HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Feb 2016)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.)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
of the Historic “Motel Inn” which includes a façade 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: Highway 101
East: San Luis Creek
West: Apple Farm Inn Motel
South: 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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 / Housing
Agriculture Resources X Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation
X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning X Transportation / Traffic
X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils Noise X Mandatory Findings of
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).
X
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
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
February 24, 2016
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director For: Michael Codron
Printed Name Community Development Director
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
2 X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,2 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1 X
Evaluation
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 rev iew 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) 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?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract? X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
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.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conclusion: a-c) No Impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
3,4,5 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation? X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4, 5
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
4, 5 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
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?
6 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
6 X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
7, 8,
X
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?
6
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
3
X
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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 (BIO-1) has
been recommended to ensure that proper erosion control measures for work in and around the riparian corridor are utilized
under a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP).
San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the site, and is subject to protective standards adopted with Ordinance 1130
1989 Series) for the C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones at this location. On its western bank (on the project site) the creek channel is
vegetated by a mixture of native and non-native trees and groundcovers. All proposed structures and other improvements are
above the established top of bank. Residential propert ies 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 (BIO-2) requiring a planting
plan which would retain existing native vegetation along the banks and channel and replacement of non -native plantings with
appropriate trees, shrubs and groundcover to enrich the creek habitat by providing additional shade cover and food sources
for South-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) and a more diverse,
complex tree canopy that will be attractive to various bird species.
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 pa rt of a
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion
control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be 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 construct ion.
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in
to the drainage/creek system.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and
enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Conclusion: a-f) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
10,
11, X
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12, 13
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
14
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
13
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
13 X
Historic 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 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 façade 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 façade 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 previously 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 existin g
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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 of loss, injury or death involving:
X
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.
16 X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 16 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 16 X
IV. Landslides? 16 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 17 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
16,17
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
17 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
17 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, a nd
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 geo logically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, th e
Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately
12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seis mic
Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the 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 o f
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 conclu sions
and recommendations for grading and construction. Grading and build ing 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?
5 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
5 X
a), b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California recently passe d
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 consist ent
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?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
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?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
19,20
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 is 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 Impa ct.
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?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
X
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
20.21
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
20,21 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 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), f) 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 100-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 100 -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 of record
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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
19,22 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
19,22 X
Evaluation
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
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
X
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
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
23,24 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -borne
vibration or ground -borne noise levels?
23,24 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
23,24 X
