HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a. 2223 Monterey St. (ARCH-0327-2022)
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
Page 17 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 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 135
%
$( #+ ( #&( *$* " -&!'#&" # $ "$#" " ""(&- "'$ "
#-"(&-$( # "&#)"$## 2/
2 #(()
2/
2 ')" + ( #)" &' +"&&''&(( &(&) !!& 2( "# !$## ')& (-"+ ( ('
( &+(&#)"( "
&"$( #+ ( #&( *$* "
& '$ "(&+ ( '$ !""#$-(&
"&+(&#)"( "
)" (2'$& *($( #
&(&) !!& )' &&'' &(()&
$'(& "$( +-
"#()'
"( *'&"$ "( "'+ ( "& '(
'# " "((#$#& " + ( $ "(' "( *'&"$ "( "' #"' #$
, '( "(&'(#&! " $& " #( ' "+ ( "#$-' (&(-$
!
" ( "'$' "' ' "(+"( '(#& )'#( ' ( "+ ( !#&#"(!$#&&- !"& "$( +-' ( &#) "( !(&"'"#&( *$( #'+ ( '! $& *($( #'''&#! ) #+*& #)'+(&()&'# !"('"'$ !"(&'& #(( &#) #)(( $&#$&(-( $ "($ ((#"' '('##! "( #"# '(#& -' " "( #&" "( *"! (&&""'$ '
Page 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