 1 LOROPETALUM RUBRUM ‘HINES PURPLE LEAF’ / FRINGE FLOWER 5 GAL L 5 NANDINA DOMESTICA / HEAVENLY BAMBOO 5 GAL L 1 ESCALLONIA X EXONIENSIS ‘FRADES’ / PINK ESCALLONIA 5 GAL M 3 MYRICA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 5 GAL M 2 PHORMIUM TENAX ‘FIREBIRD’ / NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GAL L 2 PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM ‘SILVER SHEEN’ / KOHUHU 5 GAL M 5 PLUMBAGO AURICULATA / CAPE PLUMBAGO 5 GAL L 3 ROSA ‘FLOWER CARPET’ / FLOWER CARPET ROSE 5 GAL M 5 RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA ‘JACK EVANS’ / PINK INDIA HAWTHORNE 5 GAL L 4 GROUNDCOVER COPROSMA KIRKII / KIRK’S COPROSMA 1 GAL L 1 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘PROSTRATA’ / TRAILING ROSEMARY 1 GAL L 6 SOLLYA HETEROPHYLLA / AUSTRALIAN BLUEBELLS 1 GAL L 3 TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES / STAR JASMINE 1 GAL M 6 *WUCOLS (WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES) IS A GUIDE TO HELP IDENTIFY IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF PLANT SPECIES. DEVELOPED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 2000. **OPALS (OGREN PLANT-ALLERGY SCALE) IS AN INDEX OF PLANT RATINGS ON A (1) TO (10) SCALE BASED ON ALLERGEN-RELATED FACTORS. A RATING OF (1) REPRESENTS THE MOST ALLERGY-FREE SELECTIONS, AND A RATING OF (10) DENOTES PLANTS THAT CAUSE THE MOST ALLERGIES AS A RESULT OF INHALENT POLLEN, ODOR, AND/OR CONTACT. SIZE WUCOLS* OPALS** A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T A C B D E F G I J H K L N O Q R S T P M PEDESTRIAN PLAZA SEE ENLARGEMENT, SHEET L102 06/25/2020 Page 99 of 223 ) % ##$#')%+# $')+%+'()()#' (!$#)#''*!)#,)')*' )'*#)$"(!#(%%$)().%#).%)!()#).%-()#"*!)%*'%$()'!#,)'%!#)#).%  ' &).  )$)!(%(%'$+ )!)$%().!'$((,! J)!!$#')(),!! %()'#'"%,)#'!( '#()'(!# ! !# ! !# ! !# !!# !# ! !# !!#!# ! !# !$!#$%#&%&#%&#%&#%&#%&#%&#&%&#!# ! $!%%% (#     (! J L    -()#$%!#!)*)$#%+!$#Page 100 of 223 Page 101 of 223 Page 102 of 223 Page 103 of 223 Page 104 of 223 Page 105 of 223 Page 106 of 223 Page 107 of 223 Page 108 of 223 Page 109 of 223 Page 110 of 223 Page 111 of 223 6KHHW1XPEHU6KHHW7LWOH‹&RS\ULJKWE\&XQLQJKDP*URXS$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF $OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG &XUUHQW5HYLVLRQ5HYLVLRQV3URMHFW,QIRUPDWLRQ3URMHFW1R3,&$,&'DWH3KDVH$JHQF\$SSURYDO'UDZLQJ3DFNDJH0DLQ6W6(6XLWH0LQQHDSROLV01Š&XQLQJKDP*URXS$UFKLWHFWXUH,QFZZZFXQLQJKDPFRP5HQGHULQJV$',*1,7<+($/7+)5(1&++263,7$/0&1(:3$7,(1772:(535(/,0,1$5<127)25&216758&7,216'26+3'1R$5&6XEPLWWDO1R 'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQ5HQGHULQJVPage 112 of 223 6KHHW1XPEHU6KHHW7LWOH‹&RS\ULJKW E\&XQLQJKDP*URXS$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF $OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG 5HYLVLRQV3URMHFW,QIRUPDWLRQ3URMHFW1R 3,&$,&'DWH,QFUHPHQW5HJLVWUDWLRQ$JHQF\$SSURYDO'UDZLQJ3DFNDJH+D\GHQ3ODFH&XOYHU&LW\&$Š&XQLQJKDP*URXS$UFKLWHFWXUH,QFZZZFXQLQJKDPFRP26+3'1R+5HQGHULQJV$$',*1,7<+($/7+)5(1&++263,7$/0&1(:3$7,(1772:(535.0$5&6XEPLWWDO1R 'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQPage 113 of 223 6KHHW1XPEHU6KHHW7LWOH‹&RS\ULJKW E\&XQLQJKDP*URXS$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF $OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG 5HYLVLRQV3URMHFW,QIRUPDWLRQ3URMHFW1R 3,&$,&'DWH,QFUHPHQW5HJLVWUDWLRQ$JHQF\$SSURYDO'UDZLQJ3DFNDJH+D\GHQ3ODFH&XOYHU&LW\&$Š&XQLQJKDP*URXS$UFKLWHFWXUH,QFZZZFXQLQJKDPFRP26+3'1R+5HQGHULQJV$$',*1,7<+($/7+)5(1&++263,7$/0&1(:72:(535.0$5&6XEPLWWDO1R 'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQPage 114 of 223 Visual Impact Assessment of the French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project San Luis Obispo, California DECEMBER 2021 PREPARED FOR City of San Luis Obispo PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants Page 115 of 223 Page 116 of 223 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner Prepared by Robert G. Carr CA. Landscape Architect 3473 SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-7095 www.swca.com SWCA Project No. 27640.28 December 2021 Page 117 of 223 Page 118 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment i CONTENTS 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 1 3 Project Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Regional and Community Context ............................................................................................. 19 3.2 Project Site .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.3 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................... 20 3.4 City of San Luis Obispo ............................................................................................................. 20 3.4.1 San Luis Obispo General Plan .......................................................................................... 20 3.4.2 Zoning Regulations ........................................................................................................... 22 3.4.3 Community Design Guidelines – 2010 ............................................................................. 23 4 Visual Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Visual Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................... 24 4.2 Project Visibility ......................................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Thresholds of Significance ......................................................................................................... 25 4.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ............................................................ 26 4.4 The Project’s Effect on Scenic Vistas ........................................................................................ 26 4.5 The Project’s Effect on Specific Scenic Resources as seen from the State Scenic Highway ..... 28 4.6 The Project’s Effect on the Existing Visual Character and Quality of the Site and its Surroundings and Consistency with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality ............................................................................................................................. 28 4.6.1 Visual Character and Quality ............................................................................................ 28 4.7 Project Light or Glare Affecting Day or Nighttime Views in the Area ...................................... 30 4.7.1 Project Site Lighting ......................................................................................................... 30 4.7.2 Aviation-Related Lighting ................................................................................................ 31 4.8 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 38 Page 119 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment ii Figures Figure 1. Project vicinity map. ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2. Project Layout map. ....................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3. Key Viewing Area locations.......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4. Patient Tower Elevations. .............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5.Patient Tower Elevations. ............................................................................................................. 10 Figure 6. Parking Deck/ Helistop Elevations. ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 7. Preliminary Landscape Plan. ....................................................................................................... 12 Figure 8. Obstruction Light Poles (Optional) ............................................................................................. 13 Figure 9. Tree Removal Plan – Without Obstruction Light Poles. ............................................................. 14 Figure 10. Tree Removal Plan – With Obstruction Light Poles. ................................................................ 15 Figure 11. Project Renderings. .................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 12. Preliminary Helistop Lighting Plan. .......................................................................................... 33 Figure 13. Preliminary Lighting Plan - Buildings. ...................................................................................... 34 Figure 14. Lighting Distribution Plan. ........................................................................................................ 35 Figure 15. Flight Path Lighting Plan. .......................................................................................................... 36 Figure 16. Key Viewing Area 1: Existing view of the project site as seen from Terrace Hill Open Space. ........................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 17. Key Viewing Area 1: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Terrace Hill Open Space.. ......................................................................................... 40 Figure 18.Key Viewing Area 1: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Terrace Hill Open Space. .......................................................................................... 41 Figure 19. Key Viewing Area 2: Existing view of the project site as seen from Johnson Avenue. ........... 42 Figure 20. Key Viewing Area 2: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Johnson Avenue. ....................................................................................................... 43 Figure 21. Key Viewing Area 2: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Johnson Avenue. ....................................................................................................... 44 Figure 22. Key Viewing Area 3: Existing view of the project site as seen from the Iris Street cul-de- sac. ............................................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 23. Key Viewing Area 3: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction poles) as seen from the Iris Street cul-de-sac ................................................................................................... 46 Figure 24. Key Viewing Area 3: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction poles) as seen from the Iris Street cul-de-sac. .................................................................................................. 47 Figure 25. Key Viewing Area 4: Existing view of the project site as seen from Ruth Street near Iris Street. ......................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 26. Key Viewing Area 4: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction poles) as seen from Ruth Street near Iris Street. ............................................................................................... 49 Figure 27. Key Viewing Area 4: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction poles) as seen from Ruth Street near Iris Street. ............................................................................................... 50 Figure 28. Key Viewing Area 5: Existing view of the project site as seen from Ruth Street near George Street. ............................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 29. Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Ruth Street near George Street. .......................................................................................................... 52 Figure 30. Key Viewing Area 5: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Ruth Street near George Street. ................................................................................ 53 Figure 31. Key Viewing Area 6: Existing view of the project site as seen from Henry Street. .................. 54 Page 120 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment iii Figure 32. Key Viewing Area 6: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Henry Street. ............................................................................................................. 55 Figure 33. Key Viewing Area 6: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Henry Street. ............................................................................................................. 56 Figure 34. Key Viewing Area 7: Existing view of the project site as seen from the Jennifer Street Bridge. ....................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 35. Key Viewing Area 7: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from the Jennifer Street Bridge. ........................................................................................ 58 Figure 36. Key Viewing Area 7: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from the Jennifer Street Bridge ......................................................................................... 59 Figure 37. Key Viewing Area 8: Existing view of the project site as seen from Leff Street. ..................... 60 Figure 38. Key Viewing Area 8: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction poles)as seen from Leff Street. ........................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 39. Key Viewing Area 8: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction poles)as seen from Leff Street. ........................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 40.Key Viewing Area 9: Existing view of the project site as seen from Leff Street near Toro Street. ......................................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 41. Key Viewing Area 9: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction poles) as seen from Leff Street near Toro Street. ............................................................................................. 64 Figure 42. Key Viewing Area 9: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction poles) as seen from Leff Street near Toro Street. ............................................................................................. 65 Figure 43. Key Viewing Area 10: Existing view of the project site as seen from Mitchell Park. .............. 66 Figure 44. Key Viewing Area 10: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Mitchell Park. ....................................................................................................... 67 Figure 45.Key Viewing Area 10: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Mitchell Park. ........................................................................................................... 68 Tables Figure 1. Project Vicinity .............................................................................................................................. 7 Page 121 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 1 1 INTRODUCTION This study assesses visual impacts that may result from the proposed expansion of the French Hospital Medical Center located at 1911 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California (refer to Figure 1). The purpose of this analysis is to determine if a change in the visual environment would occur, whether that change would be viewed as a positive or negative one, and the degree of any change relative to the existing setting. If the project has the potential to cause visual impacts, this study specifically defines those impacts. This analysis focuses on the potential for the proposed project components to result in impacts on visual resources as seen from public locations and roadways. The baseline visual condition is analyzed, visual resources are identified, and a baseline scenic character is established. The analysis methodology evaluates the aggregate effect that the project may have on the overall visual character of the project site and surrounding landscape. If a change in character is identified, it is compared to viewers’ expected sensitivity, and is reviewed for consistency with applicable City of San Luis Obispo (City) planning policies and regulations. Levels of impact are determined consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definitions and guidelines. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Along with relevant plans, reports, correspondence and other data, this visual analysis is based on the preliminary project description provided by the City of San Luis Obispo (August 2, 2021) as summarized below. The proposed project consists of the phased expansion of French Hospital Medical Center campus including the construction of a two-level, 234-space parking structure with 5,800 square feet of future lab and storage space and a 2,000-square-foot helistop (Phase 1), and a four-story 89,775-square-foot patient tower, a 1,800-square-foot generator yard, and various related site improvements (Phase 2). The project includes the reconfiguration of surface parking, addition of bicycle parking spaces, realignment of an existing bicycle path and associated open space easement, tree removal and trimming on- and off-site, landscaping, and exterior lighting. Project construction would result in approximately 3,260 cubic yards of cut/export material and would require 2,370 cubic yards of imported material. Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 3 years. Project Background In 1993, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) approved the French Hospital Master Plan (Master Plan) that outlined the ultimate build-out of the Project Site and included facilities to provide a range of medical services and the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Master Plan (City record number ER 109- 93). The plan included the future construction of four buildings in addition to the existing hospital building built in 1972, and a substantial expansion of the parking area on-site. These four buildings included a 35,000-square-foot Copeland Pavilion, a 6,000-square-foot hospital office, a 30,000-square- foot medical arts building, and a 6,000-square-foot hospital expansion building. Build-out of the 1993 Master Plan would result in a total of approximately 231,300 square feet of hospital uses on-site. Proposed additional parking associated with these new facilities included the addition of 365 parking spaces, which would result in a total of 749 parking spaces on-site. On June 1, 2004, the French Hospital Medical Center was acquired by Dignity Health Corporation. On March 15, 2013, the City approved Administrative Use Permit A 140-11 which amended the 1993 Master Plan to modify the configuration and placement of proposed buildings at French Hospital. The Copeland Page 122 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 2 Pavilion was redesigned to be 18,000 square feet in size, and the proposed square footage for the proposed hospital expansion building increased to 17,550 square feet and a new 5,450-square-foot emergency room (ER) expansion building was added to the Master Plan. The overall gross area of proposed facilities was less than what was previously analyzed and approved, and the associated transportation and other environmental impacts associated with the amended Master Plan remained generally consistent with what was evaluated under the 2013 Master Plan; therefore, the 2013 Master Plan Amendment was found to be consistent with the analysis of the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the 1993 Master Plan. In 2014 the Master Plan was amended again to accommodate a slightly larger medical arts building square footage, which was also found to be consistent with the analysis of the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the 1993 Master Plan. In 2016, the City approved another amendment to the French Hospital Master Plan to accommodate a 58,600-square-foot four-story medical arts building and parking garage. While a portion of the approved square footage for new uses in the Master Plan have been constructed with the addition of the Copeland Education Pavilion, the remaining unused approved square footage of the Master Plan was reconfigured to accommodate most of these new uses, resulting in an increase of gross floor area from the approved Master Plan from 231,300 square feet to 248,661 square feet and a reduction in required parking spaces from 749 to 700. The 2016 Master Plan Amendment was found to be consistent with the analysis of the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the 1993 Master Plan. The four-story medical office building included in the 2016 Master Plan Amendment was not constructed and is no longer being proposed as a part of the Master Plan moving forward. Ever since its acquisition by Dignity Health in 2004, patient care departments within the hospital facilities have been continuously upgraded. Over the past several years of detailed study, planning, and projections of community healthcare needs over the next 50 years, Dignity Health has determined that all remaining approved square footage of the Master Plan should be consolidated into a single 89,775-square-foot patient tower and new parking deck with a helistop. The proposed helistop would serve the recently completed Emergency Department expansion project as well as the proposed Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Project Components Patient Tower The proposed 89,775-square-foot Patient Tower building would consist of a four-story building adjacent to the existing Copeland Health Education Building (refer to Figures 4 and 5). The four-story Patient Tower building height is proposed to be 68 feet above average natural grade. Stair/Elevator penthouses and mechanical screening extend an additional 10 feet as allowed by the Zoning Regulations. The previous master plan approval included a variance of up to 62 feet high for a new medical office building (where the current parking structure is proposed to be located) that was never constructed. The proposed Patient Tower is sited at the rear of the site and substantially set back from adjacent streets. Although the proposed Patient Tower will be taller than the previously approved medical office building it will be constructed on the lower portion of the site to the west of the hospital. Accordingly, the top parapet of the proposed Patient Tower (353.75 feet) will be at a lower elevation than the height of the existing Pacific Medical Plaza building (354.80 feet). The patient tower building would consist of primarily a stucco color with slate grey horizontal rib accent panels, similar to the adjacent Copeland Health Education Building. The patient tower building would include roof-mounted heating ventilation and air conditioning equipment, which would be visually screened from view with horizontal metal panels similar to the Page 123 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 3 Copeland Health Education Building. A new transformer would also be installed at the ground level southeast of the patient tower to provide electricity to the building and would be screened by proposed landscape plantings. Parking Deck and Helistop The proposed parking deck would be constructed over an existing surface parking area located on the western side of the project site, adjacent to the existing railroad tracks (refer to Figure 6). The parking deck would be a cast-in-place structure approximately 19 feet in height and would be painted with exterior colors to match those of the existing Copeland Health Education Building and proposed patient tower. The ground level area of the parking deck would include surface level parking, an electrical equipment storage area, a shell space for the future development of a hospital lab, and a pedestrian plaza. The second level of the parking deck would include a parking area and a helistop, which would be located on a platform approximately 8 feet higher than the upper level of the parking deck connected with a staircase and ramps that would provide access to the upper parking deck level. Parking spaces on the ground level of the parking deck would be reconfigured to align with the design and access ramps of the proposed parking deck. The structure would be equipped with interior and exterior lighting and required helistop lighting. Helistop lighting would operate only during nighttime landings and would be controlled and used by pilots to provide a visual guide. The proposed helistop would serve the existing Emergency Department and the proposed Neonatal Intensive Care Unit on-site. Helicopters would not be permanently parked on-site, rather, they would fly in, pick-up or drop-off patients, then fly out on an as-needed basis. Based on San Luis Obispo County Emergency Medical Service records, the anticipated flight frequency is approximately four helicopter trips per month. Service records show that only approximately 25 percent of those trips (one trip per month) would occur during nighttime hours. Generator Yard Generators would supply backup power to the proposed patient tower and other proposed facilities if electrical power is interrupted. The proposed generator yard would be enclosed by a 10-foot-tall split face block wall facing parking areas and chain link fence along open space areas. The yard would include a trash receptacle area enclosed by a 6-foot-tall split face block wall. The generator yard would be located east of the proposed parking deck and would be designed to match and/or complement the design of the parking deck. Open Space Easement Modification The project site currently supports an Open Space Easement for a public bike path which was approved by the City in conjunction with the 2013 Master Plan amendment. The proposed project includes a modification to the existing Open Space Easement to remove 0.11 acres of easement from the south side of Parcel 2 and add 0.17 acres of Open Space Easement to the north side of Parcel 2. This would allow for the construction of the proposed parking deck, generator yard, and additional surface parking spaces. Tree Removal, Trimming, and Landscape Planting The project would require removal of existing landscape trees currently located within the proposed footprint of the patient tower, parking deck, generator yard, and realigned site driveway. In addition, a number of tall trees within the immediate project vicinity would need to be pruned to meet Federal Aviation Association (FAA) standards to accommodate the flightpath of helicopters using the proposed Page 124 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 4 helistop. The project proposes to remove and prune trees both on the project site and on adjacent off-site parcels. Overall, the project would result in the removal of 113 trees, and the pruning of 8 trees (refer to Figure 9). The trees requiring pruning are part of the existing eucalyptus grove southwest of the project. These trees to be pruned range from approximately 100 feet to 130 feet in height and would need to be reduced a minimum of 25 to 35 feet each to meet FAA safety requirements. Alternatively, if off-site tree pruning is determined to be infeasible, two 125-foot-tall obstruction light poles are proposed to be located southeast of the parking deck and helistop. If the obstruction light poles are constructed, the project would result in the removal of 107 trees, and the pruning of 8 trees (refer to Figure 10). These trees requiring pruning are also part of the existing eucalyptus grove west of the project. These trees range from approximately 100 feet to 130 feet in height and would need to be reduced a minimum of 25 to 35 feet each to meet FAA safety requirements. The project would be subject to the City’s compensatory tree planting requirements detailed within the City Municipal Code which requires planting of a minimum of one new tree for each tree authorized to be removed when planted on the same property, or two new trees for each tree authorized to be removed when planted off-site. The project includes a landscaping planting plan that includes screening trees, parking lot trees, pedestrian plaza trees, shrubs, vines, perennials, and groundcover plantings (refer to Figure 7). Site Lighting The project would include installation of exterior lighting in and around entrances to the patient tower, parking deck, and generator yard, and along main walkways. Light poles in the vicinity of parking areas would be no more than 20 feet tall. Other lighting on-site would include, but not be limited to, bollard pathway lighting around the drop off entry area in front of the main entrances to the Copeland Health Education Pavilion and patient tower wall-mounted lights along the exterior of the patient tower to illuminate the exterior dining area and walkways around the building, LED canopy lights to illuminate the second floor garden of the patient tower, and in-ground LED lights to illuminate building signage. Helistop Lighting The helistop structure would include FAA-required lighting. Helistop lighting refers to all sources of light associated with the design and function of the helistop. Helistop lighting would operate only during nighttime landings and would be controlled and used by pilots to provide a visual guide. Pilot controlled approach and delineation lighting would normally be on only during landings and takeoffs. Based on San Luis Obispo County Emergency Medical Service records, the anticipated projected flight frequency would be approximately four helicopter trips per month. Service records show that only approximately 25 percent of those trips (one trip per month) would occur during the nighttime hours. Preliminary estimates indicate that the amount of time the helipad would be operational for landing, patient care and takeoff would typically range from twenty minutes to one hour, although these times could vary significantly depending upon patient medical or logistic circumstances. Photometric data provided by the project applicant indicates that at eye level standing on the ground at the property line surrounding the hospital facility, there would be zero footcandles and light trespass, as all light would be directed horizontal and upward from the light fixtures. These fixtures would have cutoff fixtures and would not project light below the horizontal plane. Only viewers at or above the level of the helistop and tower would be able to see the light. The closest neighbors at or above this level would be past Johnson street, over 850 feet away. FEC’s engineers state the light dissipates and is unmeasurable past a distance of 320 feet. Preliminary discussions regarding lighting recommend the need for the helistop as follows: Page 125 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 5 • A helistop beacon on the parking elevator penthouse. The beacon would be green-white-yellow LEDs flashing in sequence. • Green perimeter lights outlining the Touch Down and Lift-Off (TLOF) area. Perimeter lights would also serve to also outline the landing pad for medical crews moving gurneys. Helipad lights are not meant to illuminate the helipad or broadcast light. These lights by code are designed to go mostly up and not out so that pilots approaching from above can see the lights. If you are above the lights or on the same plane you can see the lights from a distance. Below the elevation of the lights, the point- source of the fixtures would typically not be visible. Photometric data provided by the project applicant indicates that at eye level standing on the ground at the property line of the hospital facility, there would be zero footcandles and light trespass as all light would be directed horizontal and upward from the light fixtures. These fixtures would have a cutoff fixtures and would not project light below the horizontal plane (Refer to Figure 14). Only viewers at or above the level of the helistop and tower would be able to see the light. The closest neighbors at or above this level would be past Johnson street, over 850 feet away. FEC’s engineers state the light dissipates and is unmeasurable past 320 feet. • Red obstruction lights on certain objects (parking lot elevator tower, bed tower corners, etc.). • A lighted wind cone to provide pilots with wind direction and speed information. • Gurney ramp footlights (white) that would be separately switched so that they are not activated until after a helicopter lands and are deactivated prior to departure. Footlights would light the ramp surface, however once the aircraft is on the heliport, the lights could be turned off until the patient is ready to be transported to the helicopter. • One beacon and multiple obstruction lights on the Patient Tower to designate the building and elevator tower corners. These lights are recommended to be on from dusk to dawn, controlled via photocell. These lights are not omni-directional, and are designed to be visible from above. Helicopter Lights In addition to the helistop lighting described above, the helicopters themselves would have lighting. In addition to standard aviation lights, the helicopters would have white landing lights that would illuminate the heliport as it is approaching, similar to the landing lights that airplanes use when they are approaching a runway at night. Specifically , each helicopter would be required to have: • Navigation lights: Red on the left side, green on the right side and white on the tail • Anti-collision light: Red/white • Landing light: White on front of the aircraft to light the landing area. When approaching the helistop it is expected that the helicopter landing lights may be turned on at distances of more than a mile away from the helistop. Information provided by the project applicant indicates that the total duration that helicopter lighting would be in use would be approximately 10 minutes per trip (5 minutes per landing and 5 minutes per takeoff). County Emergency Services data shows that approximately one nighttime helicopter trip per month is expected. Figure 15 shows the approved flight paths and the relative heights at which helicopters would be along the paths. The project applicant also provided the following explanation of the flight path data: The numbers shown along the flightpath (varying from 470’-300’, height above sea level) are the elevations of the approach surface. The notes in red show the approximate height above grade based on Page 126 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 6 the contour lines on the City of SLO Parcel Viewer map. The helicopter would approach/depart at or above these heights. Additional information provided by the project applicant regarding how much light would be cast on the ground along the flight path approaching the helistop is as follows: Airbus helicopters provide information on their helicopter landing and search lights combined light intensity: 300 k Candela. They calculated that at 200 feet, the lux value at the ground would be 80 Lux which is similar to an office building hallway illumination. It would be unusual for the pilot to use both landing and search light during a typical landing(which is expected to last approximately 10 minutes total). Pilots may also elect to use night-vision goggles during landings in relatively dark environments in which case neither landing or search lights would be used. This is a pilot decision. Aviation Obstruction Lighting Poles If off-site tree pruning is determined to be infeasible, two 125-foot-tall Obstruction Light Poles are proposed to be located southeast of the parking deck and helistop (refer to Figure 8). The poles would be 25-inches diameter at the base, tapering to 7-inches diameter at the tops. The poles would be engineered steel high-mast light poles with a galvanized finish. These light poles would include red LED lights and infrared emitters to be connected to the pilot-controlled lighting system and would be turned on only in the event of a nighttime helicopter landing or takeoff. Page 127 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 7 Figure 1. Project Vicinity Page 128 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 8 Figure 2. Project Layout Page 129 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 9 Figure 3. Key Viewing Area locations. Page 130 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 10 Figure 4. Patient Tower Elevations Page 131 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 11 Figure 5. Patient Tower Elevations Page 132 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 12 Figure 6. Parking Deck/ Helistop Elevations Page 133 