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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 n oise
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 groundborne 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.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e), f) 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
for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
X
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
objectives 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
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
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 deteriorati on
would be accelerated. No Impact
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
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?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
e.g. farm equipment)?
27 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
25,
26,27
X
Project Traffic Impact
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, approv ed
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 475 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 Eleme nt standards.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source: Omni-Means
Mitigation Measure: MM-1
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 project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
28 X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
28 X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
X
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
29 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
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 effect s. 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 wast e
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?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
X
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -
specific conditions of the project.
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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th 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: Project Plans
Appendix B: Not Used
Appendix C: Air Pollution Control District Letter Dated November 17, 2015
Appendix D: Ecological Analysis of San Luis Obispo Creek, Levine-Fricke, May 2002 and
USFWS Protocol Survey, Levine-Fricke, June 2003
Appendix E: Historic American Building Survey of Former Motel Inn, 2004 (with limited attachments)
Appendix F: Archaeological Report, Extended Phase 1 Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, 2002
Appendix G: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Ceres Associates
Appendix H: Noise Study, Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001
Appendix I: Traffic Impact Study, OMNI-MEANS, Nov. 2015 & Higgins Associates, 2002; (with limited attachments)
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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.
Monitoring Program AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor 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-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion
control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill
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.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and
enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: Final plans shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building
Permit application package, who shall require modifications to the creek restoration and enhancement plan as necessary
to ensure that an appropriate mix of plantings, in type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized
while working within the creek corridor.
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.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
E
O
a
k
Pe
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
Pa
v
e
r
s
E
O
aaa
kkkk
O
aaa
E
OO
kk
29
5
30
0
305
295
30
0
30
0
30
5
29
6
29
7
298
299
30
1302
303
304
29
6
29
7
2
9
8
2
9
9
30
1
297
298
299
301
302
303
304
30
6
30
7
30
8
29
5
292929
5
2929295952992929
5
2929229
5
2929
29977797972929
0101300300
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
Th
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
s
t
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
t
h
e
e
s
s
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
M
o
t
e
l
I
n
n
Th
i
s
o
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
d
m
a
n
y
f
i
n
e
s
u
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
pl
a
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
o
f
t
h
a
t
e
r
a
a
n
d
wh
i
c
h
c
a
n
b
e
s
e
e
n
i
n
m
a
n
y
p
l
a
c
e
s
i
n
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
a
s
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
in
o
l
d
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
s
Wh
i
l
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
m
n
a
n
t
p
l
a
n
t
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
fe
a
s
i
b
l
y
b
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
i
t
r
u
s
tr
e
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
T
h
e
ta
b
l
e
o
n
s
h
e
e
t
L
3
l
i
s
t
s
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
t
s
t
o
b
e
re
m
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
p
l
a
n
t
s
t
o
be
r
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
H
o
n
g
K
o
n
g
O
r
c
h
i
d
T
r
e
e
B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a
x
b
l
a
k
e
a
n
a
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
B
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
S
y
z
i
g
i
u
m
p
a
n
i
c
u
l
a
t
u
m
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
P
i
t
t
o
s
p
o
r
u
m
u
n
d
u
l
a
t
u
m
N
o
r
f
o
l
k
I
s
l
a
n
d
P
i
n
e
A
r
a
u
c
a
r
i
a
e
x
c
e
l
s
a
B
i
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
S
t
r
e
l
i
t
z
i
a
r
e
g
i
n
a
W
i
n
d
m
i
l
l
P
l
a
m
T
r
a
c
h
y
c
a
p
r
u
s
f
o
r
t
u
n
e
i
In
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
m
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
s
li
s
t
e
d
o
n
s
h
e
e
t
L
2
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
o
f
t
h
e
or
i
g
i
n
a
l
M
o
t
e
l
I
n
n
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Sh
e
e
t
L
2
t
a
b
u
l
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
us
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
T
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
wi
l
l
u
s
e
6
0
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
wa
t
e
r
u
s
e
M
A
W
U
a
n
d
m
e
e
t
s
C
A
L
G
r
e
e
n
T
i
e
r
2
f
o
r
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
s
M
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
pl
a
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
a
r
e
M
e
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
a
d
a
p
t
e
d
a
n
d
dr
o
u
g
h
t
t
o
l
e
r
a
n
t
FEB17, 2016
18
7
Tan
k
Fa
rm
R
oa
d
S
u
ite
230
S
an
Lu
is
O
b
isp
o
C
A
9
3401
ph
o
n
e
805
781
9800
fa
x
805
781
9
803
r
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
la
n
n
in
g
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l
s
t
u
d
ie
s
FileName: Firma_Motel_Inn_PRELIM1_revised2_12_16LastDateModified: 2/15/16
L-
1
0
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
MatchlineSeeSheetL-2.0
Qu
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
Ti
p
u
T
r
e
e
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
Tr
e
e
s
Re
d
F
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
