The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-18-2022 ARC Agenda Packet Architectural Review Commission AGENDA Monday, July 18, 2022, 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo The City of San Luis Obispo has returned to in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be supported. For those attending in-person, City facilities will be at limited capacity and masks are strongly recommended. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting): Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting. Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. *All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received after the deadline will not be processed until the following day. Public Comment during the meeting: Meetings have returned to an in-person format. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be present in the Council Chambers. Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy, Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation are encouraged to provide display-ready material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7100. Pages 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Mayou will call the Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission to order. 2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA The public is encouraged to submit comments on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission that does not appear on this agenda. Although the Commission will not take action on items presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a future agenda for discussion. 3.CONSENT Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non- controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Architectural Review Commission to pull an item for discussion. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute time limit. Recommendation: To approve the Consent Item. 3.a.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - JUNE 20, 2022 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES 5 Consideration of the Architectural Review Commission Minutes of June 20, 2022. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: The action of the Architectural Review Commission is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body, or to City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. 4.a.2223 MONTEREY ST. (ARCH-0327-2022) REVIEW OF A REVISED PROJECT DESIGN FOR THE MOTEL INN, AN 83-ROOM HOTEL WITH 29 BUNGALOW GUESTROOM BUILDINGS, FOUR SMALL OUTBUILDINGS, POOL AREA, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING A SOUND WALL 9 Recommendation: Review the proposed revisions to the project design of the previously approved Motel Inn project and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the consistency of the revised design with the City’s Community Design Guidelines. 4.b.736 ORCUTT RD. (ARCH-0221-2021) REVIEW OF A NEW 18,489-SF, THREE-STORY, MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 40 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND 850 SF OF COMMERCIAL SPACE 101 Recommendation: Review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and provide comments and recommendations to the Community Development Director. 5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a.STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Receive a brief update from Senior Planner Rachel Cohen. 6.ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission is scheduled for August 1, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available -- see the Clerk The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Architectural Review Commission are available for public inspection on the City’s website, under the Public Meeting Agendas web page: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor- and-city-council/agendas-and-minutes. Meeting video recordings can be found on the City’s website: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=60946&dbid=0&repo=CityCl erk 1 Architectural Review Commission Minutes June 20, 2022, 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commissioners Present: Commissioner Kelley Abbas, Commissioner Michael Clark, Commissioner Jacob Domine, Vice Chair Brian Pineda (arrived at 5:30 p.m.), Chair Ashley Mayou Absent: Commissioner Robert Arens, Commissioner Michael DeMartini City Staff Present: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission was called to order on June 20, 2022 at 5:02 p.m. in the Coun cil Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Mayou. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Public Comment: None --End of Public Comment-- 3. CONSENT 3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - APRIL 18, 2022 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Motion By Commissioner Clark Second By Commissioner Abbas To approve the Architectural Review Commission Minutes of April 18, 2022. Ayes (4): Commissioner Abbas, Commissioner Clark, Commissioner Domine, and Chair Mayou Absent (3): Commissioner Arens, Commissioner DeMartini, and Vice Chair Pineda CARRIED (4 to 0) Page 5 of 135 2 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.a 175 VENTURE (ARCH-0084-2022) REVIEW OF THE R-1 PORTION (PHASE 5) OF THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WOULD ALLOW UP TO 101 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS Senior Planner Brian Leveille introduced Contract Planner John Rickenbach, who presented the staff report. Applicant representatives Carol Florence and Michael Stone provided a brief overview of the overall project, a focused presentation on development area Phase 5, and responded to questions raised by the Commission. Chair Mayou opened the Public Hearing Public Comments: None --End of Public Comment-- Chair Mayou closed the Public Hearing Motion By Chair Mayou Second By Commissioner Clark Find the project consistent with the design policies and guidelines of Airport Area Specific Plan, Avila Ranch Development Plan, and the Community Design Guidelines, and provide the following recommendations to the Planning Commission for final approval:  Evaluate the size and functionality of the porches.  Look at options to enhance safety and connections for crossing the street to the bridge at Wright Bros. and Earhardt Way Ayes (5): Commissioner Abbas, Commissioner Clark, Commissioner Domine, Vice Chair Pineda, and Chair Mayou Absent (2): Commissioner Arens, and Commissioner DeMartini CARRIED (5 to 0) Page 6 of 135 3 5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:53 p.m. The next rescheduled Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission will be held on July 11, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. The Regular Meeting of July 4, 2022 will be cancelled due to the Independence Day Holiday. _________________________ APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/202X Page 7 of 135 Page 8 of 135 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A REVISED PROJECT DESIGN FOR THE MOTEL INN, AN 83-ROOM HOTEL WITH 29 BUNGALOW GUESTROOM BUILDINGS, FOUR SMALL OUTBUILDINGS, POOL AREA, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING A SOUND WALL (ARCH-0327-2021) BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner FROM: Rachel Cohen, Senior Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7574 Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: rcohen@slocity.org APPLICANT: Motel Inn, L.P. REPRESENTATIVE: Studio Design Group Architects RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed revisions to the project design of the previously approved Motel Inn project and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the consistency of the revised design with the City’s Community Design Guidelines. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING 1.1 Project Site The project site is a 4.19-acre parcel on the south side of Monterey Street at its intersection with U.S. Highway 101. The highway and its northbound onramp travel along the northern edge of the site. San Luis Obispo Creek flows along the south and east sides of the property, with a low- density residential neighborhood, situated along San Luis Drive, across the creek from the site. Tourist-serving businesses (e.g., Apple Farm Inn, La Cuesta Inn) operate to the west of the site, within a concentration of lodging and restaurants at the northern end of Monterey Street. Location: Upper Monterey Street (at Highway 101 On-Ramp) General Plan: Tourist Commercial Zoning: C-T-S Surrounding Uses: East: Undeveloped West: Lodging (Apple Farm) North: Highway 101 South: Low Density Residential Meeting Date: 7/18/2022 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 45 Minutes Figure 1: Subject Property (2223 Monterey) Page 9 of 135 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 The property was developed with the Milestone Motel, built in 1924 -1925, designed by architects Alfred and Arthur Heineman in a Mission Revival architectural style, a nd claimed as the first place in the world to call itself a “motel.” The property is a Master List Resource in City’s Inventory of Historical Resource, although most of the original motel complex (most recently known as the Motel Inn) was demolished in the early 2000s due to extensive deterioration, having been significantly altered and no longer holding historic significance. The remaining historic portions consist of a façade wall from the original restaurant and portions of the lobby building which inclu de a three-tiered bell tower with a copper dome (Figure 1, below). 1.2 Ordinances 1130 and 1651 In 1989 an “(S) Overlay Zone” was applied to property along this st retch of Monterey Street, denoting special considerations applicable to the site regarding land use compatibility between commercial and residential land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. The Ordinance 1130 included design criteria in order to protect the creek habitat and nearby residential uses. These design criteria were subsequently amended by Ordinance 1651 adopted by the City Council in September, 2018 (see Attachment A). Conformance of the revised project design to the design criteria in these Ordinances is discussed in § 5.0 of this report, below. 1.3 Project Description The applicant proposes to develop the property with an 83 -room hotel comprised of a restaurant and lobby building, 29 bungalow buildings providing guest accommodation, four maintenance and housekeeping outbuildings, with pool, garden and gathering area amenities (see Project Description, Attachment B and Project Plans, Attachment C). Figure 2: Motel Inn - Remnant Facade (left) and belltower lobby Page 10 of 135 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 Previous Review In March 2016 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed and approved a project for redevelopment of the Motel Inn site with a hotel and restaurant, with accommodations provided in Mission Revival Style “bungalow” buildings and several recreational vehicle spaces, some with pre-sited Airstream trailers, finding it to be consistent with applicable design standards and guidelines. The Planning Commission subsequently approved the Use Permit associated with the project, with review focused on conformance to Ordinances 1130 and 1516. Subsequent minor modifications to the project were approved in 2017 by the Community Development Director and the Planning Commission. Previous Advisory Body review is summarized below, with links to Advisory Body materials (Agenda Reports, Meeting Minutes, and adopted Resolutions) provided within the table: Table 1: Previous Project Review Meeting and Date Action Cultural Heritage Committee January 25, 2016 (ARCH-2363-2015) Adopted Resolution CHC-1000-16 Hotel project: 52 rooms, 24 RV hookups Architectural Review Commission March 21, 2016 (ARCH-2363-2015) Adopted Resolution ARC-1002-16 Hotel project: 55 rooms, RV park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces Planning Commission March 23, 2016 (USE-1035-2015) Adopted Resolution PC-1004-16 Use Permit (Special Considerations Overlay Zone); Hotel project: 55 rooms, RV park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces, 10% parking reduction request Community Development Director May 22, 2017 (ARCH-3741-2016) Approved by Administrative Action Design review of a modification to project; recreate Motel Inn and Restaurant along with other motor court amenities Planning Commission September 27, 2017 (USE-0580-2017) Adopted Resolution PC-1010-17 Modification to a previously approved Use Permit (USE- 1035-2015) for the Motel Inn Project: re-configure site design to accommodate Airstream trailers, a restroom building, bocce court, associated parking, landscaping, and site improvements (Special Considerations Zone) Page 11 of 135 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 Revised Design (“A-Frame” Guestrooms) The applicant presented a revised project design to the City in 2021, in which the Mission Revival bungalow buildings were replaced by 33 "A-Frame" guestroom buildings. The City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) found that the proposed revision failed to preserve the essential form and integrity of the historic property.1 Proposed Revisions (Current) The project design currently proposed under this application is a revision of the approved project design, with the most significant changes noted as:  Elimination of a larger lobby and guest room building  Elimination of RV spaces and Airstream trailer installations  Provision of all guest accommodations within 29 Mission Revival bungalows  Addition of a vegetated site wall for noise attenuation The CHC reviewed this project design on June 27, 2022, and found the revised project consistent with policies, standards, and guidelines for cultural and historical resources. The project architect has provided a Project Description (Attachment B) to accompany project plans (Attachment C), along with a depiction of exterior colors and materials , a comparison of the revised design with the approved project design, and depictions of the proposed sound wall (see Attachments D, E, and F). 2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Architecture: Mission Revival Style Design Details: One- and Two-Story Bungalow Guestroom Buildings; Pool, Garden, and Gathering Area interior to Site; Vegetated Site Wall; Orientation and Screening for Creek Protection (Ordinances 1130 & 1651) Materials: Plaster Wall Surface; Cast Stone Trim and Mouldings; Wrought Iron Railings and Trim; Exposed Timber Decoration; Red Clay Roof Tile Colors: Dover White (Walls); Natural Stone (Trim, Mouldings); Homestead Brown (Timber); Dark Gray (Windows); Traditional Spanish Red (Roof Tile) 3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The project, as revised under this application, will be considered by the Planning Commission for conformance to Use Permit conditions and Ordinance 1130 and 1651, and consistency with environmental review of the project (IS/MND). The Planning Commission will also take final action on the revised project design. 1 See June 28, 2021 CHC Meeting Minutes: opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=145353 Page 12 of 135 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 As provided by Zoning § 17.106.040, the Architectural Review Commission is asked to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the c onsistency of the revised project with applicable design standards and guidelines, including conditions of approval which may be recommended to ensure such consistency. Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104 4.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES / DISCUSSION ITEMS Development projects are to be designed in a manner consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG). This document provides specific guidance on General Design Principles (Chapter 2) and Commercial and Industrial Project Design (Chapter 3), along with Site Planning and Other Design Details (Chapter 6) and Special Design Considerations for Creekside Development and Historic Resources Preservation (Chapter 7). Highlighted Sections Discussion Items Site Planning and Other Design Details (Ch. 6) § 6.1 (B) Fences and Walls The Commission should consider whether offsets in the proposed sound wall are feasible or desirable, to avoid monotony. Special Design Considerations (Ch. 7) § 7.1 Creekside Development The project is designed to conform to specific creek protection measures set out in Ordinances 1130 and 1651, discussed in report § 5.0 below § 7.3 Historic Resource Preservation The remnant portions of Motel Inn are incorporated into a new lobby and café, and there is no change proposed for this element of the project. The Cultural Heritage Committee found the revised project design consistent with historical preservation policies, standards, and guidelines. Page 13 of 135 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 This project revision carries the Mission Revival style bungalow buildings throughout the entirety of the project, replacing the previously proposed recreational vehicle sites, and so the prior analyses of the project design presented to the ARC in October 2015 and March 2016 are applicable to the entire project (see table of previous review, above). The project satisfies the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) regarding commercial project design outside of the downtown area (CDG § 3.1). The one- and two-story scale of the development is relatively low in profile, and it is well buffered from the adjoining neighborhood by creek vegetation and setback. The Mission Revival style reflects the historic parts of the former motel and avoids boxy building shapes, providing consistent design, materials, and detailing, with tiled gabled roofs, trellis and porch elements, cap pieces, recessed windows, small paned windows, wood framing above windows, and decorative exterior stairways. 5.0 ORDINANCES 1130 (1989) AND 1615 (2018) As discussed in § 1.2 of this report, above, Ordinance 1130 (adopted in 1989, and amended in 2018 by Ordinance 1651) set out certain design criteria for property along the south side of the upper portion of Monterey Street to address land use compatibility concerns between commercial and residential land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. While the project design approved in 2017 was found to be consistent with these criteria, the current design revision alters the configuration of development in the eastern portion of the site, some of which is adjacent to the creek area, where a single -family neighborhood (along San Luis Drive) exists across the creek corridor. Staff finds the design revision is also consistent with the Ordinance’s design criteria: 1. Creek Setback (Criterion 1). Development continues to provide the required 20-foot creek setback depicted in plans (see Area Plan, Sheet A-1.1, in Project Plans, Attachment B) 2. Openings, Screening, Buffering, Lighting (Criteria 2 -4, 6, 7). New bungalows at the eastern portion of the site are oriented internally to a courtyard, with no building entrances facing south toward the creek. Openings toward the creek are limited to a small number of windows, treated with anti-glare tint, at the back of single-story bungalow buildings (except that Building B 29 is two stories in height, though it is also presents only a limited number of windows, also anti-glare, facing the creek area). Figure 3: Mission Revival "Bungalow" guest room buildings Page 14 of 135 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 Screening continues to be provided by a 6-foot tall solid wood fence with landscaping, which will substantially screen the single-story buildings at this portion of the site. The location of the pool and other gathering areas on the interior of the site remains unchanged, with site buildings used as a buffer between these areas and the creek. A Preliminary Lighting Plan (Attachment B, Sheet A-4.0) depicts use of “Dark Sky Compliant” lighting fixtures, consistent with City’s Night Sky Preservation standards (see CDG § 6.1 (C)). 3. Site Drainage (Criteria 7, 10). Final plans for construction permits to complete the project will include Grading and Drainage Plans subject to review by the City’s Engineering staff for conformance to Post Construction Stormwater and other water quality requirements which will address these criteria. 4. Building Height (Criteria 9). Buildings closest to the creek setback are restricted in height to 25 feet. The new single-story bungalows in the eastern portion of the site are less than 16 feet in height and the two-story building in this area (B29) is designed to a height of about 21 feet, as depicted in plans (Attachment B, Sheet A-2.3). 5. Other Criteria (14, 15, 16). No creekside trail, conference or convention center, or parking-related openings is proposed with this revision. 6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Site Details Proposed Standard* Setbacks Front N/A N/A Side, Rear (North, East) 10 – 15 feet None Side, Rear (South) Min. 20 feet 20 feet Maximum Height of Structures Max 25 feet (new bungalows) 25 feet (near creek) Max Lot Coverage 20% 75% Minimum Lot Area 4.19 acres 9,000 sq. ft. (0.21 acres) Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Number of Vehicle Spaces EV Spaces 101 11 EV-Ready 28 EV-Capable 99 (10% Reduction) 11 EV-Ready 28 EV-Capable Number of Bicycle Spaces Short-term Long-term 8 4 4 8 (1/10 guestrooms) 4 (50%) 4 (50%) Page 15 of 135 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 Environmental Status Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Attachment G) *2019 Zoning Regulations, Ordinances 1130 & 1516 7.