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 13 . Figure 7. Preliminary Landscape Plan Page 134 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 14 Figure 8. Obstruction Light Poles (Optional) Page 135 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 15 Figure 9. Tree Removal Plan – Without Obstruction Light Poles Page 136 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 16 Figure 10. Tree Removal Plan – With Obstruction Light Poles Page 137 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 17 Figure 11 - Project Renderings Page 138 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 18 Page 139 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 19 3 PROJECT SETTING 3.1 Regional and Community Context The French Hospital Medical Center is located in the northeastern portion of the City of San Luis Obispo, just below the foothills of the Santa Lucia Mountains. The City was founded on predominantly undulating topography, with low hillsides rising from drainages and creeks. The overall landform of the City and its surroundings is generally defined by the convergence of the Chorro and the Los Osos Valleys. A series of low, visually distinct mountain peaks, such as Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis, separate the two valleys and provide a scenic focal point for much of the City. The Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the visual limits of this region and are considered the scenic backdrops for much of the City. Development in the region occurs predominantly at the lesser elevations and on the low hills. The overall development pattern in the project area is an integrated mix of residential single-family, multi-family, commercial and institutional uses. The institutional development is in the form of medical facilities, educational facilities, public health services and churches. This variety of uses results in an established suburban visual character surrounding the project. No single architectural theme is evident in the surrounding area. Existing development in the area is the product of decades of different building styles, zoning policies and aesthetic trends. The overall topography of the surrounding area tends to slope down from the eastern foothills toward the west. Terrace Hill Open Space, approximately 0.3 mile south of the project rises to an elevation of approximately 500 feet above sea level. Although buildings and development are seen throughout the area, mature vegetation is well-established into the neighborhoods and along the surrounding streets, contributing to a defining aesthetic character and visual continuity. This mature vegetation in the surrounding neighborhoods also tends to limit or filter outward long distance views from many viewing locations. Large stands of eucalyptus trees reaching heights of approximately 130 feet are seen immediately adjacent to the northwest and southwest sides of the project site. 3.2 Project Site As described in the project description, the overall French Hospital Medical Center campus is approximately 18 acres in area. Existing development on-site consists of the one-story French Hospital building, the three-story Copeland Health Education Building, the approximately 58-foot tall three-story Pacific Medical Plaza to the south of the hospital, and the Ella Street medical condominiums located further to the south. A 1,800 square-foot modular building that serves as a business office is located on the north side of the hospital and surface parking lots surround the buildings along the perimeter of the campus. The topography of the site is nearly flat around the existing buildings on-site, with a steep slope bank between Johnson Avenue and the front parking lot, and another steep slope bank between the rear parking areas and the undeveloped area on the west side of the site. Landscaping throughout the project site includes a variety of ornamental and native species. Mature trees are seen in the parking lots, adjacent to buildings, and along the site perimeter. Shrubs and ground covers are used throughout the site. The landscaping provides aesthetic value to the site as well as a partial visual screening of the development from the surrounding area. This existing landscaping also provides a visual continuity with the vegetated character of the adjacent neighborhoods. Page 140 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 20 3.3 Regulatory Setting In addition to their regulatory application, the following policies, ordinances and goals serve as indicators of potential sensitivity to changes in the visual environment for purposes of assessing visual impacts associated with implementation of the project. 3.4 City of San Luis Obispo 3.4.1 San Luis Obispo General Plan 3.4.1.1 CHAPTER 1 - LAND USE ELEMENT 3.4.1.1.1 SECTION 2. CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Policy 2.3.2. Separation and Buffering The City shall seek to protect Residential areas from incompatible and detrimental non-residential activities and facilities. 2.3.3. Residential Next to Non-residential In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority. 3.4.1.2 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT - CHAPTER 6 3.4.1.2.1 9.0. Viewsheds. Policies 9.1.2. Urban development. The City will implement the following principle and will encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so: Urban development should reflect its architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberate design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighboring urban development, and that are compatible with historical and architectural resources. 9.1.5. View protection in new development. The City will include in all environmental review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road construction on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. Page 141 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 21 9.2. Policies 9.2.1. Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route segments shown in Figure 11 (COSE) are designated as scenic roadways. A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views. B. Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on or clutter views, consistent with safety needs. C. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees shall be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features. D. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall be considered “sensitive” and require architectural review. 9.2.2. Views to and from private development. Projects should incorporate as amenities views from and within private development sites. Private development designs should cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project objectives to be met. 9.2.3. Outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting shall avoid: operating at unnecessary locations, levels, and times; spillage to areas not needing or wanting illumination; glare (intense line-of-site contrast); and frequencies (colors) that interfere with astronomical viewing. 9.3. Programs The City shall do the following to protect and enhance views, and will encourage others to do so, as appropriate: 9.3.6. View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage along scenic roadways is a significant impact. 9.3.9. Undergrounding utilities. Place existing overhead utilities underground, with highest priority for scenic roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts. Page 142 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 22 3.4.2 Zoning Regulations 3.4.2.1 SECTION 3. COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 3.4.2.1.1 Chapter 17.24 OFFICE (O) ZONE – Development Standards Maximum Building Height - 35 feet. [Note: Although the Land Use Element defines the maximum building height standard as 35 feet for the Office (O) Zoning designation, the approved 2016 French Hospital Master Plan Amendment allows for a maximum 62 feet building height for the project site] 3.4.2.2 17.70.100 LIGHTING AND NIGHT SKY PRESERVATION B. Application Requirements. 1. Whenever a person is required to obtain a building permit, electrical permit for outdoor lighting or signage, and/or approval of any development project, the applicant shall, as a part of the application, submit sufficient information to enable the Community Development Department to determine whether the proposed lighting complies with the provisions of this Section. The application shall include the following: a. A site plan indicating the proposed location of all outdoor lighting fixtures that are not exempted by subsection F of this Section. b. A description of each illuminating device, fixture, lamp, support, and shield. This description may include, but is not limited to, manufacturer’s catalog cuts and drawings (including sections where required), lamp types, and lumen outputs. c. Photometric plans depicting the location of all light poles and building-mounted lighting fixtures and a maximum 10-foot by 10-foot grid of both the initial and maintained lighting levels on the site, and including impact on adjacent properties. C. Operational Standards. 1. Outdoor lighting shall be designed, installed, and maintained to prevent nighttime sky light pollution, preserve and enhance visibility of stars, and use energy efficiently by lighting only those areas or objects necessary for safety and security. 2. All outdoor lighting shall conform to the following regulations: a. Orientation. Outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. b. Light Trespass in Residential Zones. No lighting on private property shall produce an illumination level greater than two maintained horizontal foot-candles at grade on any property within a residential zone except on the site of the light source. c. Light Intensity on Residential Sites. The maximum light intensity on a residential site shall not exceed a maintained value of 10 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade. Page 143 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 23 Light Intensity on Non-residential Sites. (1) General. The maximum light intensity on a nonresidential site, except auto sales lots and sports fields, shall not exceed a maintained value of 10 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade. F. Exemptions. The following lighting fixtures are exempt from the requirements of this section: 3.Emergency Aviation Lighting. Emergency lighting operated by public agencies or for the purpose of aviation safety. 3.4.3 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES – 2010 3.4.3.1 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND APPLICABILITY 3.4.3.1.1 1.4 - Goals for Design Quality and Character 3.4.3.1.2 C. Protect natural resources and integrate the natural environment into building and site planning, where appropriate. 2. Maintain views of hillsides surrounding the city. 3. Maintain the health of the city’s creeks through sensitive structure design and site planning near them. 4. Site planning should protect creek resources while providing visual access, and provide pedestrian access along bank tops where consistent with resource protection. 5. Continue urban forest and streetscape landscaping; protect significant existing trees. 6. Control outdoor lighting to provide necessary security, but not spill onto adjacent properties or impair the view of the night sky. 3.4.3.2 CHAPTER 6 - SITE PLANNING AND OTHER DESIGN DETAILS 3.4.3.2.1 6.1 – Miscellaneous Design Details C. Lighting: Exterior lighting should be designed to be compatible with the architectural and landscape design of the project while preserving the night sky, and not create a nuisance for adjacent and nearby properties. 1. Outdoor lighting fixtures, including lighting for outdoor recreational facilities, shall be cutoff fixtures designed and installed so that no emitted light will break a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the fixture. 2. Outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded, recessed, directed downward and not spill onto adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 4. To achieve the desired lighting level for parking and pedestrian areas, it is preferred to have more, smaller scale lights instead of fewer, overly tall and large lights. Parking lot lights shall be as low in height as possible, and shall not exceed a height of 21 feet from the approved finished grade to the bottom of the fixture. Page 144 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 24 7. No lighting on 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. 9. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, rotate or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. 4 VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The analysis and subsequent determination of impacts is based primarily on a comparison of the project with the visual character and quality of its setting and surrounding vistas. This study also compares the proposed project to the specific visual resource goals of the City. When the stated goals demonstrate that a high degree of value is placed on the visual environment, the standards to which the project is compared are considered equally high. As a result of the project’s location relative to surrounding neighborhoods and public roadways, combined with an awareness of scenic quality as reflected in City planning policy, it is anticipated that community and viewer sensitivity to visual changes are moderately high. 4.1 Visual Assessment Methodology The findings of this study are based on multiple field visits conducted between August and October, 2021, including review of the entire site as well as the surrounding area. Resource inventories were conducted both on foot and from moving vehicles. Existing visual resources and site conditions were photographed and recorded. Assessment of project elements was based on plans and descriptions provided by the City. Planning documents and previous studies relevant to the surrounding area were referenced to gain an understanding of community aesthetic values. The project site was viewed from potential viewer group locations in the surrounding area. Representative public viewpoints were identified for further analysis, based on dominance of the site within the view, the relationship to visual resources, duration of views, and expected sensitivity of the viewer group. Of those representative viewpoints, Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) were selected that best illustrate the visual changes that would occur as a result of the project (refer to Figure 3). Photo-simulations were prepared to quantify potential project visibility and to assess related visual effects. Accuracy of the computer-generated photo-simulations was field verified using the known heights and scale of exiting site and context features in combination with selective story-pole placement. The appearance of structures shown in the photo-simulations is based on preliminary designs provided by the project applicant and as identified in the project description. Existing trees proposed for removal or pruning were identified in the field and their potential visibility considered from each of the Key Viewing Areas. The removal or pruning of these trees was included in the visual assessment and shown as applicable in project photo-simulations. 4.2 Project Visibility Because of the project’s location surrounded by residential and other uses, the potential for visibility of proposed improvements is high. Determining the extent of the proposed project’s visibility is a critical step in analyzing its potential visual impacts. Field studies were conducted throughout the community to identify locations from where the proposed project could be reasonably seen. Emphasis was given to public areas and transportation corridors, both vehicular and pedestrian. As a result of the visual inventory Page 145 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 25 analysis ten Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) were selected to represent to extent of project visibility as well as illustrate the appearance of the proposed project as seen from the surrounding community. Locations of these KVAs are listed below in Table 1 and shown on Figure 3. Photo-simulations from these locations can be seen in Figures 16 through 45. Table 1 Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) KVA View Location Figure Numbers. KVA-1 From Terrace Hill Open Space looking north 16, 17, 18 KVA-2 From Johnson Avenue looking west 19, 20, 21 KVA-3 From Iris Street cul-de-sac looking north 22, 23, 24 KVA-4 From Ruth Street near Iris Street looking northeast 25, 26, 27 KVA-5 From Ruth Street near George Street looking northeast 28, 29, 30 KVA-6 From Ella Street near Henry Street looking northeast 31, 32, 33 KVA-7 From the Jennifer Street Bridge looking northeast 34, 35, 36 KVA-8 From Leff Street looking east 35, 38, 39 KVA-9 From Leff Street near Toro Stet looking southeast 40, 41, 42 KVA-10 From Mitchell Park looking east 43, 44, 45 4.3 Thresholds of Significance The determinations of significance of project impacts are based on applicable policies, regulations, goals, and guidelines defined by CEQA and the City of San Luis Obispo. In addition to comparing the project to relevant policies and standards, the aesthetic resources assessment identifies which specific criteria contribute most to the existing quality of each view, and if change would occur to that criteria as a result of the project. If a change in visual condition is identified, this change is analyzed for its potential effect on the existing scenic character. This analysis is combined with the potential number of viewers, their sensitivities and viewing duration in order to determine the overall level of impacts. Specifically, the project would be considered to have a significant effect on the environment if the effects exceed the significance criteria described below. City of San Luis Obispo planning documents do not contain specific criteria for determining thresholds of significance regarding aesthetic resources. However, in comparing the project to the CEQA Guideline thresholds listed below, substantial consideration was given to the project's consistency with City policies, ordinances, plans, goals and regulations concerning scenic vistas, scenic roadways, visual character, and night lighting. The local goals, policies and guidelines provide a basis for determining levels of potential impact as well as an indication of aesthetic values and sensitivity to visual change. Page 146 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 26 4.