G
u
m
S
w
e
e
t
S
h
a
d
e
Ja
c
a
r
a
n
d
a
N
e
w
Z
e
a
l
a
n
d
C
h
r
i
s
t
m
a
s
T
r
e
e
Ol
i
v
e
C
o
a
s
t
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
Wi
n
d
m
i
l
l
P
a
l
m
M
e
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
F
a
n
P
a
l
m
Ci
t
r
u
s
B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
in
t
h
e
O
l
d
M
o
t
e
l
I
n
n
s
t
y
l
e
Na
t
iv
e
R
I
p
a
r
i
a
n
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
Me
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
S
u
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
S
h
r
u
b
s
an
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
s
LA
W
N
No
r
t
h
0
1
0
2
0
40
4
0
Sc
a
l
e
1
4
0
0
SU
R
V
E
Y
E
D
T
O
P
O
F
C
R
E
E
K
NO
D
I
S
T
U
R
B
A
N
C
E
B
E
L
O
W
Ho
n
g
K
o
n
g
O
r
c
h
i
d
T
r
e
e
Au
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
B
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
Wi
n
d
m
a
l
l
P
a
l
m
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
No
r
f
o
l
k
I
s
l
a
n
d
P
a
l
m
Appendix A
2
FileName: Firma_Motel_Inn_PRELIM2_revised_2_12_16LastDateModified02/12/16
LL-
2
0
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
18
7
T
ank
F
arm
R
oad
S
uite
230
S
an
L
u
is
O
b
ispo
C
A
93
401
ph
one
805
781
9
800
fax
805
7
81
9
803
r
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
la
n
n
in
g
e
n
v
iro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
tu
d
ie
s
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
N
o
t
e
s
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
Un
i
f
o
r
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Al
l
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
l
o
w
t
o
m
e
d
i
u
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
La
w
n
i
s
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
t
o
a
r
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
u
s
e
i
c
a
n
o
c
c
u
r
l
a
w
n
a
r
e
a
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
s
le
s
s
t
h
a
5
o
f
o
v
e
r
a
l
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
e
a
Al
l
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
b
e
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
3
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
u
l
c
h
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
to
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
o
i
l
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
N
o
t
e
s
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
Un
i
f
o
r
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Al
l
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
l
o
w
t
o
m
e
d
i
u
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
pe
r
W
U
C
O
L
S
T
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
M
A
W
A
a
n
d
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
u
s
e
E
T
W
U
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
T
h
e
E
T
W
U
i
s
l
e
s
s
th
a
n
t
h
e
M
A
W
A
Wa
t
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
i
t
y
w
a
t
e
r
w
i
t
h
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
m
e
t
e
r
a
n
d
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
re
c
l
a
i
m
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
u
s
e
Th
e
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
o
f
i
n
l
i
n
e
d
r
i
p
e
m
i
t
t
e
r
s
E
a
c
h
c
i
r
c
u
i
t
sh
a
l
l
b
e
a
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
h
a
d
y
a
r
e
a
h
y
r
d
o
z
o
n
e
S
u
n
n
y
a
r
e
a
h
y
r
d
o
z
o
n
e
L
I
D
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
b
o
t
t
o
m
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
S
l
o
p
e
s
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
s
o
i
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
s
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
b
a
s
e
d
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
d
j
u
s
t
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
in
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
p
l
a
n
t
s
n
e
e
d
s
a
s
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
L
I
D
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
T
i
e
r
1
o
r
T
i
e
r
2
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
C
i
v
i
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
o
n
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
i
l
m
e
d
i
a
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
e
t
d
r
y
a
d
a
p
t
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
C
o
b
b
l
e
b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s
i
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
t
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
L
i
s
t
Me
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
Z
o
n
e
Tr
e
e
s
Ar
e
c
a
s
t
r
u
m
r
o
m
a
n
z
o
ff
i
a
n
u
m
Qu
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
Eu
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
f
i
c
i
f
o
l
i
a
Re
d
F
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
G
u
m
Ch
a
m
a
e
r
o
p
s
h
u
m
u
l
i
s
Me
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
F
a
n
P
a
l
m
Ci
t
r
u
s
s
p
Ci
t
r
u
s
t
o
b
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
Hy
m
e
n
o
s
p
o
r
u
m
fl
a
v
u
m
Sw
e
e
t
S
h
a
d
e
Ja
c
a
r
a
n
d
a
m
im
o
s
if
o
l
i
a
Ja
c
a
r
a
n
d
a
Me
t
r
o
s
i
d
e
r
o
s
e
x
c
e
l
s
a
Ne
w
Z
e
a
la
n
d
C
h
r
i
s
t
m
a
s
T
r
e
e
Ol
e
a
e
u
r
o
p
e
a
Ol
i
v
e
Pl
a
t
a
n
u
s
r
a
c
e
m
o
s
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
ia
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
Qu
e
r
c
u
s
a
g
r
i
fo
li
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
ia
Li
v
e
Oa
k
St
r
e
l
it
z
i
a
n
i
c
h
o
la
i
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
Ti
p
u
a
n
a
t
i
p
u
Ti
p
u
T
r
e
e
Tr
a
c
h
y
c
a
r
p
u
s
f
o
r
t
u
n
e
i
Wi
n
d
m
i
ll
P
a
l
m
Sh
r
u
b
s
Al
y
o
g
y
n
e
h
u
e
g
e
l
ii
Bl
u
e
H
ib
i
s
c
u
s
Ca
l
li
s
t
e
m
o
n
L
i
t
t
le
J
o
h
n
Dw
a
r
f
B
o
t
t
l
e
b
r
u
s
h
Sa
lv
i
a
le
u
c
a
n
t
h
a
Me
x
ic
a
n
S
a
g
e
St
r
e
l
it
z
i
a
r
e
g
i
n
a
e
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
Vi
n
e
s
Di
s
t
i
c
t
i
s
b
u
c
i
n
n
a
t
o
r
ia
Bl
o
o
d
r
e
d
T
r
u
m
p
e
t
V
in
e
Ma
c
fa
d
e
n
y
a
u
n
g
u
is
c
a
t
i
Ca
t
s
C
la
w
Wi
s
t
e
r
i
a
s
in
e
n
s
i
s
Ch
i
n
e
s
e
W
is
t
e
r
i
a
Su
c
c
u
l
e
n
t
s
Ag
a
v
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
a
M
e
d
i
o
p
i
c
t
a
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
P
l
a
n
t
Ag
a
v
e
B
l
u
e
G
l
o
w
Bl
u
e
G
l
o
w
A
g
a
v
e
Al
o
e
n
o
b
i
l
i
s
Go
l
d
e
n
T
o
o
t
h
e
d
A
l
o
e
Al
o
e
s
t
r
i
a
t
a
Co
ra
l
A
l
o
e
Na
t
i
v
e
R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
Z
o
n
e
Sh
r
u
b
s
Mu
h
l
e
n
b
e
r
g
i
a
r
ig
e
n
s
De
e
r
Gr
a
s
s
Rh
a
m
n
u
s
c
a
l
if
o
r
n
ic
a
Co
f
f
e
e
b
e
r
r
y
Ri
b
e
s
s
p
e
c
i
o
s
a
Fu
c
h
s
i
a
F
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
Go
o
s
e
b
e
r
r
y
Ro
s
a
c
a
l
i
fo
r
n
i
c
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
ia
W
il
d
R
o
s
e
Su
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
S
h
a
d
e
Z
o
n
e
N
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Sh
r
u
b
s
Al
p
i
n
ia
z
e
r
u
m
b
e
t
Sh
e
ll
G
i
n
g
e
r
Be
g
o
n
i
a
r
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
e
n
s
i
s
Be
g
o
n
i
a
Cl
i
v
i
a
m
i
n
ia
t
a
Ka
f
f
i
r
L
i
l
y
Li
r
o
p
e
m
u
s
c
a
r
i
Bi
g
B
l
u
e
L
i
l
y
T
u
r
f
Ph
o
e
n
ix
r
o
e
b
e
l
l
in
i
Py
g
m
y
D
a
t
e
P
a
l
m
Ra
p
h
io
le
p
is
in
d
ic
a
B
a
ll
e
r
i