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1 Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission finding the revised project design consistent with applicable design standards and guidelines. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 7.2 Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An a ction continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 7.3 Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission finding that the revised project design is not consistent with applicable design standards an d guidelines. Such a recommendation should include findings that cite the basis of inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Ordinances 1130 and 1561 B - Project Description (ARCH-0327-2022) C - Project Plans (ARCH-0327-2022) D - Exterior Colors and Materials (ARCH-0327-2022) E - Comparison with Previous Approval (ARCH-0327-2022) F - Sound Wall Depictions (ARCH-0327-2022) G - Draft Addendum to Motel Inn Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 16 of 135 Page 17 of 135 Page 18 of 135 Page 19 of 135 Page 20 of 135 Page 21 of 135 Page 22 of 135 Page 23 of 135 Page 24 of 135 Page 25 of 135 Page 26 of 135 Page 27 of 135 Page 28 of 135 June 9, 2022 Walter Oetzell Assistant Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn (2223 Monterey Street) Dear Mr. Oetzell, Enclosed are revised plans for the Motel Inn project for consideration under Moderate Architectural Review as a modification to the previously approved USE-0580-2017 permit. The Motel Inn is a new hotel honoring the history and Mission Revival architecture of the original inn that was built on the site in 1925. The proposed hotel maintains portions of the design from the original historic inn such as a bungalow court and the remaining existing historic structures including the bell tower, while updating the design to meet current standards and trends. The Motel Inn will feature guest rooms in one and two story bungalows, a pool, garden and gathering areas located on the interior of the site. The proposed plans comply with Ordinance 1651 by adhering to creek setbacks, minimizing building openings facing the creek, focusing active uses in the center of the site, proposing low-scale development and providing screening between the buildings and creek. The permitted Restaurant Building that incorporates the existing historic structures remains largely unchanged and will serve as the hotel Lobby/Café. It was not a part of the original application or a part of this revised application. Revisions from the previous Use Permit include exchanging the 2-story Guestroom/Lobby Building for additional 2-story bungalow guest units. The previously proposed airstream units have been eliminated in favor of single-story bungalow guest units arranged around a court on the east end of the site. All improvements are now proposed to be permanent structures per CBC and permitted under City of SLO jurisdiction. • Previously approved application: (55) guestrooms in Bungalows and Hotel Lobby Building, (26) guest Airstreams and (1) spa Airstream. Total of 81 guestroom units. • Revised application: (83) guestrooms in one and two story Bungalows. Refer to Exhibit A (attached) for additional project data comparisons. Page 29 of 135 June 8, 2022 ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn ARC Modification 2 Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, SDG Ariana Melendez Project Architect Page 30 of 135 June 8, 2022 ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn ARC Modification 3 EXHIBIT A – Project Comparison Table PREVIOUS APPROVAL (2017) CURRENT SUBMITTAL (2022) SITE PLAN 2-story lobby building (with guestrooms) N/A (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Restaurant - not a part) (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Lobby/café - not a part) (10) 2-story bungalows (15) 2-story bungalows (27) Airstreams with decks (14) 1-story bungalows (4) small outbuildings (4) small outbuildings (2) pool areas (1) pool area SQUARE FOOTAGE 33,724 SF (Lobby building, outbuildings, & bungalows) 45,000 SF (Bungalows & Outbuildings) 6,696 SF (Airstreams) N/A 10,750 SF (Restaurant - not a part) 9,000 SF (Lobby/Café - not a part) 51,170 SF (Total) 54,000 SF (Total) UNIT TYPE Mix of hotel rooms, freestanding bungalows, & Airstreams All bungalows UNIT COUNT 81 83 PARKING 121 required/121 provided* 99 required/101 provided* ARCHITECTURE Site-built structures in Mission Revival style plus Airstreams Site-built structures in Mission Revival style HEIGHT 33'-0" (2-story lobby building) 28' (2-story bungalows) CREEK SETBACK 20'-0" 20'-0" (No change) CREEK ORDINANCE 1130/1651 No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek Outdoor recreation activities located on the interior of the site Outdoor recreation activities have been moved further from the creek and are shielded by bungalow units Split rail fence proposed at top of bank Solid 6’ tall landscaped wood fence proposed at top of bank Windows facing the creek have been minimized (and significantly reduced from previous approval) Glazing facing the creek will be non-operable with anti-glare tint *Previous approval parking calculation included a full restaurant in the historic infill structure. The current submittal assumes a smaller "café" in its place, with fewer parking spaces required. Page 31 of 135 Page 32 of 135 Page 33 of 135 Page 34 of 135 Page 35 of 135 Page 36 of 135 Page 37 of 135 Page 38 of 135 Page 39 of 135 Page 40 of 135 Page 41 of 135 Page 42 of 135 Page 43 of 135 Page 44 of 135 Page 45 of 135 Page 46 of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age 47 of 135 #(" #!!#""!'.+)# ''&$(#"" &)()'1!&"2!&"'(&+&&-(& 0#, #+&"&'&(&)''$'(&)'#&" !#" ! &)(# )&#$1'+" 2&)( ''# * 0#, * &)( ''*&(-(&'("#"&(&'"#, 0#, ! &'&)$&(#&!$#","&"''"&-' "$ ! 2( #"$ !!! ('(&"(#'1!#&"2!#&" #)'( 0#, &" -# &'(&#!" (*'&$!-&( 0#, #+&"'' $(#$- # ! #"(& 0#, ! #+&"&"!!#'# &" ! "#$-' #+&"$'(""''"'$'( 0#, # #&!!! ')) "('#")!* # "#( ')) "( #++(&)' '(!#"1 (( #"2+&#(( &)' & #+&'&"&#&#"(& "(" &) 1'' )2 ) , - ! )&-'(&$ *'#"-!)'$#" (*'*&&")#"-!)' $ "(# )&#$1 (( # 2+&# * * +&# *$((#'$#&)!1' *&'"2' *&'"#)) ! )$&(#&!$#&!)! (*'"+. " , # #&) "($&)")'1&("((2&# "&&- )& )$&(#&!&#'1&2&&#'' ! *&#)' #+&'' *'$'' #+&" #++(&)'+'(&"1!#&"" (2#'( &#'!&- *&( *'!" "("!#"(*"''(& " "(" +( #+&'&#'!&")'#" ' (*'&#'!&- #+&" #++(&)'&#'1 #+&&$(2 #+&&$(&#' ! #+&" ! # )!1!##"'"2-&&#+ - #+ #+&'"#."(#' (*'"&##$+ #+&" #++(&)'#&- "*&'$ ! ! &'' "("$#)*&&#($#& #+&" #++(&)' *") '$' *"& $)&$ #+&' #!"& #"# 1&.2&.!(&)' &"# "&'1"("" 2#-#(&)' '$&"(&#! '&)(# (#-#" &&&'&!")' #&"1*'2#&&- &#)"#&!&''")")!& #+&")&&"( #+&"+)# '+(&)' ''(#"'# "'$'$'')(# $"(-&&(#"+(&"'#$ "('$'* #$-()"*&'(-# #&"##$&(*,("'#" #&"$&(!"(#+(&&'#)&' !"#$%&'()*+,# " (#"$() "'$$ "#")&&"(+(($ "(""&&(#"#"'(&)(#"#)!"('$ ""'( (#"& ('$(#"'""#('%) '('$&#('#"+!&'(# #+")&&"(+(&#"'&*(#"("# #-"!(## #' )( .(#"#'((#(&(&&(#"#"(&# &' #+"#&$&'#""&!"( +(&') "" -&#.#"')'#&$(-$"#&!&#'$&-'-'(!'#" -"(&($ "('"$ "($ (('*"#&!(#& ($& +(&"&%)&!"('+("-&#.#"&#)$ $ "('"'( +(!#'()&&("(*'# !"!"('" "'(&#"&##("$ "(&#+(+(()'# ''+(& 0$!) "# $ "('"'"$ "("&'"("*$#&(#")'# #++(&)'$ "(' $ "(!(& +'#'"#&('#!$( (-+((!&#!&# !(#"(#"'#(&#""'((# &"#+"(# &"#&#)(#"(#"' #"*(-'&""$ ('"#*& ((&(*"'' &&(#"'-'(!' '"#&!,!)!+(&"-"' " )")(#!(#"(&# & #+$&*"(#"*" #+ #"'#&()&" &&#)"#*&&'&$(-$'-'(!' )'+&$$&#$&((&'' &&(#"'$&() &'-'(!' $ "(!(& %)"(('"&&(*'$(#"''(( '"!(& "(#"'+ (&!"""#(#"(#"'(&)(#"&+"' ! " # $ % # #! ! Page 48 of 135 Page 49 of 135 Page 50 of 135 APPROVED PC (10/4/17) INCLUDED FOR REFERENCEPage 51 of 135 APPROVED PC (10/4/17) INCLUDED FOR REFERENCEPage 52 of 135 APPROVED PC/ARC 2016 INCLUDED FOR REFERENCEPage 53 of 135 APPROVED PC/ARC 2016 INCLUDED FOR REFERENCEPage 54 of 135 A. SW-6385 "Dover White" Flat Exterior Finish Main Plaster Body EXTERIOR COLORS AND MATERIAL S B. SW-7542 “Naturel” Flat Exterior Finish Cast stone trim and mouldings C. SW-7515 “Homestead Brown” Flat Exterior Finish Exposed timber throughout D. TBD - Dark Gray Pre-finished Surface Window exteriors F. Traditional Spanish Red 2-part clay tile non-mudded San Luis Obispo, California Apr 4, 2022E. SW-7675 “Sealskin” Semi-Gloss Exterior Finish Wrought iron railings and trim Page 55 of 135 Page 56 of 135 3/31/22 PREVIOUS APPROVAL (2017)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL (2021) for reference only CURRENT SUBMITTAL (2022) 2-story lobby building (with guestrooms)N/A N/A (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Restaurant - not a part) (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Lobby/café - not a part) (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Lobby/café - not a part) (10) 2-story bungalows (33) A-Frame guest units (15) 2-story bungalows (27) Airstreams with decks (43) Airstreams with decks (14) 1-story bungalows (4) small outbuildings (2) Outbuildings + Maintanence Bldg (4) small outbuildings (2) pool areas (1) pool area (1) pool area 33,724 SF (Lobby building, outbuildings, & bungalows) 24,910 SF (A-Frames & Outbuildings)45,000 SF (Bungalows & Outbuildings) 6,696 SF (Airstreams)8,901 SF (Airstreams)N/A 10,750 SF (Restaurant - not a part)9,000 SF (Lobby/Café - not a part)9,000 SF (Lobby/Café - not a part) 51,170 SF (Total Gross)42,811 SF (Total Gross) or 16% reduction 54,000 SF (Total Gross) or 5.5% increase UNIT TYPE Mix of hotel rooms, freestanding bungalows, & Airstreams Mix of A-Frame guest units and Airstreams All bungalows UNIT COUNT 81 76 83 PARKING 121 required/121 provided [1]76 required/82 provided [2]99 required/101 provided [3] ARCHITECTURE Site-built structures in Mission Revival style plus Airstreams Prefabricated A-Frame units and Airstreams. Site- built maintanence bldgs in Mission Revival style. Site-built structures in Mission Revival style HEIGHT 33'-0" (2-story lobby building)20'-0" (A-Frames)28' (2-story bungalows) CREEK SETBACK 20'-0" 20'-0" (No change)20'-0" (No change) No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek Outdoor recreation activities located on the interior of the site Outdoor recreation activities have been moved further from the creek and are shielded by bungalow units Outdoor recreation activities have been moved further from the creek and are shielded by bungalow units Split rail fence proposed at top of bank Solid 6’ tall landscaped wood fence proposed at top of bank Solid 6’ tall landscaped wood fence proposed at top of bank Windows facing the creek have been minimized (and significantly reduced from previous submittal) All glazing facing the creek will be non-operable with anti-glare tint All glazing facing the creek ordinance zone will be non-operable with anti-glare tint SITE PLAN SQUARE FOOTAGE [1] Previous approval parking calculation included a full restaurant, open to the public, in the historic infill structure. [2] 2021 submittal assumed the cafe served the hotel guest only and was not open to the public (requiring no additional parking spaces). [3]The current submittal assumes a smaller "café", open to the public, with fewer parking spaces required than the previous approval. CREEK ORDINANCE 1130/1651 Page 57 of 135 Page 58 of 135 0 20 40 6/13/22Motel Inn 4.18 ARC Rev.vwxSITE SECTION A +/-302' +/-314' PROPOSED +/-16' TALL SOUND WALL 101 FREEWAY PL (E) DENSE FOLIAGE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY JP SIG 310 312 311 290300295 295 300 290 2 9 8 298285 295 305 306 307 308 305 306 307 308 310 303 304 301302 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291292 293 294 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 29 0 29 1 29 2 293 2 9 4 2 9 5 2 9 6 297 298 299 291295300304A YELLOW LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF SOUND WALL B C 1 2 3 San Luis Obispo, California Jun 13, 2022SITE MAP: N.T.S. *NOTE: APPROX TOPO BASED ON CITY OF SLO CONTOUR MAP Page 59 of 135 0 20 40 6/13/22Motel Inn 4.18 ARC Rev.vwxSITE SECTION C +/-306' +/-318' PROPOSED +/-16' TALL SOUND WALL 101 FREEWAY PL (E) DENSE FOLIAGE PROPOSED BUNGALOWS San Luis Obispo, California Jun 13, 2022SITE SECTION B +/-304' +/-316' PROPOSED +/-16' TALL SOUND WALL 101 FREEWAY PL (E) DENSE FOLIAGE PROPOSED BUNGALOWS *NOTE: APPROX TOPO BASED ON CITY OF SLO CONTOUR MAP Page 60 of 135 6/13/22Motel Inn 4.18 ARC Rev.vwxSan Luis Obispo, California Jun 13, 2022VIEW 1 - INTERIOR LOT VIEW 2 - SOUTHBOUND VIEW 3 - NORTHBOUND (E) DENSE FOLIAGE 10' POLE @ PROPERTY LINE (FOR REFERENCE) (E) DENSE FOLIAGE APPROX LOCATION OF SOUND WALL (BEHIND FOLIAGE) APPROX LOCATION OF SOUND WALL (BEHIND FOLIAGE) Page 61 of 135 Page 62 of 135 Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Motel Inn Project (PR-0113-2015) 1. Project Title: Motel Inn Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner 805-781-7176 4. Project Location: 2223 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Applicant and Representative Name and Address: Motel Inn, L.P. Covelop Holdings, LLC PO Box 12910 PO Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Studio Design Group Tim Ronda, Principal Architect Ariana Melendez, Project Architect 762 Higuera Street, Suite 212 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial Page 63 of 135 7. Zoning: C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with “Special Consideration” Overlay due to San Luis Creek and residential neighborhood bordering the property) 8. Description of the Project: The previously approved Motel Inn project consisted of a 55-unit hotel including guestrooms and bungalow units, a restaurant, 26 Airstream trailers (for guests), and one Airstream spa trailer (ARCH-3741-2016 and USE-0580-2017). The proposed project consists of a modification to the previously approved Motel Inn project, and would consist of 29 bungalow guestroom buildings. Four accessory structures, consisting of restroom and housekeeping/maintenance buildings, are proposed. The project does not propose any changes to the previously approved restaurant building, which incorporates the remaining portions of the Master List Historic Motel Inn, and would include a restaurant and lobby for guests. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: Design Review 10. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: The approximately 4.2-acre site is located at the northeast end of Monterey Street, immediately south of Highway 101. San Luis Creek and the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood are located to the south. The Apple Farm Inn and restaurant are located to the southwest, and the La Cuesta Inn is located to the northwest. The project site is nearly level to gently sloping, and is accessed directly from Monterey Street, near the Highway 101 on- and off-ramp. The project site is included in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Construction within California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way would require an encroachment permit. 12. Previous Environmental Review On March 23, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Motel Inn project. On September 27, 2017, the Planning Commission considered and approved a modification to the Motel Inn project (specific to the substitution of the recreational vehicle spaces with Airstream trailers), and found the modification consistent with the adopted IS/MND (Resolution No. PC-1010-17). All adopted mitigation measures remain in effect and will apply to the proposed project. Page 64 of 135 Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to an IS/MND when “minor technical changes or additions” have occurred in the project description since the IS/MND was adopted. In addition, the lead agency is required to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which requires subsequent EIRs when proposed changes would require major revisions to the previous EIR “due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” The evaluation below discusses the issue areas covered by the Motel Inn IS/MND and concludes that in each case no new environmental effects are created and that there is no increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Environmental impacts associated with the Motel Inn project were evaluated in the adopted IS/MND. As addressed below, the proposed modifications would not result in any new impacts not previously disclosed in the adopted IS/MND and would not increase the severity of any impact identified in the adopted IS/MND. Aesthetics No significant aesthetic impacts were identified in the adopted IS/MND. The proposed modifications would not increase the height or massing of the project, and would not adversely affect any scenic vistas. Site development would occur consistent with development and lighting standards, and design criteria identified in Ordinance 1651 (associated with the “Special Consideration” overlay). Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, and impacts would remain less than significant. Agricultural Resources No impacts to agricultural resources were identified in the adopted IS/MND. Based on the location of the project, underlying zoning, and lack of Farmland, no impact would occur. Air Quality The adopted IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts related to the construction and operational phases of the project, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. At the time, the project was reviewed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and mitigation measures recommended by the APCD were incorporated into the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the previously- approved project. The proposed project would increase the total lodging units by only two (from 81 to 83), and would therefore not result in an increase in operational emissions. All adopted mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1). Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, the project would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Page 65 of 135 Biological Resources San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the project site, and proposed project complies with the required 20-foot creek setback (applicable to structures) identified in Ordinance 1651. Conditions within the upland portion of the project site (where development is proposed) has not changed, and continues to lack any biologically sensitive or jurisdictional habitats. The adopted IS/MND identified construction-related impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required (Mitigation Measure BIO-1), which would mitigate the impact to less than significant. In addition, a creek restoration and enhancement plan, including the removal of non-native vegetation and replacement with native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers is required (Mitigation Measure BIO-2), which would enrich the creek habitat. As the proposed project does not increase the size or intensity of the previously- approved project, would continue to provide a minimum 20-foot creek setback, and would comply with adopted mitigation measures, the proposed project does not create any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Cultural Resources The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Master List Historic Motel Inn (Milestone Mo-Tel) was constructed in the 1924- 1925 timeframe and was constructed in a Mission Revival architectural style. Building permits issued under previous entitlements removed many of the non-historic structures on the site and the remaining historic portions of the Motel Inn include the main lobby building of the original Motel Inn, and a portion of the façade remaining from the original restaurant building. The previously approved building at the entrance to the property contains the two significant historic elements of the old Motel Inn including portions of the historic lobby building with the three-tiered bell tower and a portion of the façade from the original restaurant building. This portion of the project will not change. The project proposes construction of 29 bungalow guestroom buildings. A restroom building and three accessory housekeeping and maintenance buildings are proposed southeast and southwest of the existing remnants of the Motel Inn and previously approved restaurant building and would be constructed with a Mission Revival style similar to the previously approved project. The primary changes, as compared to the previously proposed project, are the elimination of a 2-story lobby building with guest rooms, to be replaced by five new two-story bungalow guestroom buildings, and elimination of a 23-space recreational vehicle park at the eastern portion of the site, to be replaced with 14 one-story bungalow guestroom buildings. The bungalow guestrooms would be approximately 15 feet in height (one-story buildings) and 25 feet in height (two-story buildings). Proposed materials include plaster siding, red clay tile roofing, exposed timber decorative features, and wrought iron railings and trim. The guestroom buildings would be located south and southeast of the restaurant building. A recreational area with swimming pool, spa, and garden patio would be located between the restaurant and guestrooms. The style and materials proposed for the guestroom buildings reflect those of the original Motel Inn’s Mission Revival architectural style, achieving consistency with the property’s historical character. These buildings are located behind the future restaurant/lobby building which Page 66 of 135 incorporates the only remaining historically significant components of the original Milestone Mo- Tel, and are set back from the structure across pedestrian pathways. The proposed architectural style of the accessory restroom and housekeeping buildings, which would be located to the southeast and southwest of the remaining historic features and future building, also incorporates Mission Revival features which are complementary to the original Motel Inn architectural style. Based on the location and scale of the proposed structures, the proposed project would not block views towards, nor visually distract from the remaining historic features to be incorporated into the future lobby and restaurant building. The new construction would not destroy any of the character defining features of the existing historic elements of the approved building, and because they are designed in a compatible Mission Revival style and at a modest scale, the buildings would not detract from the original motel setting or its historic building elements. The continuation of a tourist-oriented use is consistent with the historic, visitor-serving purpose of the property. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resources, would not create any new impacts to historical resources, and would not increase the severity of any identified impact. Regarding archaeological resources, an Extended Phase 1 Testing Report (Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002) prepared for the previous project concluded that no archaeological deposits were identified; however, it is possible that resources could be uncovered during project excavation and grading. The adopted IS/MND identifies a potentially significant impact related to resource discovery, and Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires preparation and implementation of an archaeological monitoring plan. As the proposed project would not increase the area of depth of ground disturbance, and compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-1 is required, no new impacts would occur, and the project would not increase the severity of any identified impact. Potential impacts would remain less than significant with required mitigation. Geology and Soils The adopted IS/MND did not identify any significant geology or soils impacts. The proposed project would not increase the size or intensity of development, and would be required to comply with applicable Building Codes. Therefore, the project would not result in any new impacts, and would not increase the severity of any identified impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction-related greenhouse gas emisisons would be similar (or less than the previously- approved project, due to the modular nature of the A-frame units). The proposed project would reduce the total lodging units from 81 to 76, and would therefore not result in an increase in operational greenhouse gas emissions. All adopted mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1), which would reduce potential emissions. Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Page 67 of 135 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The adopted IS/MND identified a potentially significant impact due to the potential for underground storage tanks. This impact would be mitigated to less than significant by compliance with recommendations identified in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, and remediation of any potential contamination to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1). The proposed project would not increase the area of disturbance or include any elements that require the use or storage of hazardous materials beyond standard, legal use. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with required mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the previously-approved project, the proposed revised project is required to comply with the City’s Drainage Design Manual of the Waterway Management Plan, Post Construction Requirements for stormwater, and Floodplain Management Regulations (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.78). The proposed project would result in a marginal increase in the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83, and would not increase water demand compared to the previously approved project. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Land Use and Planning The proposed project remains consistent with the General Plan, as the site is designated for tourist commercial land uses, the proposed use of the property would not change (lodging), and the project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Mineral Resources No mineral resources are present onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur. Noise The project site is located south of Highway 101 and immediately east of the Monterey Street/U.S. 101 ramps. Noise sensitive uses (single-family residential neighborhood) are present to the south, across San Luis Creek. The proposed project remains a lodging project, with most of the proposed guestroom buildings located behind the future “restaurant” building, and 14 of the buildings behind a sound wall to be located along the northern property boundary. The total number of proposed units would marginally increase from 81 to 83, and consistent with Ordinance 1651, no balconies, outdoor use areas, or operational windows would face the creek corridor and adjacent residential neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Page 68 of 135 Population and Housing Similar to the previously approved, project, the proposed project consists of a similar use (lodging) and would not induce growth nor displace existing house. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur. Public Services and Recreation The proposed project would marginally increase the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83, and would be adequately served by municipal services. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur. Transportation/Traffic The proposed project would marginally increase the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83, and payment of Transportation Impact Fees is required. Similar to the previously approved project, access to the site would be provided from Monterey Street, and a roadway channelization project (subject to approval by both the City and Caltrans) is required to be completed by the applicant to address geometric concerns related to the proximity of the project access point and the U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps (Mitigation Measure TT-1). Therefore, based on compliance with the adopted mitigation measure, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would marginally increase the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83. Since the project was initially approved, the City has initiated the expansion of and improvements to the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). The WRRF is designed for an average dry- weather flow of 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and treated an average of 2.9 mgd during 2020. The average dry weather flow of wastewater is expected to reach 5.4 mgd at the WRRF once the City reaches its 2035 build-out population identified in the General Plan. Upon completion in 2024, the WRRF modifications will increase treatment capacity at the facility to 5.4 mgd, which is planned to accommodate wastewater flows in the City under full buildout of the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would be adequately served by City sewer infrastructure and the WRRF. Regarding water, the City maintains adequate, diverse water supply (and excess supply) to meet Citywide water demands during single- and multiple-dry years through 2035 (build-out of the General Plan). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would be adequately served by City water infrastructure and water supply. The proposed project reduces the number of lodging units, and would be adequately served by the Cold Canyon Landfill, which serves the area, and has a remaining capacity of 13,000,000 cubic yards (maximum permitted capacity is 24,000,000 cubic yards). Page 69 of 135 Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. DETERMINATION In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to the adopted IS/MND for the Motel Inn project is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the IS/MND was adopted. The preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not necessary because: 1. None of the circumstances included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent environmental document: a. The project changes do not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the IS/MND. c. The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously approved mitigation measures. Attachment: 1. Motel Inn Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 70 of 135 City of San Luis Obispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM USE-1035-2015 (PR-0113-2015) February 24, 2016 1.Project Title: Motel Inn & RV Park 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner (805)781-7176 mcarloni@slocity.org 4.Project Location: 2223 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5.Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Motel Inn L.P. P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 6.General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial 7.Zoning: C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with "Special Consideration" Overlay due to the San Luis Creek and residential neighborhood bordering the property.) ATTACHMENT 1 Page 71 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 8.Description of the Project: The proposal is to construct a new motel with a total of 55 rooms spread across a main hotel/lobby building and 12 detached "bungalow" units. A recreational vehicle (RV) park (23 spaces) is also proposed on the easterly portion of the project site. The property address is 2223 Monterey Street. The vicinity map is shown on the right. Total floor area for the buildings will be approximately 34,500 square feet. The property is approximately 4.19 acres in area and is situated at the northerly terminus of Monterey Street. The project site also includes remnants Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated of the Historic "Motel Inn" which includes a fa9ade and portions of the original lobby. Portions of the original historic Motel Inn are under construction and will be incorporated into an already approved building which was issued a building permit under prior entitlements, and is not a part of the current project under evaluation. 9.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: North: East: West: South: Highway 101 San Luis Creek Apple Farm Inn Motel San Luis Creek and San Luis Drive residential neighborhood 10.Project Entitlements Requested: The project requires environmental review (this document), architectural review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and the issuance of a use permit from the Planning Commission. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None ATTACHMENT 1 Page 72 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population I Housing Agriculture Resources x Hazards & Hazardous Public Services Materials x Air Quality Hydrology I Water Quality Recreation x Biological Resources Land Use I Planning x Transportation I Traffic x Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities I Service Systems Geology I Soils Noise x Mandatory Findings Significance FISH AND GAME FEES The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). of ATTACHMENT 1 Page 73 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated DETERMINATION {To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signaturn� Doug Davidson, Deputy Director Printed Name February 24, 2016 Date For: Michael Codron Community Development Director No Impact x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 74 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards ( e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3.Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4."Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross referenced). 5.Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7.Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8.The explanation of each issue should identify: a)the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance ATTACHMENT 1 Page 75 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 1.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation Sources Potentially Significant Issues 2 2 1,2 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x x a), b) The proposed buildings are situated in a previously developed area and are low scale that will not exceed two stories (structure height of approximately 32 feet). The proposed project does not have the potential to adversely affect scenic vistas and the project will not affect scenic resources such as trees or rock outcroppings. c)The project site is located in an area zoned for commercial development and was previously disturbed with buildings and site development associated with the Historic Motel Inn. The project proposal will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for conformance with the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines which address compatibility of proposed development on the site and in relation to surroundings. Additionally, the Planning Commission will review the project for compatibility through requirements of Ordinance No. 1130. In 1989, commercial properties on the east side of Monterey Street (including this property) were rezoned to include the "S", Special Consideration, overlay district. The implementing ordinance, Ordinance No. 1130, contains specific design criteria for new development on sites within the S district overlay. Aspects of site development that could potentially affect neighborhood compatibility and environmental quality are addressed in the design criteria. The design criteria include specifications which limit building openings onto the creek and address lighting, screening between land uses, riparian corridor protection, building height and grading limitations and drainage control. d)New sources of lighting will be evaluated as part of the review of ordinance No. 1130 to ensure that lighting remains on site and does not produce glare that could affect neighboring properties. The project will also be reviewed by the ARC and at the time of building permit submittal for compliance with the City's Night Sky Ordinance (SLOMC 17.23) which contains provisions to minimize glare and protect the natural environment from excessive and/or misdirected light and glare. Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? x x x a),b),c) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with the project. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 76 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 Conclusion: a-c) No Impact. Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 3,4,5 X quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?1-----+------+---X---+-----+--------<c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 4, 5 pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 4, 5 X concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? a-e) The proposed project was reviewed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD is a commenting agency to assess air pollution impacts from both construction and operational phases of the project. The APCD found potential impacts associated with operational and construction phase impacts unless recommended mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The APCD provided a letter dated November 17, 2015 (Appendix C) which included recommended mitigations to address construction impacts, operational phase impacts, and sensitive receptors. With incorporation of all mitigation measures and recommendations provided by APCD, impacts to air quality will be less than significant. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Conclusion: a-e) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 6 x 6 x 7, 8, x 6 x 3 x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 77 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x (a-d) The proposed project complies with required setbacks from the creek bank and C/OS portion of the site. South-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) are known to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek in the vicinity of the area of the project and have been documented upstream of the project site. The City's Natural Resources Manager has visited the site and confirmed that no riparian or otherwise biologically sensitive habitat or wetlands or wildlife corridors are associated with the portion of the site impacted by the proposed project. However, due to the proximity of development to the creek channel and downward slope of the site, there is the potential for construction-related impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation which could enter the natural area. A mitigation measure (BI0-1) has been recommended to ensure that proper erosion control measures for work in and around the riparian corridor are utilized under a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP). San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the site, and is subject to protective standards adopted with Ordinance 1130 ( 1989 Series) for the C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones at this location. On its western bank ( on the project site) the creek channel is vegetated by a mixture of native and non-native trees and groundcovers. All proposed structures and other improvements are above the established top of bank. Residential properties across the creek to the east encroach to the top of bank or overhang the creek channel with decorative landscaping and decking. Despite these encroachments, the creek has retained its value as a significant biological corridor. Its condition could be enhanced with the proposed project development if a robust restoration and enhancement plan is implemented, as required by Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series), criterion No. 3. The City's Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the project plans and has recommended mitigation measures (BI0-2) requiring a planting plan which would retain existing native vegetation along the banks and channel and replacement of non-native plantings with appropriate trees, shrubs and groundcover to enrich the creek habitat by providing additional shade cover and food sources for South-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) and a more diverse, complex tree canopy that will be attractive to various bird species. (e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. It is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and the project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure BI0-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor: a.No heavy equipment should enter flowing water. b.Equipment will be fueled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor. c.Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas. d.All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction. e.All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the drainage/creek system. Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Conclusion: a-f) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the pro_ject: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 10, 11, x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 78 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5) c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Historic Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues 12, 13 14 13 13 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Master List Historic Motel Inn was constructed in the 1924-1925 timeframe and was constructed in a Mission Revival architectural style. The Motel Inn is significant historically since it is associated with events that made a broad contribution to California's history and cultural heritage. This is the first location to use the word "motel" and the first business to employ motoring comfort accommodations which represented a shift away from auto camps and cabins. Building permits issued under previous entitlements removed many of the non-historic structures on the site and the remaining historic portions of the Motel Inn include the main lobby building of the original Motel Inn, and a portion of the fa9ade remaining from the original restaurant building. That said, these remaining building remnants from the historic Motel Inn are not a part of the currently proposed project and will be incorporated into a building which is currently under construction pursuant to building permits issued under previous entitlements. a)The proposed project includes the construction of a lobby building with 12 attached hotel rooms, a mix of one and two story detached bungalows with a total of 40 hotel rooms, and a 1.6 acre site with 25 RV hookups. Due to the fact that the applicant has a current, approved building permit regarding partial construction of those elements of the project which are of historic value, no further evaluation is required for that part of the project. However, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) will still need to review the remaining components of the project to insure that the entire project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines of the City and the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The proposed development requires an evaluation of the projects compatibility with the remaining character defining elements of the historic Motel Inn which are incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building which is under construction. The project's compatibility with the approved restaurant building (including the remaining historic lobby building and fa9ade of the original structure) will be evaluated by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee for conformance with relevant City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. An evaluation has been provided by City Staff for review by the Cultural Heritage Committee which finds that the proposed new construction will not detract from the historic significance of the remaining historic features to be incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building. Proposed development will be located approximately 20-feet behind the previous! y approved restaurant building ( which includes the historic features) and the scale of the lobby building and bungalow units will not block views, nor overwhelm or detract from the remaining historic features. The proposed architectural style of the new development incorporates Mission Revival features which are complementary to the original Motel Inn architectural style. The new work will not detract or destroy any of the character defining features of the existing historic elements of the approved restaurant building and the proposed structures will preserve the essential form and integrity of the historic property. The RV portion of the property is of a relatively low intensity with only 25 potential RV spaces on the site plan. The parking of vehicles, including recreational vehicles, will not detract from the original motel setting, or its historic building elements. The continuation of a tourist-oriented use is consistent with the historic, visitor serving purpose of the property. Less than significant impact. Archaeological Resources b-d) The project site is considered an archaeologically "sensitive area" because it is within 200 feet of the top of the bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. In January, 2002, Bertrando & Bertrando prepared an Extended Phase I Testing report, which is attached to this initial study as Appendix F. No archaeological deposits were identified. While no archaeological resources were discovered in the test trenches, it is possible that resources could be uncovered with project excavation and grading. The Phase 1 testing report found that in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources which could be impacted during ground disturbance activities that monitoring should be conducted. Less than significant impact with mitigation ATTACHMENT 1 Page 79 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated incorporated. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts. Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated 6.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the_risk ofloss, injury or death involving: I.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. II.Strong seismic ground shaking? III.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? IV.Landslides? 16 16 16 16 x x x x x xb)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?17 1--��-+-��--+��---1��-+�� c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 16, 17 would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the 17 California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 17 tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? x x x a)San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are ATTACHMENT 1 Page 80 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated considered "active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of "High Seismic Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Building Code. To minimize this potential impact, the California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant impact. b)The site is already partially developed and is an infill site located in an urbanized area. The project will not result in loss of topsoil to a level that would be considered significant. c), d) A soils engineering report will be required by the Building Division at the time of submittal for building and grading permits. The soils report will require data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, and conclusions and recommendations for grading and construction. Grading and building techniques must be designed in compliance with the report. To ensure the proposed project does not pose a risk to occupants and structures the construction plans submitted to the building division for review and approval shall be consistent with recommendations of the soils engineering report. e)The proposed project will be required to connect to the City's sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site. Conclusion: a-e) Less than Significant impact 7.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 5 x 5 x a), b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California recently passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, and to the amenities of the City. The project is consistent with City policies for infill development and efficient use of existing infrastructure. As discussed in the above air quality analysis, the APCD has provided comments on the project to address construction and operational phase impacts of the project (Appendix C). Compliance with recommended mitigation measure AQ-1 also includes measures to reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions which are also produced with operational and construction phase emissions discussed in the Air Quality analysis. These characteristics of the proposal coupled with the requirement to address APCD comments finds the project consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will result in less than significant impacts. Conclusion: a, b) Less than significant impact. 8.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? x x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 81 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 19,20 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x x x x a)The proposed hotel and RV park use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No Impact. b)A Phase I environmental site assessment was prepared by Ceres Associates and 1s attached as Appendix G. Recommendations are included in the report which will require certain actions. Since the site previously had a service station use there may be underground tanks remaining in place. As an example, the site assessment recommends that ground penetrating radar (GPR) be utilized to determine if any underground tanks exist, and that sampling be conducted to assess if asbestos is contained in the remaining building on-site. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction. c ), d) The proposed project is not within one quarter mile of an existing school and the project would not involve the use, transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. No Impact. e), f), g) The project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and would not interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans. No Impact. i)The project site is not located within the wildland interface zone. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: a & c-h) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 9.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would _ be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local x x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 82 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 groundwater table level ( e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? t)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 20.21 20,21 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x x x x x x a), b) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post Construction Requirements for storm water control. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources. The existing on-site water well is proposed to be removed but could be used for landscape irrigation. No significant change is expected to the local groundwater table. The well site is down gradient from the rural upstream properties that rely on groundwater. No impact. c), d), e), t) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off and the proposed project does not increase impervious surface area. If applicable, plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. The project will be subject to the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. These regulations address both water quantity and water quality. The project will be required to retain and/or treat the runoff from the impervious surfaces including parking areas, drive aisles, and roofs. A water quality upgrade is expected from this previously developed site. City Engineering Standards address point source controls for solid waste and materials storage areas. Less than significant impact. g), h), i) The project site is located within the I 00-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map as is the majority of the downtown area. The project is therefore subject to showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. Per section 3.0 of the Waterways Management Plan, new development projects and redevelopment projects within the FEMA designated JOO-year floodplain that are not located within the Mid-Higuera or special Floodplain Management Zone have no significant effects on flood elevations provided design criteria of the plan are met. Furthermore, the project is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations (flood ordinance). The engineer ofrecord has modeled the project to show that the structures are located outside the SFHA and that the project will not impact adjoining properties. A Letter of Map Change will be processed as a condition of building permits. The project will be required to have a finished floor elevation of at least 1-foot above the defined 100-year flood elevation at the time, or for ATTACHMENT 1 Page 83 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated commercial buildings within the central business district the building can be built at present grade with incorporation of FEMA "flood-proofing" measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The new structures and improvements will be located away from the top of creek bank in accordance with the Creek Setback Ordinance. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 10.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation 19,22 of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 19,22 natural community conservation plan? Evaluation x x x a), b), c) The proposed infill development project is consistent with the General Plan since the site is designated for Tourist Commercial land uses by the General Plan which the proposed visitor-serving development is consistent. The project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 11.MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral X resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a, b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: No Impact. 12.NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 23,24 standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne 23,24 vibration or ground-borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 23,24 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the _ project? x x x x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 84 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 e)For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x x a), b) The site is located adjacent to Highway 101, the principal noise source affecting existing and future noise conditions in the vicinity. Due to existing noise from Highway 101, the project site is exposed to noise levels in the 60-70dB range. The General Plan Noise Element lists the acceptable range of noise as up to 60 db without the need for any specific noise studies or mitigation. Hotels and motels are noise sensitive uses as designated in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 decibels ( dB) are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB is acceptable for indoor areas. Outdoor noise levels in the 60-70 dB range are classified as "conditionally acceptable". This means that development may be permitted provided it is designed to meet acceptable (for the proposed land use) noise exposure levels. Due to existing and projected noise levels emanating from Highway 101, in previous approvals for the site, the applicant was required to prepare a noise study to evaluate mitigation strategies for meeting interior and exterior noise standards. The noise study was prepared for a similar, but somewhat different hotel use, by Donald Asquith, PhD, and is attached as Appendix H. The study notes how the freeway noise source varies in elevation above the site from west to east. The northbound on-ramp from Monterey Street is approximately 5 feet higher at the westerly end of the site, increasing to 15 feet at the easterly end. While noise exposure from the highway is still significant, this grade differential from the noise source does reduce the traffic noise levels from what they would otherwise be if the noise source was at the same elevation as the project site. Outdoor spaces that are created within the project site should be designed to consider the freeway noise and exposure of visitors to the noise. For outdoor areas, similar to previous approvals, proposed buildings are sited such that outdoor areas are situated on the opposite side of proposed structures which will attenuate freeway sound levels to acceptable outdoor noise levels. Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques for the motel units, according to the noise study and consistent with the City Noise Guidebook. City staff also visited the project site on December 17, 2015, measured noise from the freeway with a sound meter and found the noise levels to be consistent with the prior Asquith study. Recreational vehicle parks are not listed in the General Plan Noise Element as Noise Sensitive uses. For the RV park portion of the project it can be anticipated that recreational vehicle travelers would anticipate freeway noise at this location as it is somewhat common that RV parks are located adjacent to freeways and major roadways. It is not anticipated that RV travelers would have the same expectation of interior noise reduction or quiet outdoor or indoor noise levels as motels or hotel accommodations. Less than significant impact. Noise increases resulting from the proposed project c), d) The hotel and RV park uses are not anticipated to produce sound levels which would exceed thresholds of the General Plan noise element or Noise Ordinance. To a considerable degree, it can be anticipated that proposed structures will help buffer Highway 101 noise from the yards of the neighbors across San Luis Creek. In addition, parking areas for the motel use and RV parking are between 120 feet to 150 feet from the nearest residence on San Luis Drive, and further buffered by San Luis Creek and a heavily vegetated riparian corridor. In addition, Ordinance 1130 contains specific provisions to ensure compatible noise levels with residential uses across the riparian corridor which will be reviewed for conformance by the City Planning Commission. Construction activities generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction, including groundbome vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant impact. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 85 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated e), t) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, is not located within two miles of a public use airport, and is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 13.POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly x (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating x the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?x c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a)The project is proposed in an already urbanized area with existing roads and other infrastructure. The project would not induce substantial population growth in the area directly or indirectly. Less than significant. b), c) The project would not displace any existing housing or substantial numbers of people. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact 14.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance ob_jectives for any of the public services: a)Fire protection?x b)Police protection?x c)Schools?x d)Parks?x e)Other public facilities?x The proposal is for a tourist-oriented land use which will not require the provision of public facilities such as parks or schools. There is also adequate capacity of water, sewer, police and fire protection to service the proposed development. The development will be subject to the standard traffic and water impact fees. Conclusion: No impact. 15.RECREATION. a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or x regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project_include recreational facilities or require the x construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a), b) The project does not include permanent residential units and the transitory nature of the hotel guests and RV park use should not place an additional substantial burden on nearby residential facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would be accelerated. No Impact ATTACHMENT 1 Page 86 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 Conclusion: No impact 16.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b)Conflict_with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ( e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ( e.g. farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Project Traffic Impact Sources 27 25, 26,27 Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x x x x a), b) The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Monterey Street as an arterial road and adopts level of Service D (LOS D)as the maximum acceptable level of traffic congestion during PM peak hour conditions outside the downtown. The Circulation Element does not prescribe any modifications to Monterey Street northeast of its intersection with Grand Avenue. Higgins Associates prepared a traffic impact study (TIS) on the more intensive but similar motel project at this site, approved in 2003. (See Appendix I, attached.) The TIS evaluated how traffic from the project would affect the operation of nearby intersections. According to the report, full development of the motel would generate approximately 1, 148 vehicle trips per day, with 29 trips entering the project site and 52 trips departing during the AM peak hour, and 39 trips entering and 35 trips departing during the PM peak hour. The TIS forecasted how this additional traffic would be distributed to the following intersections and evaluated its impact on the traffic level of service (LOS). (The traffic impacts of the current, proposed project will be significantly less based on an average daily trip generation of 4 75 trips, according to the Omni Means draft Technical Memorandum dated November, 2015. See Appendices, attached.) 1.Monterey Street & U.S. 101 NB On/Off Ramps at Project Driveway 2.Monterey and Garfield 3.Monterey Street and Buena Vista 4.Buena Vista and Garfield 5. Buena Vista and U.S. 101 Southbound Off Ramp 6.Monterey Street at Apple Farm Inn Driveway 7.Monterey Street at La Questa Motor Inn Driveway The TIS concluded that under "existing + Project" conditions, area intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (generally at LOS C or better), in compliance with Circulation Element standards. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 87 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Cumulative Traffic Impacts: The prior traffic impact study also considered the prior project's contribution to cumulative traffic volumes at build-out of the City's general plan land uses. Under cumulative conditions, the analysis showed that intersections 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 listed above will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during AM and PM peak hours. For intersection 2 (Garfield @ Monterey), the Garfield approach to Monterey would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, without that project's traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization would not meet Caltrans warrants but that actual conditions should be monitored as traffic conditions change to determine the future need for a signal, or possibly all way traffic controls. Under build-out conditions, the Buena Vista approach to the southbound U.S. 101 off ramp (intersection 5, above) would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, without project traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization of this intersection does not meet Caltrans warrants, but like the Garfield intersection, monitoring should be undertaken and signalization may be warranted in the future. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. (Note: This project will pay city Transportation Impact Fees as required by ordinance. Revenues from these fees are used to pay for mitigating area-wide traffic conditions as those mitigations become necessary. Payment of the fee constitutes this project's fair share contribution toward mitigating potential, future substandard traffic conditions.) Traffic Geometrics Concerns d)Access to the Motel Inn site is challenging due to its immediate proximity to the northbound on ramp and southbound off ramp of Highway 101. Therefore, a traffic study was conducted by Omni-Means (November, 2015) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed new traffic to the area and identify the most reasonable measures to mitigate road and driveway geometric issues. The study was conducted in partnership with Caltrans. The study recommends: (1) restricting southwest (SW) left turns for approximately 120 feet of the Northbound (NB) 101 off ramp; (2) providing a west-bound (WB) left turn refuge/acceleration lane for hotel traffic; (3) realigning the Monterey Street curb line; and (4) making minor adjustment to affected motel driveways along Monterey Street. A conceptual graphic of the recommended mitigation is shown below. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 88 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Source: Omni-Means Mitigation Measure: MM-I Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as recommended in the traffic study which is depicted above, and as approved by the City and Caltrans. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. c)The project would not have any effect on air traffic patterns. No Impact. e)The site has been reviewed by City emergency services and found to comply with requirements for emergency access. No impact. 17.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro·ect: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable x Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 28 x or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water x drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 28 x from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate x ca_pacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to ATTACHMENT 1 Page 89 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 the provider's existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 29 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x a)b) c) The City Water Resource Recovery Facility and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct private sewer laterals to convey wastewater to the sewer main that parallels the project's western property line. All on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Sewer impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Resource Recovery Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of future development. The site includes existing pubic water and sewer mains in easements along the northern and western property lines. This water main is the transmission water main from Reservoir 1. Proposed development at the site shall be sited outside of these easements. Storm drainage facilities in the vicinity are adequate to serve the proposed project and no expansion is required which could result in significant environmental effects. Less than significant impact. d)Water demand from the project was anticipated as part of General Plan build out. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. Less than significant impact. e)f) g) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project, consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 18.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or x x x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 90 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated indirectly? 19.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a)Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. None. b)Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. NIA c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. 20.SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance 1130, 1989 2. Project Plans 3. Municipal Code 4. Response Letter from Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 2015 5. APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook 6. Ecological Analysis of Apple Farm II, 8/20/02, Levine-Fricke 7. City of San Luis Obispo Creek Setback ordinance (Section 17.16.025 of the Zoning Regulations) 8. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element, 2006 9. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory, December, 1983 10. City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Guidelines, 2010 11. Historical Resources Inventory of Property, Bertrando, September 2000 12. Historic American Building Survey (HABS) of the Motel Inn, August 2004 13. Archaeological Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002 14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, 1995 15. Extended Phase I Testing Report, Bertrando, 2002 16. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, State Geologist (Alquist-Priolo Map), 1990 17. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1984 18. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Ceres Associates, October, 1999 19. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, 2014 20. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 0603100005C) 21. Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan, Above Grade Engineering, San Luis Obispo, November 2015 22. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 23. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element & Guidebook 24. Noise Investigation , Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 91 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 25. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9 th Edition, 2012 26. Motel Inn Traffic Analysis, Higgins Associates, March 2002 27. Traffic Report, Omni-Means, November 2015 28. City of San Luis Obispo Water Allocation Regulations 29. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, 1994 Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: AppendixH: Project Plans Not Used Air Pollution Control District Letter Dated November 17, 2015 Ecological Analysis of San Luis Obispo Creek, Levine-Fricke, May 2002 and USFWS Protocol Survey, Levine-Fricke, June 2003 Historic American Building Survey of Former Motel Inn, 2004 (with limited attachments) Archaeological Report, Extended Phase 1 Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, 2002 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Ceres Associates Noise Study, Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001 No Impact Appendix I: Traffic Impact Study, OMNI-MEANS, Nov. 2015 & Higgins Associates, 2002; (with limited attachments) MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure AO-I: Prior to issuance of building permits, all m1t1gations and recommended actions from the November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. � Monitoring Program A0-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-I: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor: a.No heavy equipment should enter flowing water. b.Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor. c.Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas. d.All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction. e.All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the drainage/creek system. � Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed by the City's Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the City's Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 92 of 135 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. >--Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: Final plans shall be reviewed by the City's Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications to the creek restoration and enhancement plan as necessary to ensure that an appropriate mix of plantings, in type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized while working within the creek corridor. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts. >--Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures and the monitoring plan shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. The name and contact information for the monitor shall be clearly indicated within construction plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction. >--Monitoring Plan, HAZ-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations in the Phase I ESA shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Any contaminations issues must be presented to the Community Development Director and Fire Chief before further action. Mitigation Measure: TT-1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as generally described above (Transportation & Traffic Section #16 of the Initial Study), and as approved by the City and Caltrans. >--Monitoring Plan, TT-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations of the Omni Means Report (November 2015) shall be included in construction plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Compliance with the Omni Means Report and roadway design will be verified through the building permit process and with final inspections by City staff. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 93 of 135 Historic American Building Survey of the Motel Inn (Milestone Mo-Tel) 2223 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo CA 1.Architectural History 2.Reproductions of Historic Photos 3.Photo-documentation of Existing Conditions 4.As-Built Drawings (24 x 36 on mylar) Historic Documentation .... -��.. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 94 of 135 Significance In 1982, the Motel inn was recorded as Number 0138-03C as part of the historic resources inventory of the City of San Luis Obispo. At the time, only the restaurant/lobby building was considered, and it was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [City of San Luis Obispo 1983]. Further research conducted as part of a restoration and reconstruction project (slated to begin in 2003), assigned the property a State Historic Resources Number (P-40-041013) and included the bungalow units behind the main building [Bertrando and Bertrando 2000]. On the basis of standard criteria for cultural resource significance [Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 , Title 14 CCR Section 4852], the Motel Inn is significant because it: 1)is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history and cultural heritage. The Motel Inn was the first venue to combine the automotive convenience of the auto camps, courts, and cabins with amenities of the hotel, thus creating the concept of the motel. The Motel Inn was also the first to use the word motel, coined from mdor hotel. 2)is assoc iated with the lives of persons important in our past. Arthur Heineman, the Pasadena architect and developer of the Motel Inn, was a contemporary of Greene and Greene, and was well known for his Craftsman Style residences and as an early developer of the bungalow court concept. 3)Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value. The Motel Inn combines classic features of a Spanish Colonial/Mission Revival Style with the bungalow court concept. Although not a sterling example of period architecture, it is distinctive, and it represents the beginning of the use of flamboyant and colorful architecture to attract the attention of the touring motorist. History For a general history of the Motel Inn property, including a discussion of the development of the motel concept, refer to the Historic Resource Inventory Report filed by Betsy and Ethan Bertrando on September 2000. Architectural History Charles Hamilton of the Hamilton Hotel chain originally hired Arthur and Alfred Heineman to design a new motor hotel based on the bungalow court concept. The development was financed by Harry Elliot, who partnered with Hamilton, the Heineman brothers, and attorney John H. Alvord to create the Milestone Interstate Corporation, which was to develop a series of motels in California [Krieger 1988]. The Milestone Mot-tel was designed by Arthur Heineman, in association with his brother Alfred Heineman. The Heineman brothers came ta California from Chicago in 1894, and became involved in architecture primarily as developers. Although neither had any real training in architecture, they became designers and builders of housing in Southern California. Although Arthur became a registered architect, the unofficial designer was Alfred; the brothers became known as Arthur S. Heineman, architect, and Alfred Heineman, Associate. [Bertrando and Bertrando 2000: 12]. The draftsman of the project was Roy Sutherland, the engineer was Bill Morris [Henry 1957]. The General Contractor on the project was Maino Construction, plumbing was ATTACHMENT 1 Page 95 of 135 2 by Union Hardware and Plumbing Company, electrical was by Valley Electric (15,000 feet of conduit was installed). Project landscaper was Shurragar, the "well-known firm of florists and landscapers" [Daily Telegram 1925). At the time, AW. Shurragar had a florist shop at 1416 Monterey Street (Bertrando and Bertrando 2000: 14]. The Milestone Mo-Tel opened on December 12, 1925 at a construction cost of $80,000 [Jackson 1993]. but was not completely finished until fall of 1926 [Krieger 1988]. The Milestone Motel was the first and only motel built out of a proposed chain of eighteen, spaced along the California coast a day's drive apart. These motels were to be an entirely new form of accommodation, featuring the motoring convenience of the automobile camp with amenities of the hotel, including "free maid service, and restaurant and commissary," along with new amenities such as "laundry and dry yard, private garage for each car, "fix-it" garage and racks, and children's playgrounds" [Milestone Interstate Corporation 1925: 2] As originally built, the Milestone Mo-Tel consisted of a lobby and restaurant connected by a covered walkway. The lobby contained a large fireplace and a desk made of copper bound by wrought iron straps to simulate a Spanish chest [Daily Telegram 1925J. Between the mafn building and the creek, 15 bungalow units were clustered around a courtyard. The original courtyard was planted with grass and featured a palm frond-covered walkway connecting the restaurant and lobby with the bungalow nearest the creek (see photo Motel Inn Bungalow Court 1926}. Each bungalow consisted of 4 standard units that could be paired into a "sitting room apartment" for two couples (see Bungalow Plans 4 of 6). Each unit had a shower or bathtub, a toilet, a washbasin, a phone connected to a switchboard in the lobby, and central heat. The bungalows were constructed of 4" gypsum blocks (known as "key tfle") and plaster, with wood framing of flat roofs. The bungalows also featured clay tie trim, "little Spanish lanterns" by each door, and wood sash windows with iron grille work. Most bungalows also had one or two attached shed-roof garages {see attached 1926 Bungalow Court photos) [Sanborn 1926; Daily Telegram 1925]. Two "deluxe" apartments were situated on a second floor above the lobby and restaurant respectively. In back of the bungalows, along the creek, were a series of "hotel rooms" primarily for "motel aids and chauffeurs", now offices for the adjacent Apple Farm. The eastern end of the hotel unit building was occupied by laundry and linen storage, while further east was a repair garage, now used for storage. Two long garages for additional cars were located along the creek west of the "hotel rooms" [Sanborn 1926; Daily Telegram 1925]. To further cater to the motoring tourist, the Milestone Mo-Tel had its own gas station situated east of the restaurant in what is now a parking lot [Sanborn 1926]. Other amenities added in the 1920s included a miniature golf course along the creek east of the bungalows (see attached Miniature Golf photo ca. 1930) and a riding stable [Stephens 1985; Read 1988]. The restaurant was enlarged and bathrooms added [see Construction History Drawing]. In 1932, the Milestone Interstate Corporation made a large addition to the restaurant, expanding part of the ramada toward Monterey Street to create a lounge [see Construction History Drawing]. This addition was undoubted ly made to accommodate the growing popularity of the restaurant. Unfortunately. by August of that year, the Milestone Interstate Corporation was bankrupt, and the Milestone M<> Tel was lost to foreclosure. It remained closed until 1937 [Ceres 1999:9; Peters 1991]. In 1937, the property was purchased by the Motel Inn Corporation, and in 1938 the Motel Inn was listed as such, along with the Motel Service Station. at 2125 and 2145 Monterey ATTACHMENT 1 Page 96 of 135 3 Street respectively [Ceres 1999:9]. The Motel lnn was sold again in 1939 to Joseph and Lilyan Raphael, and in 1942 to Richard Guest and Violet Peck Guest [Peters 1991]. After the Guests purchased the property, they made some changes. They filled in the rest of the ramada between the main building wings to create a larger lounge and expanded restaurant, probably due to growing demand from Camp San Luis (see Motel Inn Construction History Drawing). In 1944, the Motel Inn was sold to George H. Jovick, and in 1947 it was sold to John W.and Lurene Fisher, who kept the property until 1955 [Peters 1991] .. Despite the continuous ownership during this period, an ad in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune in 1949 stated that the Motel Inn Dining Room would be closed for four days for redecoration and would open the next week under new management [San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1949:5). This may refer to the expansion of the restaurant area to include Bungalow K [Sanborn 1954]. In addition to this mystery, Polk's Business Directory of 1950 listed the Motel Inn at 2125 Monterey and "Tessyman's Motel Inn" at 2145 Monterey Stre et [Ceres 1999: 10]. In 1955, the Fisher's conveyed 2/3 interest of the property to Courtney and Eleanor Moore, and 1/3 to Volney P. Bell and Hope Bell. The following year, all interest in the property passed to the Moore's. During the Moore's ownership, many changes were made to the Motel Inn. The service station was torn down, the miniature gold course and riding stables were removed, and a swimming pool was added to the courtyard [Bertrando 2000:14; Peters 1991; Reed 1988:np]. By 1957, the apartment in the northwest comer of the property had been converted into a radio station for KVEC, and the restaurant building had absorbed Bungalow L as well as K to create conference, meeting, and banquet facilities (see Motel Inn Construction History Drawing) [Ceres 1999: 1 O; Bertrando 2000: 14}. It is also likely that the shed garages attached to some of the bungalows were taken down during this time, since a few (but not all) are shown on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 1954. In 1959, the Moore's conveyed a portion of their interest in theMotel Inn to Allen and Margaret Calkins [Peters 1991]. In the 1960s, the Calkins placed their stamp on the Motel Inn with addition of extensive signage, neon, (see Motel Inn 1960s brochure), and the development of a lunch patio by the pool, featuring a curvy fiberglass roof with tear-drop shaped edges [Giovanni 1987:17]. By 1970, both Courtney Moore and Allan Calkins had died, leaving the Motel Inn in the ownership of Margaret Calkins and Crocker-Citizen National Bank [Peters 1991 J. By 1974, a storage shed had been built in the southwest corner of the property, the area in back of the lounge and lobby had been filled in to expand the lounge area (see Motel Inn Construction History Drawing), and the KVEC radio station had relocated elsewhere [Bertrando 2000:14; Ceres 1999:11). Changes to the Motel Inn under the Calkins were the last major architectural changes made. In 1974, Margaret Calkins died and her interest was sold to Stanley A. Genest and V.E. Genest. In 1980, Crocker-Citizens Bank sold their interest to the Genests, and the following year the property was sold to Milton E. and Betty R. Grau, the last owners to actually operate the Motel Inn, which finally closed in 1990 [Bertrando 2000:14; Ceres 1999:12; Peters 1991]. Current Conditions The Motel Inn was built in a Spanish Coionial Style with Mission Revival elements, featuring plaster walls and red tile roof. The most dominant design attribute is a large tower with a copper dome. This tower, along with the a smaller "bell tower" and the short arcade in front of the lobby, recall the Mission Santa Barbara and other California missions. Design details included plaster scroll work on the towers, and at some of the windows and entrances. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 97 of 135 The roof line of the main restaurant/lobby building is very complex, consisting of multiple gables and parapets generated by the somewhat organic growth of the building over time. 4 The associated bungalows have flat roofs with some tile mansard edges, and are built of an unusual building material called "key tile." Key tile consists of 4" cube blocks of gypsum, which were stacked like bricks to create the structural walls. No reinforcement was used, and in many cases no mortar was even used. The cubes were stacked not in a running bond like brick, but in simple linear columns. Although most of the wood and wrought iron work present during the historic period are long gone, a few of these original details remain. Remaining details include the wrought iron at the Manager's Apartment and some of the wooden brackets the bungalow entries. Unfortunately, almost all of the original wood-frame divided casement windows have been replaced by picture windows or Jalousie windows. Although some of the existing shrubs and trees predate the 1950s, little if any of the original 1920s landscaping remains [Bertrando and Bertando 2000: 14; Foote 2000]. The earliest reports of the Motel Inn describe a "center park of lawn and shrubs" shown in the 1926 photos [Daily Telegram 1925). Later references mention citrus and kumquat trees [Dart 1978], but the exact dates of planting are unknown. The existing citrus tree all appear to be too small to have been planted in the 1920s or 1930s [Foote 2000}. Some newspaper stories about the Motel Inn in 1970s and 1980s mention arbors overgrown with ivy, while other describe the grounds as planted with oleander, hydrangeas, banana trees, oaks, citrus, and kumquats [Bertrando and Bertrando 2000:14]. Photographs of the poolside area in the 1960s show a decidedly tropical theme with fems, banana trees, and papyrus (see attached photos 1960s). Structurally, the bungalows are in very poor condition, lacking reinforcement, ties to foundation or in some cases any foundation at all. The flat roofs have leaked, damaging the woods framing and causing the collapse of much interior plaster. Structural problems are also apparent at the lobby, with exposed decayed beams and bowed exterior walls. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 98 of 135 References Cited and Consulted Anonymous 1925 "Guests Welcomed at Milestone Inn: Motel Opens for Service to the Motor Public." San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, December 12, 1925, pp. 1,4. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Anonymous 1925 "Guests Welcomed at Milestone Inn: Motel Opens for Service to the Motor Public.· San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, December 12, 1925, pp. 1,4. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Automobile Club of Southern California 5 1927 Auto Camps, Courts, and Camp Grounds of California. Automobile Club of Southern California, Los Angeles. Belasco, Warren James 1979 Americans on the Road from Autocamp to Motel, 1910-1945. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge. Bertrando, B. and E. Bertrando 2000a Historical Resource Inventory for 2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. The Motel Inn Complex (P-40-041013) {Milestone Mot-tel). On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara. 2000b Primary Record P-40-041013 On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Central Coast Informat ion Center, Santa Barbara. Ceres Associates 1999 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Apple Farm Inn, 21015-2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California. On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Dart, Louisiana Clayton 1978 Vignettes of History in San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo County Historical Society, San Luis Obispo. Foote, David 2000 Inventory and Evaluation of Existing Trees at the Motel Inn Site. Report on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Giovanni, Joseph 1987 "The First Haven for Man and His Auto," New York Times, Home Section, July 9, 1987, p. 17. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Heineman, Arthur 1925 The Milestone Marks the End of a Perfect Day. Prospectus for the Milestone Interstate Corporation, National City Bank Building, Los Angeles. On fife, B. Bertrando, San Luis Obispo. Henry, Bill 1957 "By the Way with Bill Henry." Los Angeles Times. June 11, 1957, np. Copy on file, King Ventures. San Luis Obispo. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 99 of 135 Jackson, Kristin 1993 "The World's First Motel Rests Upon Its Memories." The Seattle Times, April 25, 1993, pp. K1, K10. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Krieger. Dan 1988 "Times Past: Mot-Tel, San Luis Obispo's Motel Inn May Have Been First." The Telegram-Tribune, October 22, 1988, p. 23 (Focus Section). Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Milestone Interstate Corporation 1925 The Milestone Marks the End of a Perfect Day. Prospectus, Milestone Interstate Corporation, Los Angeles Patton, Phil 1986 "America's Home Away From Home is Still a Good Motel." Smithsonian, March 1988, pp. . Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Peters, Nick (Subdivision Manager, Cuesta Title) 6 1991 Chain of Title of the Motel Inn. On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Cuesta Title, San Luis Obispo. Reed, Christopher 1988 "Motoring Milestone." London-Manchester Guardian, January, 1988, np .. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Roth, Matthew W. 2000 "Roadside Dream: The World's First Motel Opened a New Chapter in California Car Culture." Westways, May/June, 2000, 16 .. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Sanborn Insurance Co. 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. On file, Bertrando and Bertrando, San Luis Obispo and King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. 1954 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. On file. Bertrando and Bertrando, San Luis Obispo and King Ventures. San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo, City of. 1983 Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey, Vols. 1,2, and 3. On file, Planning Department, City of San Luis Obispo, CA and Kennedy Library, California Polytechic, San Luis Obispo. Stephens, Dan 1985 "The First Motel Marks Sixtieth Year." The Telegram-Tribune, December 12, 1985, pp. A1, A3. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Warnack, James 1925 "Hostelry Chain for Motorists." Los Angeles Times, January 18, 1925, np Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 100 of 135 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A NEW 18,489-SF, THREE-STORY, MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 40 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR LOW -INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND 850 SF OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. PROJECT INCLUDES VARIOUS EXCEPTIONS, CONCESSIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS PROJECT ADDRESS: 736 Orcutt Road BY: Kyle Bell, Housing Coordinator Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 Email: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0221-2021 FROM: Rachel Cohen, Senior Planner APPLICANT: HASLO REPRESENTATIVE: David Gibbs, RRM RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and provide comments and recommendations to the Community Development Director. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The proposed project consists of a new 18,489 square foot, three-story, residential structure that includes 40 residential dwelling units dedicated to low-income households. The property was previously used as the Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter which provided 49 beds to serve unhoused community members. The p roject will preserve the existing residence on the site for the continued us as an 850 square foot office. All other existing structures will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project and site improvements (Attachment A, Project Plans). The project includes a front yard setback reduction of 10 -feet, where 15-feet is normally required for structures over 20-feet in height along the front yard in the Commercial Services (C-S) zone, and a side yard setback exception of 5-feet along the west property line, where 10 feet is normally required when adjacent to the Medium-Density Residential (R-3) zone. The applicant has provided justification statements of the proposed exceptions as part of the project description (Attachment B, Project Description). In accordance with Zoning Regulations Section 17.140.040, the project includes a density bonus of 80% to increase the density allowance of the property from 11.38 density units to 21 density units. To qualify for the density bonus, the project must provide at le ast 5 units (32% of the base density allowance) dedicated to low-income households. The proposed project includes 39 units to be dedicated to low-income households (plus 1 unit for the manager quarters for a total of 40 units). Meeting Date: 7/18/2022 Item Number: 4b Time Estimate: 45 minutes Page 101 of 135 Item 4b 736 Orcutt Road – ARCH-0366-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 The project is proposed as a 100% affordable housing project and includes two affordable housing incentives1 requests, which are subject to review by the Community Development Director: 1) a maximum height extension to allow a 40-foot-tall structure where normally limited to 35-feet; and 2) a 57% reduction in on-site parking requirements to provide 19 parking spaces, where 44 spaces are normally required. In accordance with Government Code 65915(e)(1), the project also includes a waiver from development standards for the creek setback requirement to be reduced to 6 feet, where 20 feet is normally required. The waiver is requested because full compliance with this development standard would physically preclude the project from being built with the requested density bonus due to existing site constraints (Attachment B). The Community Development Director will review these aspects of the proposal proceeding the ARC’s recommendation. General Location: The 0.67- acre project site is located mid- block along Orcutt Road, between the Orcutt and Broad and McMillan and Orcutt intersections. General Plan and Zoning: Services and Manufacturing - Commercial Services (C-S) zone. Surrounding Uses: East: (M) Offices West: (R-3-PD) Private Driveway to Multi-family Residences North: (M) Repair and Rental Services South: (C-C-S) Shopping Center 2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Architecture: Contemporary Design details: Creekside sitting area, decorative gable roofs, covered awnings, balconies, vertical windows, wood railing, and street-oriented storefront. Materials and Color: Horizontal lap siding (blue), accent wood siding (cedar), accent stucco (beige) and corrugated metal siding (gray), and anodized aluminum storefront (black). 1 Zoning Regulations 17.140.070B.1: A reduction in site development standards or modification of Title 17 requirements or architectural design requirements that exceeds the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs . Figure 1: 736 Orcutt Road Project Site Page 102 of 135 Item 4b 736 Orcutt Road – ARCH-0366-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC’s) role is to 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 Community Development Director concerning the proposed project design, focusing on building architecture and layout. 4.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with CDG and Sign Regulations. The CDG are designed to address specific development types rather than zoning districts, and since the project consists of a mixed-used development in the C-S zone, staff has applied the follow chapters of the CDG to address compatibility of the proposed use and design of the site in context of the neighborhood; Chapter 2 (General Design Principles), Chapter 3 (Commercial and Industrial Project Design), Chapter 5 (Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design). Highlighted Sections Discussion Items Chapter 2 – General Design Principles §2.1 – Site Design The project site is located on a parcel zoned C-S, with commercial uses to the east, and residential uses to the northwest. The ARC should discuss how the project fits in with the best examples of appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity of the site. Chapter 3 – Section 3.1 (Commercial Project Design Guidelines) §3.1.B.2: Neighborhood compatibility As noted above, the project site is located in an area that demonstrates a variety of land uses and is proximate to structures with varying architectural styles. The ARC Figure 2: Rendering from west bound Orcutt Road Page 103 of 135 Item 4b 736 Orcutt Road – ARCH-0366-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 5.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required* 2 Sign Regulations. Section 15.40.610. Findings for Approval of an Exception . Exceptions to the Sign Regulations must meet all of the following findings: (A) There are unusual circumstances applying to the property which make strict adherence to the regulations impractical or infeasible, such as building configuration, historic architectural features, architectural style, site layou t, intervening obstructions, or other unusual circumstances. Exceptions shall not allow for additional signage in number or size beyond what is necessary to compensate for the unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances may also include sign designs which are not expressly provided for or exempted in this Chapter, but which represent superior or innovative design appropriate for the building and location. (B) The exception is consistent with the intent and purpose of the sign regulations (see Section 15.40.110) and the exception is not being granted in cases where alternative options of allowed signage in this Chapter could provide an adequate alternative for sufficient visibility to the public with equal or superior design. (C) The sign exception is for superior design and complies with Design Principles of this Chapter and will not result in: visual clutter; excessively sized signage in comparison to the building or surroundings; signage that is inconsistent with the character of the surroundings; or appro val of signs that are prohibited in this chapter. §3.1.C.1: Site planning, consider neighboring development should discuss the project’s proportionality and size, building setbacks and massing, and application of colors and materials relative to the surrounding neighborhood. Chapter 5 – Section 5.4 (Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design) §5.4.A Site Planning The CDG states that multi-family units that consist of 10 or more units outside of Downtown should separate the units into structures of six or fewer units. The ARC should discuss whether design changes are necessary to address compliance with CDG for high density multi- family development projects. §5.4.C.2 Scale The CDG states that structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level and/or upper levels along the street frontage so that they do not visually dominate the neighborhood. The ARC should discuss the project’s scale and mass and discuss whether design changes are necessary to reduce the perceived scale of the project within the neighborhood. CDG Chapter 6 – Signs § 6.6 Signs The CDG allows approval of signs not normally allowed in exceptional circumstances such as visibility or unique design. The project includes four new signs associated with the residential structure, where only 2 signs are normally allowed in the C-S zone. The ARC should discuss whether the requested sign exceptions for the orientation of the four new signs (Project Plans Sheet A15), are consistent with the findings for an exception from the Sign Regulations2. Page 104 of 135 Item 4b 736 Orcutt Road – ARCH-0366-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 Density 21 (80% Density Bonus) 11.38 Setbacks Street Yard Side Yard 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet 10 feet Maximum Height 40 feet 35 feet Floor Area Ratio 0.63 1.5 Max Lot Coverage 18% 75% Total Sign Area Number of Signs C-S zone Wall Sign (1) Raised Channel Sign (1) Awning Signs (2) 70 SF Total 4 signs 27 SF 19 SF 12 SF 200 SF Total 2 signs 100 SF 25 SF 25 SF Tree Removals 29 trees (1:1) (supported by the City Arborist) 29 trees (under authority of City Arborist) Affordable Housing On-site (39 low-income units) On-site or In-Lieu fee Public Art Not Required Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Number of Vehicle Spaces EV Spaces 19 (57% reduction) 4 (EV ready) 15 (EV capable) 44 4 (EV ready) 15 (EV capable) Bicycle Spaces Short-term Long-term 14 40 1 40 Motorcycle Parking 2 2 Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) *2022 Zoning Regulations 6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending approval of the application based on consistency with the Community Design Guidelines will be forwarded to the Community Development Director for final action. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 6.2 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. 6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should Page 105 of 135 Item 4b 736 Orcutt Road – ARCH-0366-2021 Architectural Review Commission Report – July 18, 2022 reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, or other policy documents. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS A – Project Plans (ARCH-0366-2021) B – Project Description (ARCH-0366-2021) Page 106 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USET1#1608-0219 MAY 20221/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)TITLE SHEET736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE HOUSING MIXED-USEVIEW FROM ORCUTT ROADPROJECT DIRECTORYOWNER:HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO487 LEFF STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-4347PHONE: (805) 543-4478ARCHITECT:RRM DESIGN GROUP3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: DAVID GIBBSPHONE: (805)-543-1794EMAIL: DPGIBBS@RRMDESIGN.COMLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:OASIS ASSOCIATES3427 MIGUELITO COURTSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: SCOTT WRIGHTPHONE: EMAIL: SCOTT@OASISASSOC.COMCIVIL ENGINEER:RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY1160 MARSH STREET SUITE 150SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: TOM MARTINPHONE: (805) 544-0707EMAIL: TMARTIN@RICKENGINEERING.COMPROJECT ADDRESS:736 ORCUTT RDSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN:053-201-014PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAFFORDABLE HOUSING MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 39 UNITS OF LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 1 MANAGERS UNIT, 1,000 SF COMMUNITY SPACE, AND 850 SF EXISTING COMMERCIAL TO REMAIN. THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING A 80% DENSITY BONUS AND WILL BE REQUESTING A PARKING REDUCTION OF 47%. THE PROJECT HAS CHOSEN “ALL ELECTRIC” BUILDING DESIGN TO MEET REACH CODE COMPLIANCE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE PROJECT, BUT MAINTAINS A MIXED FUEL STATUS AS IT RELATES TO THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL USE. PLEASE SEE ADDEDUM PROJECT NARRATIVE FOR MORE INFORMATION AND JUSTIFCATION FOR THE FOLLOWING LIST OF EXCEPTIONS, WAIVERS, AND CONCESSIONS. THE PROJECT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:1. FRONT YARD SETBACK REDUCTION2. SIDE YARD SETBACK EXCEPTIONTHE PROJECT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING SITE DEVELOPMENT WAIVER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS 17.140.070 AND GOVERNMENT CODE 65915(E)(1):1. CREEK SETBACK REDUCTIONTHE PROJECT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES/CONCESSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SZONING REGULATIONS 17.140.070B.1 AND GOVERNMENT CODE 65915(K)(1):1. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT2. PARKING REDUCTIONSHEET INDEXT1 TITLE SHEETA2 EXISTING SITE SURVEYA3 TOP OF CREEK BANK PER BOB HILL’S DETERMINATION ON 10-03-2019A4 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN WITH PROPOSED FOOTPRINTA5 SITE BUILDABLE AREA EXHIBITA6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN & GROUND FLOOR PLANA7 SECOND & THIRD FLOOR PLANSA8 ROOF PLANA9 TYPICAL UNIT PLANSA10 ELEVATIONSA11 SITE SECTIONSA12 COLOR AND MATERIALSA13 DETAIL VIGNETTESA14 TRASH ENCLOSUREA15 PROPOSED BUILDING SIGNAGEA16 SOLAR SHADE STUDY - EXISTING VS PROPOSED ON 6/21A17 SOLAR SHADE STUDY - EXISTING VS PROPOSED ON 12/21C1 CIVIL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC2 STORMWATER CONTROL PLANC3 CIVIL UTILITY PLANL1 LANDSCAPE SITE PLANL2 TREE INVENTORY PLANPROJECT STATISTICSZONINGC-SPARCEL SIZE:0.669 ACRES (29,142 SF)AREA ABOVE TOP OF CREEK BANK0.474 ACRES (20,629 SF)BUILDING GROSS AREA18,489 SFGROUND FLOOR5,171 SFSECOND FLOOR6,659 SFTHIRD FLOOR6,659 SFMAX LOT COVERAGE:75% (21,857 SF)PROPOSED COVERAGE:18% (GROUND FLOOR/PARCEL SIZE)MAX. F.A.R.1.5 (43,713 SF)PROPOSED F.A.R.0.63 (BUILDING GROSS/ PARCEL SIZE)LANDSCAPE AREA: ON-SITE (5,211 SF) + OFF-SITE(2,529@GARIBALDI +481 SF @ORCUTT R.O.W.)TOTAL = 8,221 SFIMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 14,375 SFPERVIOUS SURFACE: 1,043 SFMAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT:35’ ABOVE AVG. EXISTING GRADEMAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT:40’-4” (3-STORY BUILDING)ADDITIONAL 3’-6” HEIGHT EXPECTED DUE TO 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. SEE SHEET A6.YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSEDFRONT10’ 10’SIDE5’ 5’CREEK20’ 6’-3” TO MATCH EXISTINGUSE AREAS:RESIDENTIAL37 x STUDIO (315 SF)2 x 1-BED (500 SF)1 x 2-BED MANAGER’S UNIT (800 SF)TOTAL = 13,455 SFLAUNDRY/MECH.338 SFCOMMON SPACE1,000 SFCONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE VBSPRINKLEREDNFPA 13ROCCUPANCY TYPER-2VICINITY MAPZONING MAPPARKINGAUTO PARKINGCALCULATION SPACE COUNTPARKING REQUIRED:RESIDENTIAL1 SPACE PER STUDIO & 1-BED X 39 392 SPACES PER MANAGERS UNIT 2COMMERCIAL1 SPACE PER 300 SF (850/300) = 3SUBTOTAL= 44MIXED USE PARKING REDUCTION = 20%44*80% = 35.2 = 36 REQUIREDTOTAL SPACES. PARKING REQUIRED:TOTAL REQUIRED AFTER MIXED USE REDUCTION = 36PARKING PROVIDED:STANDARD (COMMERCIAL)STANDARD (RESIDENTIAL)TANDEM (RESIDENTIAL)TOTAL38819PROPOSED REDUCTION19 PROVIDED/36 REQUIRED = 47%MOTORCYCLE PARKINGREQUIRED(1/20 AUTO SPACES = 44/20 = 2.4 3PROVIDEDDENSITY BONUS LAW CONCESSION0BICYCLE PARKINGPARKING REQUIRED:1 PER DWELLING UNIT PERMUNICIPAL SEC. 17.140.040K.2 AND 2 FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE42SHORT TERM PROVIDED:(COMMERCIAL AND GUESTS) 14LONG TERM PROVIDED:(RESIDENTIAL) 40TOTAL PROVIDED: 54REQUIRED EV READY/CAPABLE25% OF PROVIDED PARKING=19*0.25 =5PROVIDED EV INSTALLED 1PROVIDED EV READY 4SOLAR READYCONDITIONED AREA14,525 SFREQUIRED SYSTEM SIZE50.9 kW PVTYPICAL SOLAR PANEL65”x39”0.54 kW PVTOTAL PANELS REQUIREDREQUIRED SYSTEM SIZE / TYPICAL SOLAR PANEL95 PANELSTOTAL SOLAR READY ROOF REQUIREDREQUIRED SF65”x39” PANELS95 PANELS = 1,672 SFTOTAL SOLAR READYROOF PROVIDED65”x39” PANELS 168 PANELS =3,000 SFDENSITY CALCULATIONSCALCULATION RESULTALLOWED DENSITY UNITS24/ACRE = 0.474(AREA ABOVE TOP OF BANK)*2411.38PROPOSED DENSITY(37) STUDIO*0.5 =(2) 1-BEDROOM*0.5=(1) 2-BEDROOM*1=TOTAL DENSITY UNITS=18.51120.5PROPOSED DENSITY BONUS20.5/11.38 80%LAUREL LNORCUTT RDBROA D S T RAIL R O A D GARIBALD AVE MCMILLAN AVE VEVEVE SITESITEPage 107 of 135 CP=2EL=220.73CP/MAGCP=51EL=224.74CP/SPK WSHRCP=454EL=224.73CP/SCRBXCP=455EL=217.56CP/SCRBXE7E7E5E4E7E7E4FORMER R/W LINEOF736 ORCUTT ROADSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN: 053-201-014TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYREV. NO.DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES DATEPROFESSIONALLANDSU R V E YOR No. 8226ERIC J. ACKERMANAINROFILACFOETATS SEPTEMBER 4, 2019THIS WORK WAS PERFORMED BY ME IN CONFORMANCE WITH THEPROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT.SHEET 1 OF 1SCALE: 1" = 10'0 10203040N*FLOOD ZONE MAPNO SCALEZONE LINEN*DRAWING NAME: 000562TOPO01.DWGDATE OF WORK PERFORMED: AUGUST, 2019LAYOUT NAME: 30X42ORIG. DATE: 2019-08-14POINT FILE: 000562CP.CRDDRAWN BY: GWGROMATICI LAND SURVEYING, INC.LOS OLIVOS * GOLETA2432 RAILWAY AVE, SUITES I & J, LOS OLIVOS, CA 93441MAIL: PO BOX 650, LOS OLIVOS, CA 93441805-691-9112 PHONE * 866-610-1045 FAXINFO@GROMATICI.COM * WWW.GROMATICI.COMGARIBALDI AVE.PARCEL INFORMATIONSITESURVEYOR'S NOTESTHIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED IN AUGUST 2019 AT THE REQUEST OF THE HOUSINGAUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AT A SCALE OF 1" = 20' WITH A 1FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL. THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS NOT A COMPLETEBOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS BASED UPON MINIMAL TIES TO RECORD BOUNDARYINFORMATION. THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE SUBJECT BOUNDARY IS A MEASUREDBOUNDARY LINE, BUT THE INFORMATION SHOWN ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THECREEK IS RECORD DATA ONLY.NO UNWRITTEN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DEPICTED HEREON OR OPINIONS REGARDINGUNWRITTEN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN NOTED.BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS AND COORDINATES FOR THIS SURVEY ISCCS83(1991.35) BASED UPON STATIC GPS TIES TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOHORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK, ADJUSTMENT OF 1999 CONTROL STATIONSNUMBERS 8070 AND 8071 LISTED THEREIN.VERTICAL DATUM AND PROJECT BENCHMARK: THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEYIS NAVD'88 BASED ON STATIC TIES STATION 74 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOBENCHMARK SYSTEM, 2019 ADJUSTMENT HAVING AN ELEVAITON OF 216.75'LOCAL BENCHMARK: THE LOCAL BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY IS POINT NO. 455HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 215.56'ALL ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET.R1 = RECORD DATA PER PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 37, PAGE 68 OF PARCEL MAPS.RECORD DATALEGAL DESCRIPTIONALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A OF PARCEL MAPS NO. MS 84-084 INTHE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED JULY 18T, 1985 IN BOOK 37, PG 68 OF PARCELMAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.VICINITY MAPNO SCALEUTILITIESCABLE - COX/COMCASTGAS - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASELECTRICITY - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONFIBEROPTIC - VERIZONSEWER - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOWATER - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOADDRESS: 736 ORCUTT ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401APN: 053-201-014SIZE: 29,130± SF GROSS, 20,239± NET PER RECORDZONING: SERVICE COMMERCIAL C-S (PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONING MAP)ADJACENT BOUNDARYMEASURED BOUNDARYGAS METERWATER METERPOWER POLEDOWN SPOUTTREE WITH TRUNK DIAMETERTREE DRIPLINE (ACTUAL SIZE)BRICK SURFACEBUILDINGCONCRETE SURFACESETBACK LINESEASEMENT LINESCENTERLINECHAIN LINK FENCEWOOD FENCELEGAL CENTERLINEBOUNDARY LINERIGHT-OF-WAYOVERHEAD WIRETHESE STANDARD SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS MAY BE FOUND IN THE DRAWINGLEGENDAC ASPHALTIC CONCRETEAPN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERBC BRASS CAPBFP BACK FLOW PREVENTERBK BOOKBW BACK OF WALKBLK BLOCKCLF CHAIN LINK FENCECONC CONCRETECP CONTROL POINTDI DROP INLETEBOX ELECTRICAL BOXEL ELEVATIONELEC ELECTRICFF FINISH SURFACEFH FIRE HYDRANTFL FLOWLINEFNC FENCEFS FINISH SURFACEGM GAS METERGR GAS RISERHB HOSE BIBICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEIP IRON PIPELP LAMP POSTM MEASUREDMH MANHOLENG NATURAL GROUNDPB PULL BOXPG PAGEPVMT PAVEMENTR RECORD DATARR RAILROAD RAILROW RIGHT OF WAYRD ROOF DRAINRSR RISERSCO SEWER CLEANOUTSMH SEWER MANHOLETRANS TRANSFORMERTC TOP OF CURBVLT VAULTRIGHT-OF-WAYFOUND MONUMENT PER R1SEARCHED; NOTHING FOUND OR SETSET MONUMENTSPOT ELEVATION TICKSPOT ELEVATION TICKSPOT ELEVATION LEADERSPOT ELEVATION AT DECIMALGROMATICI CONTROL ONLYURPDWLFL*Land Surveying, Inc.BOUNDARY DISCLAIMERTHE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM PUBLIC RECORDS ONLY THAT MAYINCLUDE PREVIOUS SURVEYS OR SIMPLY THE VESTING DEED. THESE MAY HAVECONSIDERABLE ERRORS IN THEM. THE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE NOT BASEDUPON A FIELD SURVEY UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. ONLY MINIMAL FIELD TIES WEREPERFORMED. THAT MEANS THAT THIS SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY MEASURED EACHCORNER OF THE PARCEL, NOR HAVE INVESTIGATIONS BEEN DONE REGARDING GAPS OROVERLAPS IN OWNERSHIP OR CHAIN OF TITLE RESEARCH. THEY ARE SHOWN FORINFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.ORCUTT ROADMC. MILLAN AVENUEGARIBALDI AVENUEBROA D S T R E E T ZONE: ZONE "X" - SHADED AND UNSHADED - NOT A HAZARDOUS FLOOD ZONEREQUEST OF: MICHAEL BURKETITLE: DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, HASLOADDRESS:CITY: SAN LIUS OBISPOPHONE: 805-595-1372EMAIL: MBURKE@HASLO.ORGORCUTT ROADTHE FOLLOWING LIST OF EASEMENTS CORRESPONDS TO THE LIST OFEASEMENTS IN THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2015 BYFIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 4009-4845555. GROMATICICAN NOT WARRANT OR GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESSOF SAID DOCUMENT.EASEMENT NOTES4. HIGHWAY PLAN LINE AS DISCLOSED BY A MAP FILED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 6OF PLAN LINE MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAIDCOUNTY. SAID PLAN SHOWS A DASHED LINE 42' FROM THE CENTERLINE.THE CURRENT R/W LINE IS 42' FROM THE CENTERLINE. SEE DOCUMENT FORFULL PARTICULARS.5. A 12' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES, RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1976 AS BOOK 1915, PAGE 125 OFOFFICIAL RECORDS. THIS EASEMENT AFFECTS THE SOUTHERLY 12' FEET OFTHE LOT, PRIOR TO THE DEDICATION OR WIDENING OF ORCUTT STREET. THEPTR INDICATES THAT THE PROPERTY IS 42' FROM THE CENTERLINE; THIS THISEASEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT US. HOWEVER, OUR SCOPE DID NOTINCLUDE INVESTIGATING IF THERE IS AN UNDERLYING FEE INTO ORCUTTROAD.7. THREE EASEMENTS AS CONTAINED ON PARCEL MAP MS-84-084RECORDED JULY 18, 1985 IN BOOK 37 PAGE 68 OF PARCEL MAPS1.1. A 5' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT1.2. A 10' STREET TREE EASEMENT1.3. A CREEK MAINTENANCE EASEMENT - TO BE MAINTAINED IN IT'SNATURAL STATE WITH RIGHT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTSE4E5E7SHEDSHEDSHEDSTRUCTURE736 ORCUTT RD.APN 053-201-014736 ORCUTT RD.APN 053-201-03142'20'42'APN 053-201-022APN 053-201-012CREEEKCREEEK1 ADDED LINE AT CREEK BANK 09-04-2019736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA2#1608-0219 MAY 20221” = 15’-0” (24X36 SHEET)01530 601” = 30’-0” (12X18 SHEET)EXISTING SITE SURVEYPage 108 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA3#1608-0219 MAY 2022TOP OF CREEK BANK PER BOB HILL’S DETERMINATION ON 10-03-2019 + MINOR REVISION ON 05-18-20221” = 15’-0” (24X36 SHEET)01530 601” = 30’-0” (12X18 SHEET)Page 109 of 135 OF736 ORCUTT ROADSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN: 053-201-014TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYREV. NO.DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES DATETHIS WORK WAS PERFORMED BY ME IN CONFORMANCE WITH THESCALE: 1" = 10'0 10203040NDRAWING NAME: 000562TOPO01.DWGDATE OF WORK PERFORMED: AUGUST, 2019LAYOUT NAME: 30X42ORIG. DATE: 2019-08-14POINT FILE: 000562CP.CRDDRAWN BY: GWGROMATICI LAND SURVEYING, INC.LOS OLIVOS * GOLETA2432 RAILWAY AVE, SUITES I & J, LOS OLIVOS, CA 93441MAIL: PO BOX 650, LOS OLIVOS, CA 93441805 691 9112 PHONE*866 610 1045 FAXPARCEL INFORMATIONSITESURVEYOR'S NOTESTHIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED IN AUGUST 2019 AT THE REQUEST OF THE HOUSINGAUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AT A SCALE OF 1" = 20' WITH A 1FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL. THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS NOT A COMPLETEBOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS BASED UPON MINIMAL TIES TO RECORD BOUNDARYINFORMATION. THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE SUBJECT BOUNDARY IS A MEASUREDBOUNDARY LINE, BUT THE INFORMATION SHOWN ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THECREEK IS RECORD DATA ONLY.NO UNWRITTEN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DEPICTED HEREON OR OPINIONS REGARDINGUNWRITTEN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN NOTED.BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS AND COORDINATES FOR THIS SURVEY ISCCS83(1991.35) BASED UPON STATIC GPS TIES TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOHORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK, ADJUSTMENT OF 1999 CONTROL STATIONSNUMBERS 8070 AND 8071 LISTED THEREIN.VERTICAL DATUM AND PROJECT BENCHMARK: THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEYIS NAVD'88 BASED ON STATIC TIES STATION 74 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOBENCHMARK SYSTEM, 2019 ADJUSTMENT HAVING AN ELEVAITON OF 216.75'LOCAL BENCHMARK: THE LOCAL BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY IS POINT NO. 455HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 215.56'ALL ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET.R1 = RECORD DATA PER PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 37, PAGE 68 OF PARCEL MAPS.RECORD DATALEGAL DESCRIPTIONALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A OF PARCEL MAPS NO. MS 84-084 INTHE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED JULY 18T, 1985 IN BOOK 37, PG 68 OF PARCELMAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.VICINITY MAPNO SCALEUTILITIESCABLE - COX/COMCASTGAS - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GASELECTRICITY - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONFIBEROPTIC - VERIZONSEWER - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOWATER - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOADDRESS: 736 ORCUTT ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401APN: 053-201-014SIZE: 29,130± SF GROSS, 20,239± NET PER RECORDZONING: SERVICE COMMERCIAL C-S (PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONING MAP)ADJACENT BOUNDARYMEASURED BOUNDARYGAS METERWATER METERPOWER POLEDOWN SPOUTTREE WITH TRUNK DIAMETERTREE DRIPLINE (ACTUAL SIZE)BRICK SURFACEBUILDINGCONCRETE SURFACESETBACK LINESEASEMENT LINESCENTERLINECHAIN LINK FENCEWOOD FENCELEGAL CENTERLINEBOUNDARY LINERIGHT-OF-WAYOVERHEAD WIRETHESE STANDARD SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS MAY BE FOUND IN THE DRAWINGLEGENDAC ASPHALTIC CONCRETEAPN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERBC BRASS CAPBFP BACK FLOW PREVENTERBK BOOKBW BACK OF WALKBLK BLOCKCLF CHAIN LINK FENCECONC CONCRETECP CONTROL POINTDI DROP INLETEBOX ELECTRICAL BOXEL ELEVATIONELEC ELECTRICFF FINISH SURFACEFH FIRE HYDRANTFL FLOWLINEFNC FENCEFS FINISH SURFACEGM GAS METERGR GAS RISERHB HOSE BIBICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEIP IRON PIPELP LAMP POSTM MEASUREDMH MANHOLENG NATURAL GROUNDPB PULL BOXPG PAGEPVMT PAVEMENTR RECORD DATARR RAILROAD RAILROW RIGHT OF WAYRD ROOF DRAINRSR RISERSCO SEWER CLEANOUTSMH SEWER MANHOLETRANS TRANSFORMERTC TOP OF CURBVLT VAULTRIGHT-OF-WAYFOUND MONUMENT PER R1SEARCHED; NOTHING FOUND OR SETSET MONUMENTSPOT ELEVATION TICKSPOT ELEVATION TICKSPOT ELEVATION LEADERSPOT ELEVATION AT DECIMALGROMATICI CONTROL ONLYBOUNDARY DISCLAIMERTHE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM PUBLIC RECORDS ONLY THAT MAYINCLUDE PREVIOUS SURVEYS OR SIMPLY THE VESTING DEED. THESE MAY HAVECONSIDERABLE ERRORS IN THEM. THE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE NOT BASEDUPON A FIELD SURVEY UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. ONLY MINIMAL FIELD TIES WEREPERFORMED. THAT MEANS THAT THIS SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY MEASURED EACHCORNER OF THE PARCEL, NOR HAVE INVESTIGATIONS BEEN DONE REGARDING GAPS OROVERLAPS IN OWNERSHIP OR CHAIN OF TITLE RESEARCH. THEY ARE SHOWN FORINFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.ORCUTT ROADMC. MILLAN AVENUEGARIBALDI AVENUEBROA D S T R E E T REQUEST OF: MICHAEL BURKETITLE: DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, HASLOADDRESS:CITY: SAN LIUS OBISPOPHONE: 805-595-1372EMAIL: MBURKE@HASLO.ORGTHE FOLLOWING LIST OF EASEMENTS CORRESPONDS TO THE LIST OFEASEMENTS IN THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2015 BYFIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 4009-4845555. GROMATICICAN NOT WARRANT OR GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESSOF SAID DOCUMENT.EASEMENT NOTES4. HIGHWAY PLAN LINE AS DISCLOSED BY A MAP FILED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 6OF PLAN LINE MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAIDCOUNTY. SAID PLAN SHOWS A DASHED LINE 42' FROM THE CENTERLINE.THE CURRENT R/W LINE IS 42' FROM THE CENTERLINE. SEE DOCUMENT FORFULL PARTICULARS.5. A 12' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE AND INCIDENTALPURPOSES, RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1976 AS BOOK 1915, PAGE 125 OFOFFICIAL RECORDS. THIS EASEMENT AFFECTS THE SOUTHERLY 12' FEET OFTHE LOT, PRIOR TO THE DEDICATION OR WIDENING OF ORCUTT STREET. THEPTR INDICATES THAT THE PROPERTY IS 42' FROM THE CENTERLINE; THIS THISEASEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT US. HOWEVER, OUR SCOPE DID NOTINCLUDE INVESTIGATING IF THERE IS AN UNDERLYING FEE INTO ORCUTTROAD.7. THREE EASEMENTS AS CONTAINED ON PARCEL MAP MS-84-084RECORDED JULY 18, 1985 IN BOOK 37 PAGE 68 OF PARCEL MAPS1.1. A 5' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT1.2. A 10' STREET TREE EASEMENT1.3. A CREEK MAINTENANCE EASEMENT - TO BE MAINTAINED IN IT'SNATURAL STATE WITH RIGHT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTSSHEDSHEDSHEDSTRUCTURE736 ORCUTT RD.APN 053-201-014736 ORCUTT RD.APN 053-201-031APN 053-201-022APN 053-201-012PROPOSED OO PRINPROPOSED OO PRIN50 ORCU ROAD A ORDABLE SPECIAL NEEDS00 E R NE736 ORCUTT RD.TT RAPN 053-201-03153-2PROPROPOSPOSED ED OOOOPRPRININPROPROPOSPOSED ED PRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPROPROPROPROPROPROPROPROPROPROPROPROPROPROPROPROROROROROPPROROPPROROPPROROPPROROPPOOPOPOOOPOPOOOPOPOOOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOSPOSPOSPOSOOPOPOSSED ED SSED ED ROROPROPROPPPROPROPPROROPPROROPPPROPROED ED PROPROPOSPOSED ED PPPOSPOSEDEDOOOOPRPRININOOOOOOOOOOOOPPOOPPOOPPOOOOPPOOPPPRPRPRPROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPRPRININ736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA4#1608-0219 MAY 2022500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN WITH PROPOSED FOOTPRINT1” = 15’-0” (24X36 SHEET)01530 601” = 30’-0” (12X18 SHEET)Page 110 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA5#1608-0219 MAY 20221/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SITE BUILDABLE AREA EXHIBITEXISTING STRUCTURE TO PRESERVESITE BUILDABLE AREA = 7,416SF7,416 /29,142 = 25% OF SITE = BUILDABLE AREA15’ UPPER STORY SETBACK1555555515555555551555515UPUPUPUPUPPUPERRPERPERPERTSTSTSTSTTTTSTTTTTSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTORYORYYYYORYYORYRYYORYORYYOROROROROROROOOOOSESESESESESESEESEESSSSTBATBATBATBATBBTBTBTTKCKKCKCKCKCKCKCKC10’ FRONT SETBACK (MATCHES P.U.E.)10’ SIDE SETBACK1010101010SISISISIIISIIIISSDEDEDEDDEDEDEDEDEDEDEEDDEE DEEEDEESETSETSETSETSETBACBACBACBACACCCCCCCBACACCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK5’ SIDE SETBACK20’ CREEK SETBACK6’-3” MATCHING EXISTING DISTURBANCE/STRUCTURE20’-0”MIN DISTANCE FROM EXISTING STRUCTURE20’-0”MIN DISTANCE FROM EXISTING STRUCTUREPage 111 of 135 42’-0”(42/188 = 22% OF STREET FACING PROPERTY LINE)ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIOR LIGHTINGSHELTER LED WALL SCONCE1324-BK-LED SATIN BLACKHINKLEY LIGHTING DARK SKY COMPLIANT14 COUNT736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA6#1608-0219 MAY 20221” = 10’-0” (24X36 SHEET)01020 401” = 40’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED SITE PLAN & GROUND FLOOR PLAN5’ SIDE SETBACK10’ FRONT SETBACK6’ - 3” SETBACK MATCHING EXISTING HOUSE SETBACK20’ CREEK SETBACKCOMMON OUTDOOR AREA19 PARKING STALLS11-STANDARD8-TANDEM(3 EV INSTALLED, 2 EV READY)ORCUTT ROADGARIBALDI AVEEVREADYEVREADYEVREADYEVREADYVVVVVVVVVYYYYYYYYYYYYEVINSTALLEDOPEN CORRIDORELEV.STAIRSTAIRR.R.ELEVLLLEVVVV.JAN.CL.RELECTRICAL ROOMFIRE RISER ROOMMECH.RTEEEEEEEE120 SFLNDRYLNDRYELEELELELLEEECTECTCTCTTELEELELECELELEEELEELEELEEELELELELLRICARICALRICALRICALRICALLRRROROOMBIKE STORAGEx24BIKE STORAGEx16BIKE PARKINGx7BIKE PARKINGx7EXISTING COMMERCIAL TO REMAIN850 SF1,000 SFCOMMON315 SFSTUDIOS500 SF 1-BED103’-11”61’-1”29’-0”10’-0”38’ -6”194’ OVERALL BUILDING LENGTHOO188’-0”5’-0”Page 112 of 135 120 SF LAUNDRYEXTERIOR CORRIDOR315 SFSTUDIOS500 SF 1-BED800 SF 2-BEDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUNUUUUUUUUUNUNUUUUNNUUNUNUNNUUNUNNNUNUNNNNNNUUNUNUUNUUNNNUUUUUUNUNUNUUNUUUNUNUNNUUNNUNNNNNUUNNNNUUNNNNNNNUUUUUUNNNNUUUUUUNNNNNUDRDDRDRDDDRRRDRDRDRRRRDRDDRDRDDRRRDRDRDRDRDRDRDDRDRDRDDRDRDRDDDDRRDRDRDRDRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOPEN CORRIDOREXTERIOR CORRIDOR315 SFSTUDIOS500 SF 1-BEDOPEN CORRIDOR736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA7#1608-0219 MAY 20221 1 0 2 3 S EET011 1 1 0 12 1 S EETSECOND & THIRD FLOOR PLANSSECOND FLOOR PLAN1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1THIRD FLOOR PLAN1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2Page 113 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA8#1608-0219 MAY 20221/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)ROOF PLAN8:123:123:120.25:12MECH WELLEXISTING HOUSE0.25:120.25:123:123:123:126.5:126.5:126:124:128:123:123:123:123:123:123:123:126:124:12Page 114 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA9#1608-0219 MAY 20221 1 0 2 3 S EET011 1 1 0 12 1 S EETTYPICAL UNIT PLANSSTUDIO UNIT320 SF1-BED UNIT515 SF2-BED UNIT800 SFPage 115 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA10#1608-0219 MAY 20221/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)ELEVATIONSNORTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)3WEST ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1EAST ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2SOUTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)40’-0” (220’-6” FF)3’-0” (223’-6” FF)13’-5” (233’-11” FF)23’-10” (244’-4” FF)35’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE (257’-3”)35’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE (257’-3”)GROUND LEVELGROUND LEVELSECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORMAX HEIGHT (222’-3”)(222'-3”)(222'-3”)AVG. EXISTING GRADEAVG. NATURAL GRADEAVG. NATURAL GRADEMAX ALLOWABLEMAX ALLOWABLEHEIGHT CALC:LOW POINT: 221.1’HIGH POINT: 223.3’AVG. NATURAL GRADE (A.N.G.): (221.1' + 223.3’) / 2 = 222.2'MAX GRADE HEIGHT ALLOWED = 222.2’ + 35’ = 257.2’MAX GRADE HEIGHT PROPOSED = 261.5’ - 257.2’ = 4.3’ OVER HEIGHT ALLOWEDNOTE: REQUESTED VARIANCE OF 3.6’ DUE TO 500’ FLOOD PLAIN FINISH FLOOR REQUIREMENTS AND AS A RESULT OF PROPER ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER PER CONTEXT0’-0” (220’-6” FF)GROUND LEVEL13’-5” (233’-11” FF)23’-10” (244’-4” FF)41’-0”(261’-6” = 39.25’ FROM A.N.G.)SECOND FLOORTHIRD FLOORMAX HEIGHT13-4” (233'-10” FF)13’-4” (233'-10” FF)3’-0” (223'-6” FF)222'-3”23’-8” (244’-2”) FF)23’-8” (244'-2” FF)35’ ABOVE AVG. NATURAL GRADE (257’-3”)35’ ABOVE AVG. NATURAL GRADE (257’-3”)41’-0”(261’-6” = 39.25’ FROM A.N.G.)41’-0”(261’-6” = 39.25’ FROM A.N.G.)SECOND FLOORSECOND FLOORGROUND FLOORAVG. NATURAL GRADETHIRD FLOORTHIRD FLOORMAX ALLOWABLEMAX ALLOWABLEMAX HEIGHT - 4.25’ HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUESTP.L. P.L.5’-0” SIDE SETBACK4.25’4.25’4’-0” UPPER SIDE SETBACK4’-0” UPPER SIDE SETBACKR-4 SETBACK PLANE LINE. EXCEPTION REQUEST PER PROJECT DESCRIPTION. R-4 SETBACK PLANE LINE. EXCEPTION REQUEST PER PROJECT DESCRIPTION. 