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines a “significant effect” on the environment to mean a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” The State CEQA Guidelines and the County Environmental Checklist state that a project would normally be considered to have a significant impact if it would: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. 4.4 The Project’s Effect on Scenic Vistas Scenic vistas are generally defined as high-quality views displaying good aesthetic and compositional value that can be seen from public viewpoints. If the project substantially degrades the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads or from other public or recreation areas, this would be considered a potentially significant impact on the scenic vista. Scenic vistas related to the project that are either identified in City planning policy or otherwise meet the quality definition of a scenic vista typically include views of the Morros, the Santa Lucia foothills, and the Irish Hills. Johnson Avenue adjacent to the French Hospital Medical Center is identified as a City Scenic Roadway having Moderate Scenic Value (General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Chapter 6). From viewpoints in the immediate vicinity of the project, scenic vistas of the Morros, Santa Lucia foothills and other visual resources are available although are often filtered or obscured by intervening neighborhood development or landscaping. In general, the existing French Hospital Medical Center and related development do not have a substantial negative effect on views of surrounding scenic resources. Because of its somewhat elevated location, views from Johnson Avenue tend to have the greatest visual access to distant scenic vistas such as the Morros and the Santa Lucia Mountains. In the project vicinity, quality sightline views from Johnson Avenue are often seen above the surrounding community, including the French Hospital Medical Center. The Patient Tower The largest component of the project, the proposed Patient Tower, would be 68 feet in height (78 feet including the top parapet, at a top elevation of 353.7 feet above sea level). For comparison, the existing structures adjacent to the proposed Patient Tower site include the one-story hospital building (approximately 16 feet tall, 313.6 feet top elevation), the three-story Copeland Health Education Pavilion (approximately 42 feet tall, approximately 337.2 feet top elevation), and the three-story Pacific Medical Plaza building (approximately 48 feet tall, 354.6 feet top elevation). Page 147 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 27 Although the proposed Patient Tower building itself would be taller than the surrounding structures, it would be constructed at a lower ground elevation south of the existing hospital building, such that the top of the proposed Patient Tower building would actually be slightly lower than the existing Pacific Medical Plaza building. In spite of its proposed 68 foot height, views to visual resources and scenic vistas such as the Morros and the Santa Lucia foothills would remain intact and would be largely unaffected by the project as seen from most surrounding viewpoints (refer to Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). The topography of the surrounding area generally rises up to the northeast. As a result, the elevated views from those areas would tend to reduce the perceived height of the project (as is the case with the existing hospital facility) and would allow for greater visual access beyond the project site and of scenic vistas beyond. The proposed Patient Tower building would be located on a portion of the site somewhat away from surrounding streets and neighborhoods, which would reduce its potential to block distant views. From a few closer viewpoints the Patient Tower would be seen rising up against the open sky (refer to KVAs 2, 3, 4, and 5). Although the Patient Tower would be a relatively tall building, its siting combined with the general orientation of most of the surrounding public views relative to visual resources, it would not substantially affect views of available scenic vistas such as the Morros or the Santa Lucia foothills, or other quality visual resources. Parking Deck and Helistop The proposed parking deck and helistop would rise approximately 19 feet above the existing parking lot. Because of its location at the southwestern portion of the site, combined with the substantial amount of neighborhood vegetation and development, the parking deck and helipad would have limited noticeability from the surrounding area (refer to KVAs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). The parking deck and helistop would be partially visible from neighborhoods to the southeast such as from Toro Street, Leff Street, and the San Luis Obispo Train Station area. However, from those viewing locations, because of topography, intervening vegetation and development, scenic vistas of the surrounding hills, including the Santa Lucia Foothills would not be affected. Obstruction Light Poles If off-site tree pruning is determined to be infeasible, two 125-foot-tall obstruction light poles would be installed at the edge of a large eucalyptus groves southwest of the parking deck and helistop. Some on-site tree removal and pruning would still be required even if the obstruction light poles are constructed. A secondary effect of the obstruction light poles would be the removal of less existing vegetation than the proposed project without poles. With both of the options some of the existing vegetative mass would be reduced, slightly increasing the potential visibility of the poles from certain viewpoints (refer to KVAs 1, 4, 5, and 10). In general, however, the remaining large trees would block or substantially limit visibility of the poles. The proposed light poles would have a thin profile and would occupy a negligible percent of the available visual landscape. As seen from some viewpoints, the light color of the galvanized poles would contrast with the green background of the adjacent trees (refer to KVAs 1,4,5,6,7,10). With implementation of the measure listed below, the optional obstruction light poles would have little to no adverse effect on the surrounding scenic vistas. Impact 1 If obstruction light poles are required, their light galvanized metal color would increase their noticeability in the landscape and as seen in the context of the hillside scenic vistas to the east. As a result, obstruction lights would result in an adverse visual impact to the existing scenic vista. Page 148 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 28 MM-1 If obstruction light poles are required, they shall be colored a muted grey-green to match the foliage of the adjacent eucalyptus grove. Residual Impacts – Scenic Vistas Potential impacts related to scenic vistas would be considered less than significant with implementation of mitigation (MM-1). 4.5 The Project’s Effect on Specific Scenic Resources as seen from the State Scenic Highway This CEQA threshold does not apply because the project is not within the view corridor of any Officially Designated State Scenic Highway. 4.6 The Project’s Effect on the Existing Visual Character and Quality of the Site and its Surroundings and Consistency with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality 4.6.1 Visual Character and Quality Project related actions would be considered to have a significant impact on the visual character of the site if they altered the area in a way that substantially changed, detracted from, or degraded the visual quality of the site or was inconsistent with City of San Luis Obispo policies regarding visual quality and character. The degree to which that change reflects documented community values and meets viewers’ aesthetic expectations is the basis for determining the extent of potential visual impact. Visual contrast and compatibility may be used as a measure of the potential impact that the project may have on the visual quality of the site. If a strong contrast occurred where project features or activities alter and dominate the landscape setting, this would be considered a potentially significant impact on visual character or quality of the site. Project components that are not compatible with the visual context could result in a significant change in the character of the community. Consideration of potential significance includes analysis of visual character elements such as land use and intensity, visual integrity of the landscape type, and other factors. The existing visual character of the project site and its surroundings is primarily a product of built elements, including typical suburban uses such as residential neighborhoods, commercial, institutional and recreational development. The project site itself is of moderate visual quality, primarily due to its developed character. Existing mature vegetation both on the project site and throughout the surrounding neighborhoods increase the overall visual quality and create visual continuity in the area. Patient Tower and Parking Deck/Helistop Increased development of the project site in terms of the new buildings, parking areas other site features would likely not be unexpected to many casual observers. The project's adjacency to the existing hospital and the other medical facilities would add to the public perception that the new buildings and other site features are a logical use for the site. Page 149 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 The proposed patient tower and/or parking deck would be visible to some degree from portions of several nearby streets, including Johnson Avenue, Ella Street, Iris Street, George Street, Leff Street, Toro Street, and others. The project would be seen readily seen from the Terrace Hill Open Space (Refer to KVA 1). The patient tower and parking deck would also have the potential to be seen from various other locations throughout the community, although from the more distant viewpoints the buildings would generally have low noticeability and would visually blend with the larger viewshed (Refer to KVAs 1,2,6,7,8,9,and 10). Where seen, the project would be visible as an expansion of the existing site development and would be visually compatible with the architectural style of the existing French Hospital Medical Facility. Specifically, the proposed 68-foot height of the patient tower would not an appear out of scale with the existing facilities and would not have an adverse effect on the existing suburban character and context. Multi-story parking structures are commonly associated with hospital facilities, and the parking deck and helistop would not be uncharacteristic of the existing institutional use. The relatively low profile of the parking deck structure in combination with its proposed location at the western, lower elevation of the site would help visually integrate the structure with the setting. The project description defines the aesthetic concept of proposed structures as being consistent with the existing buildings on the site. In general, this architectural concept would be visually appropriate and would help unify the appearance of the site. The general scale and massing of the proposed Patient Tower and the Parking Deck/Helistop buildings would be visually appropriate as seen with existing development of the hospital facility. A conceptual planting plan shown in Figure 7 and defined in the project description would help integrate the project into the surrounding neighborhoods. Although the proposed additional development would increase visual density, the site and the overall hospital facility would remain compatible with the existing visual character and would have minimal effect on the visual quality of the area. Tree Removal/ Pruning The project would remove mature trees and other vegetation from the site to accommodate new construction and for aviation safety requirements. In total the project would require the removal of 119 trees and pruning of 17 trees (Refer to Figures 9 and 10). The trees proposed for trimming would be reduced approximately 25 to 35 feet from their estimated average height of 100 to 130 feet above ground. Because these trees would remain in place as members of the larger eucalyptus grove, noticeability of the pruning would be reduced. As seen from most viewpoints, the tree pruning and/or removal would be difficult to distinguish from the remaining grove. With both of the options some of the existing vegetative mass would be reduced, slightly increasing the potential visibility of the poles from certain viewpoints (Refer to KVAs 1,4,5 and10). The obstruction light poles option discussed below would cause the removal of fewer trees than would be required if no poles were constructed. The visual difference between options regarding tree removal would be not be readily apparent to the casual observer. Obstruction Light Poles alternative If off-site tree pruning is not possible, the project would require the placement of two 125 foot tall obstruction light poles along the southern perimeter of the project site (refer to Figure 8). If the obstruction light poles are constructed, the project would result in the removal of 107 trees, and the pruning of 8 trees adjacent to the existing grove of large eucalyptus trees ). Although the poles would be seen from certain vantage points in the surrounding area, their thin profiles (25 inches diameter at the base, tapering to 7 inches diameter at the top) and proximity to the large grove of eucalyptus trees Page 150 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 30 reaching approximately 100 to130 feet in height would substantially reduce their noticeability. However, the obstruction light poles would be thin profile and would occupy a negligible percent of the available visual landscape. As seen from some viewing directions, the light color of the galvanized poles would contrast with the colors of the background hills and the adjacent trees (Refer to KVAs 1,4, 5,6,7 and 10). With implementation of the measure listed below, the optional obstruction light poles would have little to no adverse effect on the surrounding scenic vistas. As seen from some viewpoints, the light color of the galvanized poles would contrast with the green background of the adjacent trees. With implementation of the measure listed below, the optional obstruction light poles would have little to no adverse effect on the surrounding scenic vistas. Impact 2 If obstruction light poles are required, their light galvanized metal color would increase their noticeability and visual contrast as seen from the surrounding community. As a result, obstruction lights would result in an adverse visual impact to the existing visual quality and character of the site and its surroundings Implementation of mitigation measure MM-1 would also reduce potential impacts related to community visual quality and character. Residual Impacts – Visual Quality and Character Potential impacts related to visual quality and character would be considered less than significant with mitigation (MM-1). 4.7 Project Light or Glare Affecting Day or Nighttime Views in the Area The project would result in a significant impact if it subjected viewers from public areas or residences to a substantial amount of new point-source lighting visibility at night, or if the collective lumination of the project resulted in a noticeable spill-over effect into the nighttime sky, increasing the ambient light over the region. The existing French Hospital and associated medical facilities include substantial lighting. Parking lot and pedestrian area lighting, external and internal lighting associated with buildings, signage and other uses are seen throughout the facility. Residential street lighting is also found in the adjacent neighborhoods and throughout the surrounding community. Existing night lighting is also present at the San Luis Obispo Train Station approximately 500 feet southwest of the project and sports field lighting is associated with San Luis Obispo High School, approximately 0.3 mile north of the project. 4.7.1 Project Site Lighting As described in the Project Description, the project would include new lighting throughout the site, including exterior lighting in and around entrances to the patient tower, the parking deck, and generator yard, and along main walkways. Light poles in the vicinity of parking areas would be no more than 20 feet tall. Other lighting on-site would include, but not be limited to, bollard pathway lighting around the drop off entry area in front of the main entrances to the Copeland Health Education Pavilion and patient tower, wall-mounted lights along the exterior of the patient tower to illuminate the exterior dining area and walkways around the building, canopy lights to illuminate the second floor garden of the patient tower, and in-ground lights to illuminate building signage. Page 151 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 31 This project site lighting would be subject to compliance with Zoning Ordinance 17.70.100 Lighting and Night Sky Preservation. Project approval documents will require plans and descriptions of each illuminating device, fixture, lamp, support, and shield, including manufacturer’s data, lamp types, lumen outputs and other information. In addition, compliance with the Zoning Regulations will also require the preparation and submittal of photometric plans showing the location of all light poles and building-mounted lighting fixtures and a maximum 10-foot by 10-foot grid of both the initial and maintained lighting levels on the site, and including impact on adjacent properties. Per Zoning Code development standards, the photometric study must demonstrate that project site lighting does not exceed a maintained value of 10 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines Section 6.1.c. requires that new lighting be cutoff fixtures designed and installed so that no emitted light will break a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the fixture and that outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded, recessed, directed downward and not spill onto adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. In addition, parking lot lights are required to not exceed a height of 21 feet above the approved finished grade. The project would introduce new lighting into the project site, inherent with the expansion of the hospital facility. Review of the preliminary project plans and lighting description indicates that proposed lighting, implemented in compliance with Zoning Ordinance 17.70.100 Lighting and Night Sky Preservation, and Community Design Guidelines Section 6.1.c, would not result in substantial light or glare nor adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. 