n
a
Ba
l
le
r
i
n
a
In
d
i
a
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
Ti
b
o
u
c
h
i
n
a
u
r
v
il
l
e
a
n
a
Pr
in
c
e
s
s
F
l
o
w
e
r
Tu
p
id
a
n
t
h
u
s
c
a
l
y
p
t
r
a
t
u
s
Um
b
r
e
l
l
a
T
r
e
e
FEB17, 2016
No
r
t
h
0
10
2
0
4
0
40
Sc
a
l
e
1
4
0
0
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
A
T
E
P
A
L
M
RE
T
A
I
N
O
R
R
E
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
O
N
S
I
T
E
306
xt25;AeccDbFace (AeccLand100)
xt0
02604
36
EUC
31
1
29
5
30
0
29
0
2
8
5
29
0
30
5
30
6
30
7
30
8
31
0
2
9
0
3
0
0
2
9
5
3
0
1
3
0
2
306
Ca
lc
u
la
te
M
a
x
A
n
n
u
a
l
A
p
p
lie
d
W
a
te
r
A
llo
w
a
n
c
e
M
A
W
A
a
n
d
E
s
tim
a
te
d
T
o
t
a
l
W
a
te
r
U
s
e
E
T
W
U
97
C
it
y
St
a
t
e
Z
ip
ht
tp
w
w
w
s
lo
c
ity
o
rg
u
tilitie
s
d
o
w
n
lo
a
d
o
u
td
o
o
rc
o
n
s
e
rv
p
d
f
En
t
e
r
v
a
lu
e
s
fo
r
y
o
u
r
p
ro
je
c
t
in
s
q
u
a
re
f
e
e
t
MA
W
A
G
a
llo
n
s
7
1
2
8
0
4
0
0
To
ta
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
re
a
5
4
9
7
5
M
A
W
A
U
n
it
s
9
5
2
9
5
Tu
rf
2
7
4
5
Lo
w
D
ro
u
g
h
t
T
o
le
r
a
n
t
3
9
1
4
0
E
T
W
U
G
a
llo
n
s
6
8
9
9
0
8
0
0
Mo
d
e
r
a
te
1
3
0
9
0
E
T
W
U
U
n
it
s
9
2
2
3
4
Hi
g
h
T
h
ir
s
ty
0
Sp
o
r
ts
F
ie
ld
0
Ve
g
e
ta
b
le
s
0
c
h
e
c
k
to
ta
l
5
4
9
7
5
Pr
o
je
c
t
N
a
m
e
Mo
t
e
l
In
n
Na
m
e
o
f
P
ro
je
c
t
A
p
p
lic
a
n
t
Ti
t
le
Te
le
p
h
o
n
e
N
o
Fa
x
N
o
Em
a
il
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
Co
m
p
a
n
y
St
re
e
t
A
d
d
r
e
s
s Sa
n
L
u
is
O
b
is
p
o
C
A
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
@
6
5
7
@
3
9
3
@
3
8
4
@
@
@
3
5
3
@ @
@
3
@
9
6
@
3
8
4
3
6
7
0
3
7
7
0
@
3
8
4
0
SSHQGL[
xt0
02604
36
EUC
310
31
2
297
295
2
9
4
2
9
4
29430
222
30
2
30
293
29292 291
2
29191290
298
29998
2
8
5
2
9
0
2
9
5
29
6
30
5
30
6
30
7
30
8 296
296296
29329
30
3
30
4
18
7
T
ank
F
arm
R
oad
S
u
ite
23
0
S
a
n
Lu
is
O
b
ispo
C
A
934
01
ph
o
ne
8
05
7
81
98
00
fax
80
5
78
1
980
3
r
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
la
n
n
in
g
e
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l
s
tu
d
ie
s
FileName: Firma_Motel_Inn_PRELIM3_tree_revised_2_12_16LastDateModified: 2/16/16
L-
3
0
Tr
e
e
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
No
r
t
h
0
1
0
2
0
4
0
40
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
T
r
e
e
C
a
n
o
p
y
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
Pe
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
Pa
v
e
r
s
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
CA
N
O
P
Y
T
Y
P
1
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
e
e
s
C
a
l
i
p
e
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
1.
C
a
n
a
r
y
I
s
l
a
n
d
D
a
t
e
P
a
l
m
3
0
S
a
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
2.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
3
0
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
3.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
4
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
4.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
4
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
5.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
2
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
6.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
2
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
7.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
4
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
8.
E
u
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
3
6
R
e
m
o
v
e
9.
F
i
c
u
s
8
R
e
m
o
v
e
10
O
r
c
h
i
d
T
r
e
e
8
R
e
m
o
v
e
11
W
e
e
p
i
n
g
B
o
t
t
l
e
b
r
u
s
h
8
R
e
m
o
v
e
12
C
i
t
r
u
s
1
0
R
e
m
o
v
e
13
C
i
t
r
u
s
B
r
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
8
R
e
m
o
v
e
14
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
1
0
R
e
m
o
v
e
15
C
i
t
r
u
s
8
R
e
m
o
v
e
16
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
1
4
R
e
m
o
v
e
17
C
i
t
r
u
s
1
4
R
e
m
o
v
e
18
M
a
g
n
o
l
i
a
8
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
20
C
i
t
r
u
s
8
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
21
C
e
d
a
r
1
6
R
e
m
o
v
e
22
O
a
k
2
4
S
a
v
e
23
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
B
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
1
8
S
a
v
e
24
P
i
t
t
o
s
p
o
r
u
m
u
n
d
u
l
a
t
u
m
G
r
o
u
p
R
e
m
o
v
e
25
B
l
a
c
k
A
c
a
c
i
a
1
6
R
e
m
o
v
e
4
2
3
5
9
10
15
16
1718
19
20
21
FEB17, 2016
8
14
13
12
11
6
7
22
232425
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
UAir Pollution Control
District San Luis Obispo
County Novemb er 17 , 201
5 Steve
Matarazzo City of San Luis
Obispo 919 Palm
Street San Luis Obispo CA
93401SUBJEC APCD Comments Regarding the Motel lnn - Monterey Street
Project
Referral Dear Mr.
Matarazzo,Thank you for including the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
in the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the
proposed project located at2223 and 2229 Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo. The
proposed project would include a hotel with bungalows totaling 52 guest rooms,
camping accommodations for 15 RV and 10 Airstream trailers and a 10,750 square foot
restaurant.Existing structures will be
demolished.The following ore APCD comments thot are pertinent to this
proiect.GENERAL
COMMENTS As a commenting agency in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
process for a project, the APCD assesses air pollution impacts from both the construction
and operational phases of a project, with separate significant thresholds for each.
Please address the action items contained in this letter that are highlighted by bold
and underlined
text.CONSTRUCTION PHASE
IMPACTS Based on the APCD emission estimates using the most recent CalEEMod computer
model,the construction phase would likely exceed the APCD's daily construction
emission threshold(s) identified in Table 2-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (available on
the website: slocleana ir.
org).The modeling results indicate the APCD daily (lbs/day) threshold would be
exceeded primarily due to the architectural coatings. Mitigation measures should be provided
to reduce this impact. This could be accomplished by reducing the VOC content of
the paint used and/or adjusting the schedule for architectural coating applications
to extend the painting activities thereby limiting the daily coating activities to
ensure emissions remain below the threshold. or other options as the project
proponent 100% Posi Consumer Recycled
Poper 805,781.5912 F805,781.1002ws10Cleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court,SanLuisObispo,CA
93401 S S HQG
APCD Comments Regarding the Motel lnn - Monterey Street Proiect
November 17, 2015
Poge 2 of 8
measures.
Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved
in soil addition or removal;
Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil or
other TpH -non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed
where vapors could accumulate;
Covered piles shall be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No
openings in the covers are permitted;
The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the
contaminated soil must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD's
construction phase thresholds;
During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public
nuisance; and,
Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil.
Engineering Divisionat781 5912.