5’-0” SIDE SETBACKMAX HEIGHT - 4.25’ HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUESTP.L.P.L.10’-0” FRONT SETBACK10’-0” FRONT SETBACK41’-0”(261’-6” = 39.25’ FROM A.N.G.)Page 116 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA11#1608-0219 MAY 20221/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SITE SECTIONSCROSS SECTION THROUGH DOUBLE LOADED HALL1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2CROSS SECTION THROUGH COVERED PARKING1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1STUDIOSTUDIOCOVERED PARKINGCOMMONSPACEHALLHALL2’-0” (222’-6” FF)13’-4” (233’-10” FF)23’-8” (244’-2” FF)PARKING F.F. @ SECTION CUTSECOND FLOOR.THIRD FLOORGARIBALD AVEGARIBALD AVESTUDIO STUDIOSTUDIO 2-BEDSTUDIO STUDIOHALLHALLHALL35’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE (257’-3”)MAX ALLOWABLE40’-4” (260’-10”)MAX HEIGHT3’-0” (222’-6” FF)13’-4” (233’-10” FF)23’-8” (244’-2” FF)GROUND F.F. @ SECTION CUTSECOND FLOOR.THIRD FLOOR35’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE (257’-3”)MAX ALLOWABLE40’-4” (260’-10”)MAX HEIGHTPage 117 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA12#1608-0219 MAY 20221/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)COLOR AND MATERIALSABCDFEJGKHWINDOW TRIM & BRACKETSSW 7069 IRON OREACCENT ROOFINGMCELROY STANDING SEAMMEDIUM BRONZEPRIMARY ROOFINGGAF ROOFING TIMBERLINE HDPEWTER GRAYFASCIA BOARDSW 6129 RESTRAINED GOLDCORRUGATED METAL SIDINGPAC CLAD SLATE GRAYACCENT SIDINGALLURA FIBER CEMENT HORIZONTAL SIDING 6” LAPCEDAR COLORPLASTERMERLEX STUCCOEL DORADO P-6 COLORPRIMARY SIDINGFIBER CEMENT HORIZONTAL SIDING 9” LAPSW 6537 LUXE BLUELIGHTINGSHELTER LED WALL SCONCE1324-BK-LED SATIN BLACKHINKLEY LIGHTINGLAP SIDING CORNER TRIMXTREME TRIMBLACK COLORAABBFFDDCCEEJKKHHJGGPage 118 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA13#1608-0219 MAY 20221/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)DETAIL VIGNETTESACCENT SIDING DETAIL3FARMHOUSE GABLE DETAIL2COMMON SPACE ENTRANCE DETAIL1WOOD-LOOK FIBERGLASS GABLE ACCENTSOLAR PANELSSOLAR PANELS ON ROOFSTANDING SEAM ACCENT ROOFDECORATIVE METAL TRUSS BRACKETWOOD-LOOK METAL GUARDRAILSPOWDERCOATED METAL BRACEWOOD-LOOK FIBER CEMENT SIDINGWINDOW BOX W/ KINETIC METAL ARTWOOD-LOOK FIBERGLASS RAIL DETALACCENT WOOD-LOOK METAL PANELSMETAL SUSPENSION CABLEMETAL RAISED LETTER SIGNAGESUSPENDED METAL AWNINGSCONCE LIGHT FIXTUREPARAPET CAPCORRUGATED METAL SIDINGMETAL WINDOW HEADERSTREET-FACING STOREFRONTPRECAST CAPPLASTER WAINSCOT BASEPage 119 of 135 0’-0” FF12'-0”14'-0”9’-6”GROUND LEVELTOP OF TRUSSMAX HEIGHTTOP OF PLASTER736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA14#1608-0219 MAY 20221/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 161/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)TRASH ENCLOSUREPLAN VIEW1WOOD-LOOK FIBERGLASS LOUVERSSTANDING SEAM ACCENT ROOFPOWDERCOATED METAL BRACESCONCE LIGHT FIXTUREPLASTER FINISH6’ WIDE METAL DOUBLE ACCESS DOORSDETAIL VIGNETTE2ELEVATION A1/2" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)3ELEVATION B1/2" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)4TRASH 4 YARD CONTAINER58” X 84”RECYCLING 4 YARD CONTAINER58” X 84”ORGANICS65 GALLONORGANICS65 GALLON16’ - 0”9’ - 0” WIDE GATE12’ 6” 5’ 6” STORAGE DEPTH5’ 6” AISLE DEPTH66” WIDE INTERIOR ACCESS AREA1/2" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)Page 120 of 135 EAST ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)2SOUTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)4736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA15#1608-0219 MAY 20221 1 0 2 3 S EET011 1 1 0 12 1 S EETPROPOSED BUILDING SIGNAGEPROJECT SIGN 1WAYFINDING 1WAYFINDING 2PROJECT SIGN 2RAISED CHANNEL ADDRESS SIGN (1.33’X 9’ = 12 SF)RAISED CHANNEL ADDRESS SIGN (1.33’X 9' = 12 SF)RAISED CHANNEL SIGN (1.33’X14' = 19 SF)WALL SIGN (1.5’X18' = 27 SF)Proposed Sign StatisticsOrcutt Street (2 Project Signs - no illumination ) Raised Channel Sign (1) 19 S.F. Wall Sign (1) 27 S.F. Total SF allowed in C-S zone = 200 SF and 2 Signs. Signs Proposed: 46 SF and 2 Signs,QWHUQDOWR3URMHFW:D\ÀQGLQJ$GGUHVV6LJQVRaised Channel Signs (2) 24 S.F. total Page 121 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA16#1608-0219 MAY 2022SOLAR SHADE STUDY - EXISTING VS PROPOSED ON 6/21EXISTING (YELLOW) - 6-21 @ 9 AM1EPROPOSED (MAGENTA) - 6-21 @ 9 AM1PEXISTING (YELLOW) - 6-21 @ NOON2EPROPOSED (MAGENTA) - 6-21 @ NOON2PEXISTING (YELLOW) - 6-21 @ 3 PM3EPROPOSED (MAGENTA) - 6-21 @ 3 PM3PPage 122 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEA17#1608-0219 MAY 2022SOLAR SHADE STUDY - EXISTING VS PROPOSED ON 12/21EXISTING (YELLOW) - 12-21 @ 9 AM1EEXISTING (YELLOW) - 12-21 @ NOON2EPROPOSED (MAGENTA) - 12-21 @ NOON 2PEXISTING (YELLOW) - 12-21 @ 3 PM3EPROPOSED (MAGENTA) - 12-21 @ 3 PM3PPROPOSED (MAGENTA) - 12-21 @ 9 AM1PPage 123 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEC1#1608-0219 MAY 20221 10 0 2 3 S EET010201 20 0 12 1 S EETCIVIL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANPage 124 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEC2#1608-0219 MAY 20221 10 0 2 3 S EET010201 20 0 12 1 S EETSTORMWATER CONTROL PLANPage 125 of 135 CONFIRMED WITH PUBLIC WORKS THAT EXISTING LINE IS 4”736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEC3#1608-0219 MAY 20221 10 0 2 3 S EET010201 20 0 12 1 S EETCIVIL UTILITY PLANPage 126 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEL1#1608-0219 MAY 20221 10 0 2 3 S EET010201 20 0 12 1 S EETLANDSCAPE SITE PLANPage 127 of 135 736 ORCUTT ROAD - AFFORDABLE MIXED USEL2#1608-0219 MAY 2022TREE INVENTORY PLANPage 128 of 135 736 Orcutt Road Affordable Mixed Use Project Narrative 736 Orcutt Road Affordable Mixed‐Use is a housing project consisting of 39 units of low‐income affordable housing, 1 managers unit, 1,000 SF Community Space, and 850 SF existing commercial space to remain. This project is proposing an 80% Density Bonus and will be requesting two exceptions, one site development waiver, and two incentives/concessions as outlined below. The project has chosen “All‐Electric” building design to meet REACH code compliance for the residential portion of the project but maintains a mixed fuel status as it relates to the existing commercial use. The project requests the following exceptions; 1. Front Yard Setback Reduction. The project is located in the C‐S zone where a front setback of 10 feet is required for buildings less than 20 feet in height, and a 15‐foot setback for structures that are greater than 20 feet in height (17.36.020). The project is proposed with a maximum height of approximately 40 feet along the front yard. In accordance with Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.170.D.2.a, the project is requesting an exception to the Upper story Front Yard setback of 15’ to be reduced to 10’. This request is necessary to accommodate the affordable housing project at the requested density threshold and is appropriate because; a. It is consistent with the intent of these Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies since the proposed building represents only 28% of the front property line length (please see site plan for dimensions and calculations). As a result, the intent of the Zoning regulations is met since the proposed building design does not overtly crowd and thus overly shade the facing street and public space; b. It is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone as the project provides a historically and contextually appropriate building style and presence at the street instead of a parking lot. The residential Page 129 of 135 neighbors on the other side of the street/creek (within 150’ or proposed project) are also three stories and approximately 40’ tall and yet sit within 5’ of the sidewalk. This is double that distance from the public sidewalk and solidifies that this exception is aligned with the character of the neighborhood. c. The project setback at 10’ instead of 15’ will not create any potential adverse effects on surrounding properties such as, but not limited to, traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, noise, visual and scale, and lighting. This is affirmed through the justifications to the above findings i.e. given it’s orientation to the street, the project will not overtly shade facing street, furthermore since the proposed project massing leaves 72% of street facing property line with more than 36.5’ setback from street it essentially creates an average setback along street face of 29’ that is nearly double the required 15’ setback for upper stories. Essentially the goals and intent of the zoning is achieved. (Please see site plan for dimensions and calculations). d. The site characteristics and existing improvements make strict adherence to the Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible as only 37% of the site becomes buildable area, that number drops to 25% buildable area when including the preservation of the existing structure. See “Site Buildable Area Exhibit” 2. Side Yard Setback Exception. The property is located adjacent to the R‐3 zone, in accordance with SECTION 17.36.020, projects within the C‐S zone shall provide a side yard setback consistent with the requirements of the adjacent zone. The project is subject to a 10‐foot side yard setback along the west property line for structures that are 35 feet in height. the project proposes a minimum setback of 5 feet along the west property line where a varying setback up to 10 feet would normally be required. In accordance with section 17.70.170.D.2.e. The project is requesting this exception because the adjacent property that is located in the R‐3 zone is limited to a drive aisle, and the setback reduction will have no impact on any structures within the R‐3 zone. Furthermore, the setback exception is appropriate because; Page 130 of 135 a. The portion of the property that will be shaded by the expected development will not be developed since it is an existing and required fire lane and thus will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure now or in the future. b. Given the orientation of the project, the adjacent property street area will only be shaded by the proposed structure in the morning hours. Thus the exception is of a minor nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure. Please see added Solar Shade Study comparing existing solar access to proposed project resulting solar access. c. Per the shade study, the adjacent property’s access to sunlight will actually be improved since the proposed project will be half the height of existing invasive eucalyptus trees at property’s edge. The height, size, and combined canopy of these invasive trees represent an area where existing use of solar energy is generally infeasible because of the tree’s existing shading; d. The portion of the adjacent property that will receives the resulting shade is a private street; e. There are no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely to result from the exception. The project is requesting the following site development waiver in accordance with Zoning Regulations 17.140.070 and government Code 65915(e)(1); 1. Creek Setback Reduction. The property is located adjacent to Bishop Creek along the north and east property lines. Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.030.E requires a 20 foot setback from the top of bank. the project has been designed with a 6’‐3” setback from the top of bank where 20 feet would normally be required (this request also includes the upper story setback where an additional 10 foot setback is required for the third and fourth stories – 17.70.030.E.3). In accordance with Government Code 65915(E)(1), the project is requesting a waiver from these development standards, as compliance with the full 20 foot setback would physically prevent the project from being built with the requested density bonus, due to the odd shape of the lot, and limited developable area of the property due to the constraints of the creek along two of the site property lines, Page 131 of 135 and the desire to retain the existing structure. This waiver will not result in any specific adverse impacts to public health or safety as the proposed creek setback matches the existing development and existing site disturbance on the property, and a biological resource survey has been provided with recommendations to address sensitive development within the creek setback area. The project is requesting a waiver from the development standards under gov. section 65915(E)(1) and is not subject to the required findings under Zoning Regulations 17.70.030.f.4.c. however, a response to the required findings has been provided below to provide further justification of this development waiver; a. Because the proposed design is matching the extent of the existing site disturbance footprint and because the proposed project’s orientation on the site will not create any additional shading to the existing creek (see Shade Study), the location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; and b. The exception will not limit the City’s design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies; and c. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City‐adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and d. Given the sharp triangular shape of the site, the desire to preserve the existing structure, and the substantial existing site disturbance; there are unique circumstances such that when this creek setback is combined with such circumstances only 25% of the site represents a buildable area – this does not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, and if fully applied as prescribed would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; (Please see site plan for dimensions and calculations). e. Given the existing site development and disturbance that the proposed feature is adhering to, the exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege or an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; this can contextually be verified given the adjacent Page 132 of 135 neighbors also have paved parking areas and existing structures within similar distances from the Acacia Creek. f. Since all of the adjacent properties are developed and whose adjacent function is utilitarian in nature (private driveway/fire lane) it is evident that such an exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; and g. To expand upon the reasons stated above, Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project as the current design has been strictly reduced to match existing site disturbance; and h. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property in accordance with the requested density bonus under government code 65915. The project is requesting the following alternative affordable housing incentives/concessions in accordance with Zoning Regulations 17.140.070B.1 and government Code 65915(k)(1); 1. Maximum Building Height. The project is located within the C‐S zone which allows for a maximum height of 35 feet (17.36.020). The project has been designed with a maximum height of 39.25’ from the average natural grade of the property. In accordance with the government code 65915(K)(1), the project is requesting an alternative incentive from this development standard, to allow a maximum height of 39.25’ above average natural grade. Compliance with the 35 foot maximum height would result in a flat roof design of the project, which could be considered as incompatible with the existing structure on the property. Redesigning the project with a flat roof system would inhibit additional costs on the project, which may include a historical resource evaluation for incompatible architectural styles for the existing structure, as well as costs associated with redesign. Full compliance with the maximum building height would result in approximately $40,000 of professional fees to accomplish the redesign, resulting evaluations, and necessary additional discretionary hearings/review by the cultural heritage committee. This alternative incentive will not result in any specific adverse impacts to public health or safety as the request for additional height is specific to architectural features of the Page 133 of 135 project, and the project’s mass will not affect any existing structures in the vicinity due to the existing slope of the lot, the existing creek to the north and east, the existing private driveway to the west, and Orcutt Road to the south. Additionally, it is important to consider that the project finish floor was required to be raised by 3’‐0” in order to keep the project above the FEMA 500 year flood zone. This additional 3’‐0” of raised finish floor represents over 70% of the requested 4.25’ height exception request. Please see sheet A9 for elevations with height calculations, average natural grade calculations, and dimensions/level lines above allowed height to aid this evaluation. 2. Parking Reduction. In accordance with Zoning Regulations Section 17.72.030 and 17.140.040.K, the project requires thirty‐six (36) parking spaces on site. The project provides eleven (11) parking spaces on site, with an additional eight (8) parking spaces provided in tandem, for a total of nineteen (19) parking spaces on site. In accordance with Government Code 65915(K)(1), the project is requesting an alternative incentive from this development standard, to allow a 47% parking reduction from the required on‐site parking. As full compliance with the parking requirement would result is infeasible development given site constraints, lot shape, dimensional width that is too narrow for a double loaded parking corridor, and provide for the requested density bonus. It is further noted that it has been documented that affordable housing uses generate lower trips than market rate housing. Similarly, the Office of Planning and Research’s, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, recommends a less than significant vehicle miles traveled presumption for affordable housing uses since “[a]dding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs‐housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT.” This evidence of lower trips and vehicle miles traveled further supports reduced parking. A project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing (greater than 50%) may be assumed to cause a less‐than‐significant impact on VMT. This is directly supported in the provided report from CALTRANS titled “Affordable Housing Trip Generation Strategies and Rates”. Per the report “The PM peak rate is more commonly used to assess transportation impacts and based upon the PM rates, affordable housing sites Page 134 of 135 generate 35% fewer motorized vehicle trips, on average than would be predicted using ITE data” Specifically, it shows that the ITE parking rate for affordable housing projects is 0.53 per unit, which when applied to this project results in 21.2 parking spaces for the residential and 2.8 parking spaces for the commercial. This reveals a peak parking demand of 20‐21 spaces for the site between 10:00 pm and 5:00 am. Therefore, the project’s proposed 19 spaces is only a deficiency of 2 spaces in the late evening hours, or a 10% reduction, from the 21 parking spaces at peak demand as supported by this report and thus this exception will not result in an adverse impact. Furthermore, with the project’s provision surplus of 12 additional bicycle storage spaces it is providing 128% of what is required for bicycle parking. Per Section 17.72.050.F the project is allowed to reduce the required parking (in this case ITE required) by two vehicle spaces when it provides 10 bicycle parking spaces beyond what is required. When applying this reduction, the parking on the site has justified its count of 19 spaces by providing a means and method to make up the two parking spaces short per the ITE peak demand calculation. Furthermore, this request for a parking reduction for a development on this small site with very unique and confining circumstances that make a typical 60’ wide parking lot infeasible, directly responds to the General Plan and its Evaluation of Development Capacity for suitable sites near public transit. This project’s site has access to two public transit stops all along maintained public sidewalks – Broad street Transit stop located in front of the Staples Business park is within 750’ of the project, and the next adjacent transit stop is within 1,000’ as one walks East on Orcutt Street and utilizes the new Duncan/Orcutt traffic‐signaled protected pedestrian crosswalk. Given that the General Plan advocates for alternative modes of transportation and specifically single occupant vehicular travel, as stated in its initial statement about the “Environment” in its “Community Goals”, in its “Transportation goals (1.6.1.8), this request for a parking reduction on this particular site with such ample public transit stops, ample bicycle parking, and pedestrian movement/circulation with such close proximity to the railroad safety trail (1,400’ East of project along Orcutt) is justified and is aligned with the City’s Modal Split Objectives to decrease Motor Vehicles to 50% of resident trip mode of transportation (Table 1 in Chapter 1 of the Circulation element). Page 135 of 135