4.7.2 Aviation-Related Lighting For the purpose of this study aviation-related lighting refers to all sources of light associated with the design and function of the helistop, including: • Helicopter landing lights. Operated during helicopter approach and landing. Landing light operation would be a pilot decision but lights are anticipated to be turned on at least 1 mile from the landing site. • Green perimeter lights that outline the Touch Down and Lift-Off (TLOF) area. Operated only during take-off and landing. • Red obstruction lights on parking lot elevator tower, patient bed tower corner and patient tower roof. Operated only during take-off and landing • A lighted wind cone to provide pilots with wind direction and speed information. This wind cone would be located near the northeastern corner of the top floor of the parking deck. Operated only during take-off and landing. • One beacon and multiple obstruction lights on the Patient Tower, directed upward. These lights would likely operate from dusk to dawn, year-round. • Obstruction Light Poles option - If off-site tree pruning is determined to be infeasible, FAA regulations would require the placement of two 125-foot-tall obstruction light poles along the southern perimeter of the project site. Obstruction Light Poles. These poles would be 125 feet tall and would have red lights on top. The obstruction light poles would be operated only during take- off and landing. Page 152 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 32 According to Zoning Ordinance 17.70.100 Lighting and Night Sky Preservation, Section F.3, emergency aviation lighting associated with the project would be exempt from the requirements of that section. The Section F.3 exemption however does not preclude analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The helistop structure would include FAA-required lighting (Refer to Figures 12 and 13). Helistop lighting would operate only during nighttime landings and would be controlled and used by pilots to provide a visual guide. Based on San Luis Obispo County Emergency Medical Service records, the anticipated projected flight frequency is expected to be approximately four helicopter trips per month. County Emergency Service data shows that approximately one nighttime helicopter trip per month is expected. Preliminary estimates indicate that the amount of time the helipad would be operational for landing, patient care and takeoff would typically range from twenty minutes to one hour, although these times could vary significantly depending upon patient medical or logistic circumstances. In addition to the helistop lighting, the helicopters themselves would have lighting. In addition to helistop lighting, the helicopters themselves would have lighting. Helicopter landing lights would potentially affect the largest area of the community because those lights could be activated from more than a mile out along the approaching flight path (see Figure 15 of Attachment 2, Visual Impact Assessment of the French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project). According to preliminary project information and applicable FAA regulations, helicopters would have white landing lights (or search lights) that would light the helistop as they are approaching, similar to the landing lights seen on airplanes when they are approaching a runway at night. Assuming the helicopter’s landing light would be mounted at a 45-degree down angle, when the helicopter is level, the search light would produce an approximately 70-foot- diameter cone of light on the ground when the helicopter is 200 feet off the ground, and the search light would produce an approximately 35-foot-diameter cone of light when the helicopter is 100 feet off the ground. Helicopter landing and navigation lights would have a combined light intensity of 80 Lux on the ground when the helicopter is 200 feet above the ground and 320 Lux when the helicopter is 100 feet above the ground. However, based on correspondence with an aviation consultant, it would be unusual for a pilot to use both landing and navigation lights during a typical landing. Pilots would likely only use the landing light solely if used at all, which would result in an intensity of 40 Lux at 200 feet above the ground and 160 Lux at 100 feet above the ground. For context, 1 Lux is equal to 1 lumen per square meter, and 80 Lux is approximately equal to 7.4 foot candles, which is the light intensity of 7.4 lumens per square foot (see Figure 16 below).. Pilots may also elect to use night-vision goggles during landings in relatively dark environments, in which case neither landing nor navigation lights would be used. This would be based on pilot discretion. The aviation-related lighting would introduce a substantial amount of new lighting on site. All of the required aviation safety lighting would, by design, be highly noticeable to the helicopter operators. As described, most of these lights would be used for the helistop perimeter and other structure delineation, and would be oriented upward only. This upward orientation would reduce lighting visibility as seen from lower vantage points, however certain viewpoints in the surrounding community, particularly to the east and south are at elevations higher than the helistop deck. Other lights such as the obstruction pole lighting and beacon lighting would shine in multiple directions. In general, as seen from much of the surrounding area intervening mature vegetation and development would block or filter direct views of the lighting. Because of wide-ranging viewpoint factors such as elevation, orientation, topography, and intervening development, the extent of aviation lighting visibility within the surrounding community would be varied and dispersed throughout the area. Helicopter landing lights would potentially affect the largest area of the community since those lights could be activated from as much as a mile or more along the approaching flight path. Page 153 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 33 Although aviation-related lighting would be seen to some degree from much of the surrounding area, the expected low frequency (approximately one nighttime use per month) and short-term duration of helistop operations (estimated between approximately twenty minutes to one hour per visit, and ten minutes for helicopter operations) would substantially reduce the potential adverse effect on the adjacent neighborhood and surrounding community. As a result, the project would have a less than significant effect on lighting and glare as seen from surrounding public viewpoints. Page 154 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 34 Figure 12. Preliminary Helistop Lighting Plan Page 155 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 35 Figure 13. Preliminary Lighting Plan – Buildings Page 156 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 36 Figure 14. Lighting Distribution Plan Page 157 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 37 Figure 15. Flight Path Lighting Plan Page 158 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 38 4.8 Cumulative Impacts The discussion of cumulative impacts relates to the potential for the project to contribute to an aggregate change in visual quality from the surrounding public viewing areas, taking into consideration existing as well as proposed development. The City of San Luis Obispo within the project vicinity and surrounding neighborhoods has undergone few substantial visual changes affecting overall scenic quality or character in the last decade. Much of the visible development in the area has been in-fill directed and appears visually compatible with established land use and aesthetic patterns. Although the project would be seen to some degree from certain areas within the surrounding neighborhoods, its scale, architectural and site design, and landscaping would be visually compatible with the surrounding suburban setting and would likely be consistent with the viewers, expectations for the site. The French Hospital Medical Center expansion project, in combination with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and other City guidelines, would substantially reduce potential visual impacts. These policies, in conjunction with Mitigation Measure MM-1, would ensure that the proposed project's incremental contribution to potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Page 159 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 39 This page intentionally left blank. Page 160 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 40 Figure 16. Key Viewing Area 1: Existing view of the project site as seen from Terrace Hill Open Space. Page 161 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 41 Figure 17. Key Viewing Area 1: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Terrace Hill Open Space. Page 162 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 42 Figure 18. Key Viewing Area 1: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Terrace Hill Open Space. Page 163 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 43 Figure 19. Key Viewing Area 2: Existing view of the project site as seen from Johnson Avenue. Page 164 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 44 Figure 20. Key Viewing Area 2: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Johnson Avenue. Page 165 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 45 Figure 21. Key Viewing Area 2: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Johnson Avenue. Page 166 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 46 Figure 22. Key Viewing Area 3: Existing view of the project site as seen from the Iris Street cul-de-sac. Page 167 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 47 Figure 23. Key Viewing Area 3: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction poles) as seen from the Iris Street cul-de-sac. Page 168 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 48 Figure 24. Key Viewing Area 3: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction poles) as seen from the Iris Street cul-de-sac. Page 169 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 49 Figure 25. Key Viewing Area 4: Existing view of the project site as seen from Ruth Street near Iris Street. Page 170 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 50 Figure 26. Key Viewing Area 4: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction poles) as seen from Ruth Street near Iris Street. Page 171 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 51 Figure 27. Key Viewing Area 4: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction poles) as seen from Ruth Street near Iris Street. Page 172 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 52 Figure 28. Key Viewing Area 5: Existing view of the project site as seen from Ruth Street near George Street. Page 173 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 53 Figure 29. Key Viewing Area 5: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Ruth Street near George Street. Page 174 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 54 Figure 30. Key Viewing Area 5: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Ruth Street near George Street. Page 175 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 55 Figure 31. Key Viewing Area 6: Existing view of the project site as seen from Henry Street. Page 176 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 56 Figure 32. Key Viewing Area 6: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Henry Street. Page 177 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 57 Figure 33. Key Viewing Area 6: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Henry Street. Page 178 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 58 Figure 34. Key Viewing Area 7: Existing view of the project site as seen from the Jennifer Street Bridge. Page 179 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 59 Figure 35. Key Viewing Area 7: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from the Jennifer Street Bridge. Page 180 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 60 Figure 36. Key Viewing Area 7: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from the Jennifer Street Bridge. Page 181 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 61 Figure 37. Key Viewing Area 8: Existing view of the project site as seen from Leff Street. Page 182 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 62 Figure 38. Key Viewing Area 8: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction poles)as seen from Leff Street. Page 183 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 63 Figure 39. Key Viewing Area 8: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction poles)as seen from Leff Street. Page 184 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 64 Figure 40. Key Viewing Area 9: Existing view of the project site as seen from Leff Street near Toro Street. Page 185 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 65 Figure 41. Key Viewing Area 9: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction poles) as seen from Leff Street near Toro Street. Page 186 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 66 Figure 42. Key Viewing Area 9: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction poles) as seen from Leff Street near Toro Street. Page 187 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 67 Figure 43. Key Viewing Area 10: Existing view of the project site as seen from Mitchell Park. Page 188 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 68 Figure 44. Key Viewing Area 10: Photo-simulation of the project (without obstruction light poles) as seen from Mitchell Park. Page 189 of 223 French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project Visual Impact Assessment 69 Figure 45. Key Viewing Area 10: Photo-simulation of the project (with obstruction light poles) as seen from Mitchell Park. Page 190 of 223 Page 191 of 223 Page 192 of 223 Page 193 of 223 Page 194 of 223 N OISE I MPACT A SSESSMENT F OR T H E P R O P O S E D F RENCH H OSPITAL M EDICAL C ENTER E XPANSION P ROJECT S AN L U I S O BISPO, CA SEPTEMBER 2021 PREPARED FOR: SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1422 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PREPARED BY: 75 HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 105 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 Page 195 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Proposed Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Acoustic Fundamentals .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Amplitude ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Frequency ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Addition of Decibels ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Sound Propagation & Attenuation ........................................................................................................................ 3 Noise Descriptors ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Human Response to Noise...................................................................................................................................... 4 Effects of Noise on Human Activities ..................................................................................................................... 5 Existing Setting .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Noise-Sensitive Receptors ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Ambient Noise Environment ................................................................................................................................... 7 Groundborne Vibration .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Noise ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Groundborne Vibration ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Standards of Significance..................................................................................................................................... 12 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 13 References ................................................................................................................................................................. 19 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Common Acoustical Terms and Descriptors ........................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Noise Measurement Data ......................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Transportation Noise Sources ..................................................................................................... 10 Table 4. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Stationary Noise Sources ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 5. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-Term Operation (Less than 10 Days) of Mobile Equipment at Residential Properties ............ 10 Table 6. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled, Relatively Long-Term Operation (10 Days or More) of Stationary Equipment at Residential Properties .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Table 7 Summary of Groundborne Vibration Levels and Potential Effects ..................................................... 11 Table 8. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 14 Table 9. Predicted Increases in Traffic Noise Levels - Existing Conditions ......................................................... 16 Table 10. Predicted Increases in Ambient Noise Levels with Helicopter Operations ........................................ 17 Table 11. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................ 18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Proposed Project Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Typical Community Noise Levels .............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Long-term (24-hour) Noise Measurement Locations .............................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Noise Measurement Data ......................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5. Predicted Existing Average-Daily Noise Levels with Helicopter Operations ...................................... 17 APPENDICES Appendix A: Noise Modeling & Support Documentation Page 196 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 1 INTRODUCTION This report provides an analysis of noise and groundborne vibration impacts associated with the proposed French Hospital Expansion Project (project). This report also provides a summary of existing conditions in the project area and the applicable regulatory framework. This analysis was prepared based, in part, on the noise impact assessment prepared by 45dB Acoustics (April 9, 2020). PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY The existing French Hospital Medical Center is located at 1911 Johnson Avenue in the City of San Luis Obispo. The proposed French Hospital Medical Center expansion includes a new 82-bed wing, a lab, a parking structure, and a helicopter pad. The proposed project’s site plan is depicted in Figure 1. ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, or unexpec ted. Sound, as described in more detail below, is mechanical energy transmitted in the form of a wave because of a disturbance or vibration. Amplitude Amplitude is the difference between ambient air pressure and the peak pressure of the sound wave. Amplitude is measured in decibels (dB) on a logarithmic scale. For example, a 65-dB source of sound, such as a truck, when joined by another 65 dB source results in a sound amplitude of 68 dB, not 130 dB (i.e., doubling the source strength increases the sound pressure by 3 dB). Amplitude is interpreted by the ear as corresponding to different degrees of loudness. Laboratory measurements correlate a 10 dB increase in amplitude with a perceived doubling of loudness and establish a 3-dB change in amplitude as the minimum audible difference perceptible to the average person. Frequency Frequency is the number of fluctuations in the pressure wave per second. The unit of frequency is the Hertz (Hz). One Hz equals one cycle per second. The human ear is not equally sensitive to sound of different frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz or above 20,000 Hz cannot be heard at all, and the ear is more sensitive to sound in the higher portion of this range than in the lower. To approximate this sensitivity, the environmental sound is usually measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). On this scale, the normal range of human hearing extends from about 10 dBA to about 140 dBA. Common community noise sources and noise levels are depicted in Figure 2. Addition of Decibels Because decibels are logarithmic units, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 -dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces a sound level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB; rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of 5 dB. Page 197 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 2 Figure 1. Proposed Project Site Plan Source: Cunningham Group 2021 Page 198 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 3 Figure 2. Typical Community Noise Levels Source: Caltrans 2018 Sound Propagation & Attenuation Geometric Spreading Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path, and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, depending on Page 199 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 4 ground surface characteristics. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water,), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between a line source and the receiver, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation for soft surfaces results in an overall attenuation rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. Shielding by Natural or Human-Made Features A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receiver specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in an approximate 5 dB of noise reduction. Taller barriers provide increased noise reduction. Noise Descriptors The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited in the range of audible frequencies as well as in the way it perceives the sound- pressure level in that range. In general, people are most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000–8,000 Hz, and perceive sounds within that range better than sounds of the same amplitude in higher or lower frequencies. To approximate the response of the human ear, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on the human sensitivity to those frequencies , which is referred to as the “A- weighted” sound level (expressed in units of dBA). The A-weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments corr elate well with the A-weighted noise scale. Other weighting networks have been devised to address high noise levels or other special problems (e.g., B-, C-, and D-scales), but these scales are rarely used in conjunction with environmental noise. The intensity of environmental noise fluctuates over time, and several descriptors of time -averaged noise levels are typically used. For the evaluation of environmental noise, t he most commonly used descriptors are Leq, Ldn, and CNEL. The energy-equivalent noise level, Leq, is a measure of the average energy content (intensity) of noise over any given period. Many communities use 24-hour descriptors of noise levels to regulate noise. The day-night average noise level, Ldn, is the 24-hour average of the noise intensity, with a 10-dBA “penalty” added for nighttime noise (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to account for the greater sensitivity to noise during this period. CNEL, the community equivalent noise level, is similar to L dn but adds an additional 5-dBA penalty for evening noise (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) Common noise descriptors are summarized in Table 1. Human Response to Noise The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well -being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels. When community noise interferes with human activities or contributes to stress, public annoyance with the noise source increases. The acceptability of noise and the threat to public well-being are the basis for land use planning policies preventing exposure to excessive community noise levels. Page 200 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 5 Table 1. Common Acoustical Terms and Descriptors Descriptor Definition Decibel (dB) A unit-less measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to referenced sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micro-pascals. A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. Energy Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) The energy mean (average) noise level. The instantaneous noise levels during a specific period of time in dBA are converted to relative energy values. From the sum of the relative energy values, an average energy value (in dBA) is calculated. Minimum Noise Level (Lmin) The minimum instantaneous noise level during a specific period of time. Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) The maximum instantaneous noise level during a specific period of time. Day-Night Average Noise Level (DNL or Ldn) The 24-hour Leq with a 10 dBA “penalty” for noise events that occur during the noise-sensitive hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In other words, 10 dBA is “added” to noise events that occur in the nighttime hours to account for increased sensitivity to noise during these hours. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The CNEL is similar to the Ldn described above, but with an additional 5 dBA “penalty” added to noise events that occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The calculated CNEL is typically approximately 0.5 dBA higher than the calculated Ldn. Unfortunately, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called “ambient” environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged. Regarding increases in A-weighted noise levels, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding this analysis: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived by humans; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dB change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in a level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable chang e in community response would be expected. An increase of 5 dB is typically considered substantial; • A 10-dB change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. Effects of Noise on Human Activities The extent to which environmental noise is deemed to result in increased levels of annoyance, activity interference, and sleep disruption varies greatly from individual to individual depending on various factors, including the loudness or suddenness of the noise, the information value of the noise (e.g., aircraft overflights, child crying, fire alarm), and an individual’s sleep state and sleep habits. Over time, adaptation to noise events and increased levels of noise may also occur. In terms of land use compatibility, environmental noise is often evaluated in terms of the potential for noise events to result in increased levels of annoyance, sleep disruption, or interference with speech communication, activities, and learning. Page 201 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 6 Speech Communication For most noise-sensitive land uses, an interior noise level of 45 dB L eq is typically identified for the protection of speech communication in order to provide for 100 -percent intelligibility of speech sounds. Assuming an average 20-dB reduction in sound level between outdoors and indoors (which is an average amount of sound attenuation that assumes windows are closed), this interior noise level would equate to an exterior noise level of 65 dBA Leq. For outdoor voice communication, an exterior noise level of 60 dBA Leq allows normal conversation at distances up to 2 meters with 95 percent sentence intelligibility (U.S. EPA 1974.) Based on this information, speech interference begins to become a problem when steady noise levels reach approximately 60 to 65 dBA. Annoyance & Sleep Disruption With regard to potential increases in annoyance, activity interference, and sleep disruption, land use compatibility determinations are typically based on the use of the cumulative noise exposu re metrics (i.e., CNEL or Ldn). Perhaps the most comprehensive and widely accepted evaluation of the relationship between noise exposure and the extent of annoyance was one originally developed by Theodore J. Schultz in 1978. In 1978 the research findings of Theodore J. Schultz provided support for Ldn as the descriptor for environmental noise. Research conducted by Schultz identified a correlation between the cumulative noise exposure metric and individuals who were highly annoyed by transportation noise. The Schultz curve, expressing this correlation, became a basis for noise standards. When expressed graphically, this relationship is typically referred to as the Schultz curve . The Schultz curve indicates that approximately 13 percent of the population is highly annoyed at a noise level of 65 dBA Ldn. It also indicates that the percent of people describing themselves as being highly annoyed accelerates smoothly between 55 and 70 dBA Ldn. A noise level of 65 dBA Ldn is a commonly referenced dividing point between lower and higher rates of people describing themselves as being highly annoyed. The Schultz curve and associated research became the basis for many of the noise criteria subsequently established for federal, state, and local entities. Most federal and state of California regulations and policies related to transportation noise sources establish a noise level of 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn as the basic limit of acceptable noise exposure for residential and other noise-sensitive land uses. For instance, with respect to aircraft noise, both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the State of California have identified a noise level of 65 dBA Ldn as the dividing point between normally compatible and normally incompatible residential land use generally applied for the determination of land use compatibility. For noise-sensitive land uses exposed to aircraft noise, noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn are typically considered to result in a potentially significant increase in levels of annoyance . Allowing for an average exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 20 dB, an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn would equate to an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn. An interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL/Ldn is generally considered sufficient to protect against activity interference at most noise-sensitive land uses, including residential dwellings, and would also be sufficient to protect against sleep interference (U.S. EPA, 1974.) Within California, the California Building Code establishes a noise level of 45 dBA CNEL as the maximum acceptable interior noise level for residential uses (other than detached single -family dwellings). Use of the 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn threshold is further supported by recommendations provided in the State of California Office of Planning and Research’s General Plan Guidelines (2017), which recommend an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL/Ldn as the maximum allowable interior noise level sufficient to permit “normal residential activity”. The cumulative noise exposure metric is currently the only noise metric for which there is a substantial body of research data and regulatory guidance defining the relationship between noise exposure, people’s reactions, and land use compatibility. However, when evaluating environmental noise impacts involving intermittent noise events, such as aircraft overflights and train passbys, the use of cumulative noise metrics may not provide a thorough understanding of the resultant impact. The general public often finds it difficult to understand the relationship between intermittent noise events and cumulative noise exposure metrics. In such instances, supplemental use of single-event noise metrics, such as the SEL descriptor, may be helpful as a means of increasing public understanding regarding the relation ship between these metrics and the extent of the resultant noise impact. Page 202 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 7 Although the use of supplemental noise descriptors can provide increased understanding of intermittent noise events and relationship to the cumulative noise metrics, current environm ental regulations do not identify quantitative criteria, metrics, or computation methods pertaining to single -event noise exposure for determination of land use compatibility. However, with regard to aircraft noise exposure, Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) has provided non-regulatory guidance for estimating the expected percent of awakenings that may result from single aircraft noise events. For example, at an indoor sound exposure of SEL 80 dBA, the FICAN data indicates that approximately 10 percent of exposed individuals would be awakened. Although some estimates of the percentage of people expected to be awakened when exposed to specific single-event noise levels inside a home have been provided, no quantitative determination as to what frequency of awakening would be acceptable has been made by Federal, State or local entities. Although no quantitative thresholds have yet been identified with regard to single-event noise exposure, the indication from several studies is that the noi se threshold for significant occurrence of sleep disruption is higher than for speech interference. EXISTING SETTING Noise-Sensitive Receptors Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are also considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses. Noise-sensitive land uses in the project vicinity consist predominantly of residential land uses. The nearest residential land uses are generally located to the south and west of the project site. Ambient Noise Environment To document the existing noise environment in the project vicinity, continuous long-term (i.e., 24 hour) noise measurements were conducted by 45dB from 13 December through 14 December 2018 at nearby residential sensitive receivers. Measurements were conducted using four ‘Piccolo’ Type 2 sound level meters, field-calibrated with a Brüel&Kjær 4231 Type 1 calibrator. All measurements were made at the standard receiver height of 1.3m Above Ground Level (AGL). Noise measurement locations are depicted in Figure 3. Measured noise levels are depicted graphically in Figure 4 and summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Noise Measurement Data Measurement Location Major Noise Sources Measured Noise Levels Average-Hourly (dBA Leq) Average-Daily (dBA CNEL) 02: Street side of parking lot at SLCUSD at Fixlini St., north of Lizzie St. Residential traffic, San Luis Unified School District parking lot. 45 - 67 56.3 05: Westernmost parking lot boundary of French Hospital, just east of UPRR tracks. French Hospital parking lot traffic, distant Johnson Ave. traffic, and occasional train pass-bys 47 - 67 53.9 06: Empty, treed lot SW of Fairview St. at Breck St., just east of UPRR tracks. Johnson Avenue traffic and occasional train pass-bys 46 - 69 57.8 07: Front entrance/yard of 1545 Lizzie St. Residential Traffic 46 - 69 56.2 Source: 45dB Acoustics 2021 As noted in Table 2, measured average hourly noise levels in the project area generally range from a nighttime low of 45 dBA Leq to a daytime high of 69 dBA Leq. Measured average-daily noise levels ranged Page 203 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 8 from approximately 54 to 58 dBA CNEL . Noise levels are predominantly influenced by vehicle traffic on area roadways and parking lots, as well as, occasional train pass-bys (45dB Acoustics 2020). Figure 3. Long-term (24-hour) Noise Measurement Locations Source: 45dB Acoustics 2021 Figure 4. Noise Measurement Data Source: 45dB Acoustics 2021 Page 204 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 9 Groundborne Vibration No major existing sources of groundborne vibration were identified in t he project area. Vehicle traffic on area roadways, particularly heavy-duty trucks, can result in increased groundborne vibration. However, groundborne vibration levels associated with vehicle traffic is typically considered minor and would not exceed applicable criteria at the project site boundaries. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Noise City of San Luis Obispo General Plan The City’s General Plan Noise Element sets noise exposure standards for the determination of land use compatibility for new noise-sensitive land uses and establishes performance standards for new transportation and non-transportation noise sources. The City’s noise standards for transportation noise sources are summarized in Table 3. As depicted in Table 3, the noise standard for transportation noise sources ranges from an exterior level of 60 to 70 dBA CNEL/L dn, depending on the land use. Interior noise standards for new transportation noise sources range from 35 to 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn. The City’s General Plan noise standards for non-transportation noise sources are summarized in Table 4. With regard to new non-transportation noise sources, the City’s average-hourly noise standards are 50 dBA Leq during the daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Instantaneous noise level standards are 70 dBA Lmax during the daytime hours and 65 dBA Lmax during the nighttime hours. Impulsive noise sources, such as hammering, are limited to 65 dBA Lmax during the daytime hours and 60 dBA Lmax during the nighttime hours. (City of San Luis Obispo 1996). City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code The City’s Noise Control Ordinance is contained in Municipal Code, Chapter 9.12. Section 9.12.050 and specifies noise standards for various categories of land use. The City’s municipal code standards apply to existing noise sources, as well as, construction activities. The City’s maximum allowable noise levels for short-term operation of mobile equipment and long-term operation of stationary equipment at residential properties are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. These standards applied at the property line of the receiving residential land uses for construction activities that utilize noise-generating mobile or stationary equipment. Accordingly, maximum sound levels from mobile equipment are limited to 75 dBA at single-family residential, 80 dBA at multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses. Except for emergency repair of public service utilities, or where an exception is issued by the City, construction activities are typically limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and prohibited on Sundays and holidays. For instantaneous noise events, the City also limits interior noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses to 60 dBA Lmax. Page 205 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 10 Table 3. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Transportation Noise Sources Land Use Outdoor Activity Areas (CNEL/Ldn)1,2 Interior Spaces CNEL/Ldn2 Leq3 Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes 60 45 -- Theaters, auditoriums, music halls -- -- 35 Churches, meeting halls, office building, mortuaries 60 -- 45 Schools, libraries, museums -- -- 45 Neighborhood parks 65 -- -- Playgrounds 70 -- -- 1. If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use. 2. Ldn (day-night average level) is the energy-averaged sound level measured over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty assigned to noise events occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM and a 5-dB penalty assigned to noise events occurring between 7:00 PM and 10 PM. 3. Leq (equivalent sound level) is the constant or single sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying sound, over a certain time. If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use. Source: City of San Luis Obispo 1996 Table 4. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Stationary Noise Sources Duration Day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Hourly (dBA Leq) 1,2 50 45 Maximum (dBA Lmax) 1,2 70 65 Impulsive (dBA Lmax) 1,3 65 60 1. As determined at the property line of the receiver. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may; be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property-line noise mitigation measures. 2. Sound level measurements shall be made with slow meter response. 3. Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter response. Source: City of San Luis Obispo 1996 Table 5. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-Term Operation (Less than 10 Days) of Mobile Equipment at Residential Properties Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA) Single-Family Residential Daily 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, except Sundays and legal holidays 75 Multi-Family Residential 80 Mixed Residential/Commercial 85 Single-Family Residential 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, all day Sunday and legal holidays 60 Multi-Family Residential 65 Mixed Residential/Commercial 70 Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2021 Table 6. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled, Relatively Long-Term Operation (10 Days or More) of Stationary Equipment at Residential Properties Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA) Single-Family Residential Daily 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, except Sundays and legal holidays 60 Multi-Family Residential 65 Mixed Residential/Commercial 70 Single-Family Residential 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, all day Sunday and legal holidays 50 Multi-Family Residential 55 Mixed Residential/Commercial 60 Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2021 Page 206 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 11 Groundborne Vibration Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception of the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating. Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. Measurements in terms of velocity are expressed as peak particle velocity (P PV) with units of inches per second (in/sec). There are no federal, state, or local regulatory standards for groundborne vibration. However, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed vibration criteria based on potential structural damage risks and human annoyance. Caltrans-recommended criteria for the evaluation of groundborne vibration levels, with regard to structural damage and human annoyance, are summarized in Table 7. The criteria apply to continuous vibration sources, which include vehicle traffic and most construction activities. All damage criteria for buildings are in terms of ground motion at the buildings' foundations. No allowance is included for the amplifying effects of structural components (Caltrans 2020). As indicated in Table 7, the threshold at which there is a risk to normal structures from continuous events is 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures and 0.5 in/sec PPV for newer building construction. With regard to human perception, vibration levels would begin to become distinctly perceptible at levels of 0.04 in/sec PPV for continuous events. Continuous vibration levels are considered potentially annoying for people in buildings at levels of 0.2 in/sec PPV. Table 7 Summary of Groundborne Vibration Levels and Potential Effects Vibration Level (in/sec ppv) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.006 - 0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion. Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type. 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible. Recommended upper level of the vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected. 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations begin to annoy people. Virtually no risk of “architectural” damage to normal buildings. 0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings (this agrees with the levels established for people standing on bridges and subjected to relatively short periods of vibrations). Threshold at which there is a risk of “architectural” damage to fragile buildings. 0.3 - 0.6 Vibrations become distinctly perceptible at 0.04 in/sec ppv and considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable to some people walking on bridges. Potential risk of “architectural” damage may occur at levels above 0.3 in/sec ppv for older residential structures and above 0.5 in/sec ppv for newer structures. The vibration levels are based on peak particle velocity in the vertical direction for continuous vibration sources, which includes most construction activities. Source: Caltrans 2020 Page 207 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 12 IMPACT ANALYSIS Standards of Significance Criteria for determining the significance of noise impacts were developed based on information contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Appendix G). According to those guidelines, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the following conditions: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or c) Located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or private-use airport, that exposes people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The nearest commercial use airport is the San Luis Obispo County Airport, which is generally located approximately 3.5 miles south of the campus. Implementation of the proposed project would not affect airport operations, nor would implementation of the proposed Master Plan result in the development or relocation of any noise-sensitive land uses in proximity to an airport or airstrip. As a result, implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not result in increased exposure of individuals to excessive aircraft noise levels associated with the existing airport. In addition, there are no existing private airstrips located within two miles of the campus. For these reasons, noise impacts associated with exposure to aircraft noise levels were identified as being less than significant or having no impact and will not be further discussed in this report. Significance thresholds used in this analysis are discussed in greater detail, as follows: • Short-term Exposure to Construction-Generated Noise — According to the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, areas consisting of single-family residential uses should be limited to a maximum construction-generated noise level of 75 dBA during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and 60 dBA during the nighttime hours (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Project-generated construction noise levels that would exceed these limits at nearby noise-sensitive land uses would be considered to have a potentially significant impact. • Long-term Exposure to Project-Generated Noise — Long-term operational noise impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels that would exceed applicable City of San Luis Obispo’s noise standards for transportation and stationary sources (refer to Tables 4 and 5, respectively). Significant increases in noise levels are defined as an increase of 5 dBA or more. • Groundborne Vibration — Groundborne vibration levels would be considered significant if predicted short-term construction or long-term operational groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would exceed the commonly recommended criteria for structural damage and human annoyance of 0.2 in/sec ppv (Tables 10) at nearby existing or proposed onsite structures. Methodology Short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities were analyzed based on typical construction equipment noise levels and distances to the nearest noise -sensitive land uses. Noise levels were predicted based on an average noise-attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source. Stationary sources noise levels were predicted based on representative noise levels for similar equipment and assuming an average noise-attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source. Traffic noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) roadway Page 208 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 13 noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108) based on California vehicle reference noise levels and traffic data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project. Additional input data included day/night percentages of autos, medium and heavy trucks, vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. The project’s contribution to traffic noise levels along area roadways was determined by comparing the predicted noise levels with and without project-generated traffic. Helicopter noise levels were calculated using the SoundPLAN noise model based on flight path i nformation provided for the proposed helipad (Heliplanners 2019). Representative noise levels for an Airbus H135 were used for takeoff, flyover, and approach. Helicopter operations were distributed over a 24-hour period for calculation of average-daily operational noise levels. Seventy percent of flights were assumed to occur during daytime hours (i.e. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.); fifteen percent of flights during evening hours (i.e. 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.); and fifteen percent of flights during nighttime hours (i.e. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Modeling was based on a total of approximately fifty flights per year, averaging approximately four flights per month (45dB Acoustics 2020). Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Noise-A: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Exposure to Construction Noise Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending upon the nature or phase (e.g., demolition/land clearing, grading and excavation, erection) of construction. Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and por table generators, can reach high levels. Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the initial site preparation phase tends to involve the most equipment. As noted in Table 8, noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment typically range from approximately 77 to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Typical operating cycles may involve 2 minutes of full power, followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower settings. Average-hourly noise levels associated with construction equipment generally range from approximately 72 to 82 dBA Leq at 50 feet (FHWA 2008). Noise from localized point sources, such as construction sites, typically decreases by approximately 6 to 7.5 dBA with each doubling of distance from source to receptor. Assuming a minimum noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source and the equipment noise levels noted above, construction-related noise levels could reach 75 dBA Leq at approximately 120 feet. Instantaneous noise levels could reach 75 dBA Lmax at 295 feet. Depending on the construction activities conducted, equipment used, hours of use, and distance to nearby noise-sensitive land uses, construction-generated noise levels may exceed applicable noise standards. Based on the exterior noise levels noted above and assuming an average exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 25 dBA, predicted interior noise levels of noise-sensitive buildings (e.g., classrooms, offices) located within approximately 200 feet of construction sites could p otentially exceed the commonly applied interior noise standard of 45 dBA Leq. With regard to residential land uses, noise levels associated with construction activities occurring during the more noise-sensitive evening and nighttime hours (i.e., 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) are also of increased concern. Because exterior ambient noise levels typically decrease during the evening and nighttime hours, as community activities (e.g., commercial activities, vehicle traffic) decrease, construction activities performed during these more noise-sensitive periods of the day can result in increased annoyance and potential sleep disruption for occu pants of nearby residential dwellings. Page 209 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 14 Table 8. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Noise Level (dBA at 50 feet) Lmax Leq Backhoes 78 74 Bulldozers 82 78 Compressors 78 74 Cranes 81 73 Concrete Pump Truck 81 74 Drill Rigs 79 72 Dump Trucks 77 73 Excavator 81 77 Generator 81 78 Gradall 83 79 Grader 85 81 Hydraulic Break Rams 90 80 Front End Loaders 79 75 Pneumatic Tools 85 82 Pumps 81 78 Rollers 80 73 Scrapers 84 80 Tractor 84 80 Based on measured instantaneous noise levels (Lmax), average equipment usage rates, and calculated average- hourly (Leq) noise levels derived from the FHWA Road Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2008) Mitigation Measures Noise-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce short-term construction noise impacts: a. Construction activities (excluding activities that would result in a safety concern to the public or construction workers) shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, where possible. Construction activities would be prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays. b. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. c. Construction equipment staging areas shall be located at the furthest distance possible f rom nearby noise-sensitive land uses. d. Stationary noise sources such as generators or pumps shall be located at the furthest distance possible from noise sensitive uses. e. No less than one week prior to the start of construction activities at a particular loc ation, notification shall be provided to nearby noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences) that are located within 200 feet of the construction site. Significance after Mitigation Mitigation Measure Noise-1 would limit the periods during which construction activities would occur when in the vicinity of nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Additional measures would also be required to further reduce the potential for noise exposure, including the use of alternatively powered equipment, exhaust mufflers, engine shrouds, and equipment enclosures for activities located in the vicinity of noise -sensitive uses. Implementation of these noise-reduction features can reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10 dBA, or more. With mitigation and given that construction would be short-term, this impact would be considered less than significant. Exposure to Increased Stationary Source Noise Noise sources commonly associated with proposed future facilities would include occasional parking lot activities (e.g., opening and closing of vehicle doors, people talking), and use of onsite building equipment, such as HVAC systems, boilers, and power generators. Noise levels associated with these noise sources are discussed separately, as follows: Page 210 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 15 Vehicle Parking Lot The proposed project includes the construction of an 82-space parking structure. Based on a conservative assumption that all parking spaces would to be accessed over a one-hour period, predicted noise levels at the nearest residential land use would be less than 29 dBA Leq, or less. Predicted operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s noise standards and would be largely masked by ambient noise conditions. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant. Building Mechanical Equipment The proposed patient tower would result in increased stationary source noise levels, primarily associated with building mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air handling/cooling systems). Detailed information regarding the equipment to be installed is not yet available. However, based on noise measurement data for similar commercial-use air handling and cooling systems, operational noise levels would be approximately 78 dBA at 3 feet. Building equipment, such as HVAC systems and boilers, would be located within the interior of the structure or on the rooftop and shielded from direct public exposure. The rooftop mechanical equipment area would be located approximately 68 feet above ground level and enclosed by an approximate 10 foot high barrier. The nearest noise-sensitive land use is a residential dwelling located approximately 50 feet south of the proposed patient tower. Based on this distance and the operational noise levels noted above, predicted operational noise levels at this nearest residence would be approximately 43 dBA Leq, or less. Predicted operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s noise standards and would be largely masked by ambient noise conditions. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant. Emergency Back-up Power Generators Two emergency generators are proposed within the proposed exterior mechanical yard. The operation of emergency generators is typically limited to occasional maintenance and testing, which typically occurs monthly for periods of approximately five to ten minutes. During emergency use, the generators may run for an indefinite period. Based on representative noise data provided by the generator manufacturer operational noise levels for each generator would be approximately 76-81 dBA at 23 feet. The proposed mechanical yard would be enclosed by a 10-foot concrete masonry unit (concrete block) wall, which would reduce noise levels by approximately 8 dBA. The nearest noise-sensitive location is an existing residential dwelling located approximately 135 feet to the south. Based on this distance, the operational noise levels noted above, and assuming that the generators were to run continuously over a one-hour period, the highest predicted noise levels at this nearest residence would be 59 dBA Leq. These operational conditions would be predominantly limited to periods of emergency use. During normal maintenance and testing periods, during which generator operations would typically occur for periods of approximately 5-10 minutes during the daytime hours, predicted noise levels at the nearest residential land use would be less than 45 dBA Leq. The use of back-up power generators for emergency purposes is exempt from the City’s noise ordinance requirements. Nonetheless, given that predicted operational noise levels during routine maintenance and testing periods could potentially exceed the City’s noise standards, this impact would be c onsidered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Noise-2: Backup power generators shall be enclosed within a fully-enclosed sound-attenuated container in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Significance after Mitigation Mitigation Measure Noise-2 would require backup power generators to be enclosed within a sound- attenuated container in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Based on representative data for similar generators/enclosures, predicted operational noise levels w ould be reduced to approximately 75 dBA at 23 feet. With mitigation, predicted operational noise levels at the nearest residential land use would be reduced to approximately 50 dBA Leq. Operational noise levels associated with routine maintenance Page 211 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 16 and testing activities would not be projected to exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime noise standards of 50 and 45 dBA Leq, respectively. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less than significant. Exposure to Increased Roadway Traffic Noise Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased traffic volumes on some area roadways. The increase in traffic volumes resulting from implementation of the proposed project would, therefore, contribute to predicted increases in traffic noise levels. Predicted changes in traffic noise levels in comparison to existing and future cumulative conditions are discussed separately, as follows: Predicted existing traffic noise levels and increases associated with implementation of the proposed project are summarized in Table 9. As depicted, implementation of the proposed project would result in predicted increases in traffic noise levels of approximately 0.3 dBA, or less, along primarily affected area roadway segments. As noted earlier in this report, perceptible changes in ambient noise levels do not typically occur at levels below 3 dBA. Based on the modeling conducted, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic noise levels at nearby noise -sensitive land uses. As a result, predicted increases in traffic noise levels associated with implementation of the proposed Master Plan would is considered less than significant. Table 9. Predicted Increases in Traffic Noise Levels - Existing Conditions Roadway Predicted CNEL, 50 Feet from Near- Travel Lane Centerline Predicted Change Significant Increase? Without Project With Project Johnson Avenue, San Luis Drive to Ella Street 65.2 65.5 0.3 No Johnson Avenue, Ella Street to Bishop Street 64.8 65.0 0.2 No Johnson Avenue, Bishop Street to Sydney Street 64.9 65.1 0.2 No Johnson Avenue, Sydney Street to Laurel Lane 64.5 64.7 0.2 No Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108) based on data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project. Exposure to Helicopter Noise Helicopters produce a unique sound that is easily recognizable. While modern light- and medium-weight civil helicopters are much quieter than older helicopters and much quiete r than heavy military helicopters they are often the focus of much community concern. Helicopter noise levels were calculated using the SoundPLAN noise model based on flight path information provided for the proposed helipad (Heliplanners 2019). Representative noise levels for an Airbus H135 were used for takeoff, flyover, and approach. Helicopter operations were distributed over a 24 -hour period for calculation of average-daily operational noise levels. Seventy percent of flights were assumed to occur during daytime hours (i.e. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.); fifteen percent of flights during evening hours (i.e. 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.); and fifteen percent of flights during nighttime hours (i.e. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Modeling was based on a total of approximately fifty flights per year, averaging approximately four flights per month (45dB Acoustics 2020). Predicted existing average-daily noise levels with helicopter operations are depicted in Figure 5. Predicted increases in existing noise levels are summarized in Table 10 (45dB Acoustics 2020). Based on the modeling conducted and in comparison to existing average-daily noise levels, the proposed helipad would result in an estimated increase in average-daily noise levels of approximately 1 dBA CNEL at residences located nearest the proposed helipad. Predicted increases in noise levels at other nearby noise-sensitive land uses would be negligible. Noise associated with helicopter flights would be detectable at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, including residential land uses located near the flight path, for short-periods of time (e.g., minutes). However, in comparison to existing ambient noise conditions, short-term noise levels would not be uncharacteristic of similar existing noise events that occur in the project area, such as train pass-bys. For this Page 212 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 17 reason and given that exposure to helicopter noise would be intermittent and short-term and would not result in a significant increase in average-daily noise levels, this impact would be considered less than significant. Figure 5. Predicted Existing Average-Daily Noise Levels with Helicopter Operations Source: 45dB Acoustics 2020 Table 10. Predicted Increases in Ambient Noise Levels with Helicopter Operations Location Average Daily Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Average Hourly Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Existing Existing Plus Helicopter Increase with Helicopter Existing Existing Plus Helicopter Increase with Helicopter 01 56 56 None 55 55 0.1 05 54 55 1 53 54 1 06 58 58 None 54 54 None 08 57 57 None 55 55 None Refer to Figure 5 for noise-prediction locations. Source: 45dB Acoustics 2020 Page 213 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 18 Impact Noise-B: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No major stationary sources of groundborne vibration were identified in the project area that would result in the long-term exposure of proposed onsite land uses to unacceptable levels of ground vibration. In addition, the proposed project would not involve the use of any major equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration that would exceed these standards at nearby existing land uses. However, construction activities associated with the proposed project would require the use of various tractors, trucks, and jackhammers that could result in intermittent increases in groundborne vibration levels. The use of major groundborne vibration-generating construction equipment/processes (i.e., blasting, pile driving) is not anticipated to be required for construction of future onsite land uses. Groundborne vibration levels commonly associated with construction equipment are summarized in Table 11. As identified, groundborne vibration levels generated by construction equipment would be approximately 0.09 in/sec ppv, or less, at 25 feet. Predicted groundborne vibration levels would not be anticipated to exceed the minimum recommended criteria for structural damage or human annoyance (0.2 in/sec ppv) at nearby land uses. As a result, short-term groundborne vibration impacts would be considered less than significant. Table 11. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet (In/Sec) Large Bulldozers 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozers 0.003 Source: FTA 2006, Caltrans 2013 Impact Noise-C: Located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or private-use airport, that exposes people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan, or withi n two miles of a public or private-use airport. The nearest airport is San Luis Obispo Regional Airport, which is located approximately 2.3 miles south of the project site. No Impact. Page 214 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 19 REFERENCES 45dB Acoustics. April 9, 2020. Acoustic Assessment: French Hospital Expansion, Proposed Helistop. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). September 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Website url: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. IS/EA Annotated Outline. Website url: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/templates/ao/is_ea_ao.docx. City of San Luis Obispo. May 7, 1996. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Noise Element. Website url: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning- zoning/general-plan. City of San Luis Obispo. 2008. Code of Ordinances. Title 9, Public Peace, Morals and Welfare. Chapter 9.12, Noise Control. Available at website url: https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). December 8, 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model, version 1.1. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Michael Baker International. April 8, 2021. French Hospital Medical Center Expansion VMT Assessment. Michael Baker International. August 5, 2020. Focused Multimodal Transportation Analysis French Hospital Medical Center. Orosz Engineering Group (OEG). 2020. French Hospital Update – Trip Generation and Parking 2020 Land Use, Parking Garage Location and Site Staff Parking. SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2021. Email correspondence with Kurt Legleiter, Principal, AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting. State of California. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Website url: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf. Page 215 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 20 APPENDIX A Noise Modeling & Support Documentation Page 216 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 21 DISTANCES TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES PARKING STRUCTURE GENERATOR YARD Page 217 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 22 WALL: 10 FT CMU SOUND LEVEL: 76 DBA @ 7 METERS (Caterpillar 2021) Page 218 of 223 Noise Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting French Hospital Medical Center Expansion Project September 2021 23 ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOF HEIGHT: 68 FT ROOF TOP MECHANICAL SCREEN HEIGHT: 10 FT Page 219 of 223 70 65 60 EXISTING CONDITIONS JOHNSON AVE SAN LUIS DR - ELLA ST 35 19,300 0 81.7 166.5 65.2 JOHNSON AVE ELLA ST - BISHOP ST 35 17,900 0 78.3 158.7 64.8 JOHNSON AVE BISHOP ST - SYDNEY ST 35 15,200 0 67.4 141 64.9 JOHNSON AVE SYDNEY ST - LAUREL LN 35 13,700 0 63.2 131.7 64.5 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT JOHNSON AVE SAN LUIS DR - ELLA ST 35 20,700 0 85.1 174.2 65.5 JOHNSON AVE ELLA ST - BISHOP ST 35 18,500 0 79.8 162.1 65.0 JOHNSON AVE BISHOP ST - SYDNEY ST 35 15,800 0 69 144.6 65.1 JOHNSON AVE SYDNEY ST - LAUREL LN 35 14,300 0 64.9 135.5 64.7 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CHANGE JOHNSON AVE SAN LUIS DR - ELLA ST 0.3 JOHNSON AVE ELLA ST - BISHOP ST 0.1 JOHNSON AVE BISHOP ST - SYDNEY ST 0.2 JOHNSON AVE SYDNEY ST - LAUREL LN 0.2 DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOURS (FEET)CNEL AT 50 FEETSCENARIO/ROADWAY SEGMENTS SPEED (MPH) VOLUME (ADT) Page 220 of 223 COLORS AND MATERIALS FHMC PARKING DECK D B A Corrugated "Box" Metal Siding - Elevator Tower (Pac-Clad Precision, Slate Gray to match existing Copeland Pavilion) DPainted Concrete - Full Height Walls & Painted Metal - Stairs Sherwin-Willams SW7018 Dovetail BPainted Concrete - Gaurdrails Sherwin-Willams SW7680 Lanyard (Color to match existing Copeland Pavillion) A Elastomeric Finish - Stucco Walls at Lab Sherwin-Willams SW6102 Portabello C C Apr 27, 2020 Page 221 of 223 Page 222 of 223 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADIGNITY HEALTH FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER - NEW PATIENT CARE TOWERELASTOMERIC FINISHSHERWIN WILLIAMS | SW7680 LANYARD ELASTOMERIC FINISHSHERWIN WILLIAMS | SW7508 TAVERN TAUPEALUMINUM FRAMING & COLUMN COVERSANODIZED ALUMINUM | CLEARSPANDREL GLAZINGICD | OPACI-COAT 300 HARMONY BLUE WINDOW GLAZINGVITRO | SOLEXIA WITH SOLARBAN 60125678LOUVERED EQUIPMENT SCREENARCHITECTURAL LOUVERS | SLATE GRAY216834CONCRETE BOARDFORMFORM LINER | NATURAL CONCRETECORRUGATED METALMC ELROY MEGA-RIB PANELS | SLATE 3457218435553Page 223 of 223