Natura v OccurringAsbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic
air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may
contain naturally occurring asbestos. The SLO County APCD has identified areas throughout the
County where NOA may be present (see the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4).
lf the project site is located in a candidate area for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), the following
requirements apply. Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
euarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105), prior to any construction activities at the site.
the APCD. lfthe site is not exempt fromtherequirementsoftheregulation the applicantmust
comply vvitha requirements outlined in the Asbestos AttCM. ThiSrnayincludedevelopmentofan
Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos HealthandSafetyPrograrnforapprovalbythe
AP Do More information on NOA can be found atslocleanair.org/business/asbestosoDhD
Demolltion/Asbestos
Demol ion activities can havepotentlalnegat e air quality impacts,includlngissuessurrounding
proper handling abatem nt,and d:sposal of asbestos containingrnaterial(ACNl)Asbestos
containing rnaterials could be encountered duringthedemontionOrremodelingofexisting
buildings or thedisturban erdemo tion or relocation of above orbelowgroundutility
pipes/pipelines(e.g"transke pipesorinsulationonlipeS)lf thiS proiect wiliincludeanvofthese
S S H QGL
PCDCommer6 Regrdling c Mole n4-M lereyStreet
ProJiect No1/ember7 2
75Page3
8 requirements stipulated in theNationalEnlissionStandardforHazardous Air Po
u Lants40CFR61,SubpartM asbestos NESHAPThese requirements inciude butarenotlimited
to:1)llvrltten notificatlon within at least 1 0businessdaysof actlvities corllrnencingto the
APCD 2)asbestossurveyconductedbya Certified Asbestos onsultant and,3)appliCable
removal and disposal requlrements ofidentified A M. Please contacttheAPCDEnforcementDivision
at(805)781-591 2 and also go to siocleanair.org/business/asbestos.phOfOrfurtherinforrnation. To
obtain a Notlficatlon ofDemolitionandRenovationforrngo to the C)therForrns
section of:slocleanair.org/business/on
neforrns.phpEffecJve Februav 25 2000theAPCD proh eddevdoDmentaiburnh2 of vegetat
e mateHal within San Luis Obispo County. lf you have any questions regarding
these requirements, contact the APCD Enforcement Division
at 781-5912.
Dust Control Measures Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to
local residents and businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Projects with
grading areas that are within 1.000 feet of any sensitive receptor shall implement
the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the
APCD's20o/o opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (
APCD Rule 402).a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed
area where possible;b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD's limit of 200/o opacity for
greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency
would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water
should be used whenever possible. Please note. since water use is a concern
due to drou8ht conditions. the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an
APCD-
aPProved dust For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA
Air Quality Handbook;All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or
other dust
barriers as needed;permanent dust control measures identified in the approved
project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following
completion of any soil d
istu rbing activities;Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater
than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive
grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established;All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be
stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance
by the APCD;All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed
as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used;Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on
any unpaved surface at
the construction site;All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top
of load and top of trailer) in accordance
with
CVC
Section23114;
d
e g h SSH
APCD Comments Regording the Motel lnn - Monterey Street Proiect
November 17, 2015
Page 4 of 8
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved
roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water used where feasible. Roads shall
be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible;
l. All PMro mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans; and,
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints and reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 200/o opacity for greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such
persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading,
earthwork or demolition.
Construction Permit Requ irements
Based on the information provided, we are unsure of the types of equipment that may be present
during the project's construction phase. Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used
during construction activities may require California statewide portable equipment registration
issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit.
The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting
requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the
Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook.
Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
Internal combustion engines;
Rock and pavement crushing;
Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;.
Tub grinders;
Trommel screens; and,'.
Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, etc).
regulrements
Construction PhaseldlingLimitations
PrtteCtS that will have diesel powered constructionacJvityincloseproximitytoanysens lve
receptorsha implementthefo owing rnitigation rneasures to ensurethatpublichealthbenefitsare
realized by reducing toxic riskfrorndieselenlissions:
S S H QGL
PCDCommerts Reg rdi g e M te n nter Streel
Pro iect N1/ember 7
2 75Page5
o/
8 1.a. 0 ro JJliese ve cresshacOmply v th Section 2485ofttitle13ofthe
California Code of Regulations hisregulationlirnitsidling frorn diese fueled
corrlrnercial rnotor vehicles withgrossvehicularweightratingsofmore than 1 0000pounds
and licensed foroperationonhighways. lt applies to Ca fornia and nonCafornia
based vehicles. ln general theregulationspecifiesthatdrivers
of sald vehlcles:1. Sha notidle the vehicle s primary diesel engineforgreaterthan5
rninutes at any location except asnotedinSubsection(d)Of
the regulation;and 2. Shanotoperate adiese fueled aux iarypowersystem (APS)to pOWer
a heater aircondltioner or any anc lary equipment on thatvehicleduringsleepingor
resting in asleeperberth for greaterthan 5 O rninutesatanylocation when withinl000
feetof a restricted area except asnotedinSubsection(d)
of the regulation.boqttrO
J Jliesere9“
merr shallcomp wtththe5 minute idllngrestnc onident
edinSection2449(d)(2)ofthe alifornia AirRsources Board's ln se
off…
Road Diesel regulation co slgns rnust be posted inthedesignatedqueuingareasandjobsites
to renlinddriversand operatorsofthe state s5rninute
id ng lirnit d. he speclfic requirements and exeptionsintheregulationscan
be reviewed at thefollowingwebskes:wwwoarboca.2ov/msorog/truck
idling/2485,Ddf and arb.ca2ov/regact/
2007/ordles107/frooal.Ddf2. DieselldlittestriCtiOns Near
Sensitive Rece orS ln addttiontothe State required dieselidlingrequirements
the prqect applicant shall comply withthesernorerestrictiverequirementstorninirnize
impacts
to nearby sensitive receptors:aoStaging and queuing areasshanot be located within l000
feet of sensitive receptors;bo Dieselid ng lrvithin l000 feetof sensitive re eptors
sha not be perrnitted;c. Useofalternative
fueled equipmentis recornrnendedi and doSigns that spe i the nO ldlingareasmustbeposted
and enforcedatthestte.
OPERAT:ONAL PHASE:MPACTS APCD staff haseStimatedtheoperationalirnpactsofthisdevelopment
byrunning the CalEEMod computer rnodelatool for estimating vehicle travel fueluseandthe
resulting ernissions related to this project slanduses he results ofthe rnodelusing
conservative ounty average tripdistances demonstrated thattheoperationalirnpacts wi llkely exceedtheAPCDsthresholds
in ttable 3-
2 of the EQA Handbook.As aresultofthisestimatedthresholdexceedancefor ROG+
NOY and greenhouse gases this the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook. to bring the
project below the significancethreshold.S
PCD mer Regari ng c Mole/n M r 5 eci
Pro iect N1/ember f
2 75Page6
o/8
Woodombustion nder APD Rule 504 oniv APCD approvedwoodburningdevicescan be instaed
in new
hese devicesinclude:AII EPA…CertifiedPhasell
vvood burning devicesi Catalytic wood burningdeviceswhichernitlessthanorequalto4.lgrams
per hour of partlculate rTnatter which arenotEPA Certifiedbuthavebeenverified by
a nationay
recognized testing lab;Non catalytic wood burningdeviceswhichernitlessthanorequalto7.5
grams perhourof particulate rnatter whi h are not EPA… Certifiedbuthavebeenverified by
a nationay
recognized testlng lab;Peet
fueled vvoodheaters;and Dedicated
gas fired fireplaces.f vou have anv ouestionsaboutaDprOVedwoodburningdevices,DleaSe
contact theAPCDEnforcement Division
at 781 5912 Vehi le errlissions are oftenthelargestsourceofernissionsfromthe
operationalphase of development.his prqect hasthepotentialtoincreasetheamountofvehicle trips
to our ounty and appropriaternitigatlonrneasuresrnustbeconsideredoSan Luis Obispo(SLO)ar
Free is aprogram to encourage car free transportation toandaroundSanLuisObispoCounty.
SLO Car Free providest901S tOtravelersonthe pleasures andava ability of traveng toour
area ithout their ca rs,or by parklng theircarsoncetheyarrive. By pledging totravelto or
aroundSLOounty without a car visitorsreceivespecialincentives frorTl participating
hotels restaurants transportation se ices and attractions ln addition businesses who joinSLOCarFreeas
a participating businessreceivefreeadvertisement on their websitehighlightingthebusinesses
efforts to encourage greentourismto San Luis Obispo ounty. Your business isalsopromoted
through several social media netllvorks and atthenumerouseventsthatSLC)CarFreeparticipates
in each year heSLO Car Free website(SLO arFree.org)isa hub forinformation and
web links on transportation lodging attractions andothervisitorneeds, Visitorscanusethewebsiteto
find outwhatthey can do in SLO ounty andhowtheycandoitwtthoutacar.Tom:t teth
d L the proposed(business fac itv etcthebusinessrnustsignun
to participate in the SLO Car communication toois.To2etsignedunforSLOCarFreer
DleaSe contact MeghanFieidin the APCD
Planning Division at805781 5912.
Q eratiOnal Phase ldlin Limttations Public health skbeneltscanberealizedby idle limtations for dieselengines.
o he:p reducetheenlissionsimpactof diesei vehiciesutilizing the RV fac
ities the aDDCant shaimDlementthe IOW:
d
1. CaliforniaDieselldling Regulations a. 0"rogJ Jlieser ye cresshacOmplywithSection
2485 ofttitle 1 3oftheCalifornia Code ofRegulations.This regulation llrnitsidng
frorn diese fueled cornrnercial rnotor vehicles withgrossvehicularweightratingsofmorethan
1 0,000 poundsandlicensed
PCD mentsRegardingeMO MO rey S ecr
pro iect1/ember f
2 75Page7
o/8 operationonhighways. ltapplies to Cafornia and nonanfOrniabased
vehicles. ln general the regulationspecifiesthatdriversof
sald vehicles:1 Sha notidle the vehicle s primary diesel engine forgreaterthan5rninutes
at any location except as notedin Subsection(d)Ofthe
regulationi and 2. Shanotoperatea diese fueled auxiliarypowersystem (APS)topOWer a
heater air conditioneror any anc lary equipment on thatvehicleduringsleepingorresting
in a sleeper berth for greater than5.Orninutesatany locationwhen ithin l000feet
ofa restricted area except as notedin Subsection(d)of
the regulation b.rOJ Jlieser e9“ment shall comply withthe5minuteidling
restHction identined in Se tion 2449(dx3)oftheCalifornia Air Resources Board s ln Use
off
Road Diesel regulation.co Signs must be posted inthedesignatedqueuingareasandjobskes
to remlnddttversand operators ofthestate s5rninute
idling lin lt.d. he SpeCifiC requirementsandexceptionsintheregulationscan
be reviewedat the followingweb sites:w.arbocattv/msF
2 andW
V.
arboCa.2ov/regact/2007/ordies107/frooal.Ddf 2.ln addition to theState
required dieselid ng requirements the project applicantshacomplyiththesernore
restrictive
requirements to rninirrlize impactstonearby sensitive receptors:ao Staging and queuing areasshanotbe
located within l,000 feet of sensitive receptorsi boDieselidng within l,000
feet of sensitive receptors Sha not beperrnitted;c. Useofalternative fueled
equipment and electrification ofloading docks(e.g.electricalpluginsfor
truckrefrigeration
unlts and electrification ofloading equipment):s recornrnendedi and do Signs thatspecithenOidling
areasmuSt
be posted and enforced attheSke.FirePltslfthedeveloperis planning on includingire
ptts in theprqect the
following comments apply relating to operational phase impacts:Recentstudiesthatexarninedtheimpactof
bonfires/campfires on public healthshowedthatsmokefrornbonfires/campfires impactedairquality in
nearbyresidential areas.
o address air qua ty impacts APDrecommends:Locatingfire
pits atleast 700 feet from the nearest residencel andFlrepitsshouldbeatleast100feetapart(lf a cityhas
1 5 orfewerfirepits
they rnust be separatedbyatleast50feet);and Fire pits should notbeusedvvhenairqua
ty for fine particulates(PM2.5)iS fOrecasted to exceed100onthe Air Quantylndex(
AQI) BaSed on historical air quality datatheAQlisexpectedto
rarely exceed 1 00inthe
APCD Comments Regording the Motel lnn - Monterey Street Project
November 17, 2015
Page I of I
lf fire pits are included in the project. the APCD recommends that the campground/lodge
operator prohibit fire pit use during poor air quality conditions. The APCD also recommends
locating the fire pits:
o at least 100 feet apart: and.
o as far as feasible from the hotel/motel units; and.
o at least 700 feet from the nearest residence.
As defined in APCD's Rule 402, a person shall not discharge, from any source whatsoever, such
quantities of air contaminant or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,
repose, health or safely of any such persons or public, or which cause or have a natural tendency to
cause, injury or damage to business or property. lf fire pits are included in the project and have
the potential to cause nuisance impacts. the campground/lodge operator needs to
proactively take steps to reduce these impacts.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. lf you have any questions or
comments, feel free to contact me at 781-5912.
Sincerely,
1
fzl-,*.
tI
Melissa Guise
Air QualitySpecialist
MAG/arr
C:Dora Drexler, Enforcement Division, APCD
Tim Fuhs, Enforcement Division, APCD
Gary Willey, Engineering Division, APCD
Attachments: 1.NaturallyOccurringAsbestos Construction&grading PrqectExemptionRequest
Form Construction&GradingPrqectForm
h:plan ceqa prqectreview 3000 3900 3933-4 3933 1.
docx S S HQG
T 805.781.5912 F 805.781.1002 W slocleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Construction and Grading Project Form
Applicant Information/Property Owner Project Name
Address Project Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Email for Contact Person Project Site Latitude,
Longitude
Assessors Parcel
Number
Phone Number Date Submitted Agent Phone Number
Check
Applicable
DESCRIPTION
attach applicable required information) APCD REQUIREMENT 1 APCD REQUIREMENT 2
Project is subject to NOA requirements
but NOT disturbing NOA (See Website Map)
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php
Geological Evaluation Exemption Request Form
Project is subject to NOA requirements and
project is disturbing NOA – more than one acre Geological Evaluation Dust Control Measure Plan
Project is subject to NOA requirements and
project is disturbing NOA – one acre or less Geological Evaluation Mini Dust Control Measure
Plan
Please note that the applicant will be invoiced for any associated fees.
REQUIRED APPLICANT SIGNATURE:
Legal Declaration/Authorized Signature Date
APCD OFFICE USE ONLY
Geological Evaluation Exemption Request Form Dust Control Measure Plan Monitoring, Health and
Safety Plan
Approved Yes No Approved: Yes No Approved: Yes No Approved: Yes No
Comments: Comments: Comments:
APCD Staff: Date Received: Date Reviewed OIS Site # OIS Proj #
Invoice No. Basic Fee Additional Fees Billable Hrs Total Fees
H:\INFO\Forms\ENFORCEMENT\NOAC&GProjectForm&ExemptionRequest-2014.docx
ASSenGi[ C
T 805.781.5912 F 805.781.1002 W slocleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Construction & Grading Project Exemption Request Form
Applicant Information/ Property Owner Project Name
Address Project Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Email Address Project Site Latitude,
Longitude
Assessors Parcel
Number
Phone Number Date Submitted Agent Phone Number
The District may provide an exemption from Section 93105 of the California Code of Regulations - Asbestos Airborne
Toxic Control Measure For Construction, Grading, Quarrying, And Surface Mining Operations for any property that has
any portion of the area to be disturbed located in a geographic ultramafic rock unit; if a registered geologist has
conducted a geologic evaluation of the property and determined that no serpentine or ultramafic rock is likely to be
found in the area to be disturbed. Before an exemption can be granted, the owner/operator must provide a copy of a
report detailing the geologic evaluation to the District for consideration. The District will approve or deny the
exemption within 90 days. An outline of the required geological evaluation is provided in the District handout
ASBESTOS AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, QUARRYING, AND SURFACE
MINING OPERATIONS – Geological Evaluation Requirements.” See the APCD Website map:
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php
NOTE: A basic exemption evaluation fee of $172.00 will be charged.
APPLICANT MUST SIGN BELOW:
I request the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District grant this project exemption from the
requirements of the ATCM based on the attached geological evaluation.
Legal Declaration/Authorized Signature Date:
OFFICE USE ONLY - APCD Required Element – Geological Evaluation
Date Received: Date Reviewed: OIS Site #: OIS Project #:
APCD Staff: Approved Not Approved
Comments:
H:\INFO\Forms\ENFORCEMENT\NOAC&GProjectForm&ExemptionRequest-2014.docx
ASSenGi[ C
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) Fees
Projects where Naturally Occurring Asbestos such as serpentine rock is likely to be found are subject to
the State Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations. Grading projects in the APCD planning area for serpentine rock will require
prior District approval of an exemption from the ATCM or an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan
Effective August 1, 2011, the revised project review fees by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution
Control District (APCD) are as follows:
Basic Fee Additional Fee
Geological
Evaluation
Full
Exemption
Geological
Evaluation &
Conditional
Exemption
Geological
Evaluation &
one (1) acre
or less
Geological
Evaluation &
more than one
1) acre
Dust Control
Plan Review
and Approval
Dust Control
Plan Review &
Approval with
Monitoring
Construction,
Grading, Roads,
Surface Mining,
Quarrying in
Serpentine
172.00 $230.00 $287.00 $287.00 $115.00 $230.00
Prior to any grading activities at your site, a geologic analysis may be necessary to determine if serpentine
rock is present. All subject project applicants should complete an exemption form or the Construction and
Grading Project form. These forms, maps, and additional information can be found on the District web
site at: www.slocleanair.org
In order to process the review of your project in the shortest time possible, please contact the District
immediately at 805-781-5912
Please note that any necessary San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District staff time or
resources expended to provide State regulation compliance determinations to any person, regardless of
permit status, may be charged at a rate which reflects labor costs as set by the Air Pollution Control Board
and actual costs incurred by the APCD.
Appendix C
Appendix F
Archaeological Report)
Appendix F
Archaeological Report)
Appendix F
Archaeological Report)
Appendix F
Archaeological Report)
Appendix F
Archaeological Report)
Appendix F
Archaeological Report)
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix H
Appendix H
Appendix H
Appendix H
Appendix H
Appendix H
Appendix H
Appendix H
Appendix H
Appendix H
669 Pacific Street l Suite A l San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 l p. 805.242.0461 l omnimeans.com
Napa l Redding l Roseville l San Luis Obispo l Visalia l Walnut Creek
DRAFT Technical Memorandum
I. Introduction
The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to summarize evaluation of the access to the
proposed Motel Inn project located at 2223 Monterey Street and present concept designs for
consideration. The proposed project includes 52 "bungalow" rooms and a 25-space RV area
and is located in the north portion of the City of San Luis Obispo. Figure 1 identifies the project
study area located at the north end of Monterey Street adjacent to the US Route 101
northbound onramp. The proposed project site has one access to Monterey Street adjacent to
where the US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps begin. There are several other existing hotels
and restaurants in the area with their primary driveway accesses on Monterey Street.
Figure 1: Project Study Area
To: City of San Luis Obispo Date: November 6, 2015
Attn: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager Project: 2223 Monterey Street Motel Inn
Access Study
From: Nate Stong, P.E. Job No.: 65-6457-09 (12)
Re: Operations Analysis File No.: C2093MEM001.DOCX
CC:
November 6, 2015
2
This memorandum summarizes an evaluation which includes a review of available sight
distance, vehicle speeds, collision history, traffic volumes, traffic operations and the existing and
proposed geometry of the street, US 101 ramps, and driveways near the project entrance.
II. Background
Due to the anticipated increase in traffic volumes generated by the proposed use and an
existing access at a location with limited sight distance, the City of San Luis Obispo (approving
agency) and Caltrans (reviewing agency) have initiated this study to evaluate the existing
access and make recommendations for the proposed access to meet current road design
standards.
Prior to the latest submittal, a meeting between Caltrans, the City, the applicant and the
applicant's engineer Hatch Mott MacDonald was held on June 10, 2014.
A second meeting was held on October 30, 2015 at the Caltrans District 5 Office to review prior
work on the project, refine the design issues and criteria regarding the access for the Motel Inn
project. The purpose of the meeting was to reach consensus on key issues and review draft
design concepts prepared by Omni-Means, while keeping in mind the overall multi-modal safety
for Monterey Street and U.S. 101. Between the two meetings, the following were identified as
key issues requiring analysis:
Lane and shoulder widths
Bicycle facilities (Class III on Monterey St and on 101 from Monterey St to Hwy 58)
Sight distance
Design vehicle, turning templates (RVs)
Collision history
During the analysis of the above, the following design considerations were identified to be
evaluated in this report for Motel Inn's project access:
Relocate the Motel Inn access on Monterey Street as far as practical from the ramps;
Provide right-in, left-out only access to/from Monterey Street due to the limited sight
distance along the NB offramp and short length of the NB onramp;
Provide a raised median on Monterey Street and protected left turn refuge for vehicles
exiting the project site;
Construct curb and gutter to narrow the width of Monterey Street approaching and at the
project driveway, matching the width of Monterey Street to the south (8 foot shoulders)
and evaluate other potential traffic calming measures such as textured concrete
surfacing, bulb-outs, etc.; and
Evaluate the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street for all-way stop
control warrants.
November 6, 2015
3
III. Existing Conditions
Monterey Street is a two-lane road with center two-way left turn lane, generally 45-feet in width
measured from curb to curb and classified as a minor arterial in the City's General Plan
Circulation Element. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street, except the sidewalk on
the west side of the street terminates just north of the La Quinta Hotel driveway prior to reaching
the NB offramp. at the On-street parking is generally permitted along the south side of Monterey
Street north of Buena Vista Avenue. Monterey Street is designated as a Class III bike route in
the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. US Route 101 is also a Class III bike route from
Monterey Street north to the Hwy 58 interchange in Santa Margarita. Class III bike routes are
not striped and bicycles share the road with vehicles.
Collision Data
Collision data was obtained for the preceding five-year period from the City's online collision
database (Crash Magic) for areas near the proposed project driveway: Monterey Street between
Buena Vista Avenue and the 101 NB ramps. Copies of the collision data are included in the
Appendix. No collisions were reported at Monterey Street and the 101 NB ramps. There were
two collisions reported at the intersection of Monterey Street and Buena Vista Avenue:
1. November 2013: Collision between two vehicles during the day resulting in "complaint of
pain."
2. December 2013: Collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian. A vehicle struck a
pedestrian using the crosswalk at night, causing "complaint of pain."
During the same period, there was 1 collision along Monterey Street between Buena Vista
Avenue and the 101 NB Ramps:
1. A broadside collision between a motorcycle turning left from the Apple Farm Inn and a
vehicle northeast-bound on Monterey Street. Severity of accident involved a “complaint
of pain”.
City staff also reviewed crash reports from Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for the
time period of January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014. There were 6 accidents reported on NB
101 within the City limits; none of these were within the weaving section near the Monterey
Street ramps or on the ramps themselves.
Existing Condition Traffic Operations
Traffic volumes were obtained from City staff for peak hour turning movements on Monterey
Street and the hotel driveways near the ramps, and from the City's online GIS traffic website for
the street segments of Monterey Street and Buena Vista Avenue. Hourly counts are presented
in Table 3. The average daily traffic during 2012 (the most recent data available) on the NB
offramp to Monterey Street was 644 veh/day as reported by Caltrans. The average daily traffic
on the NB onramp for 2012 was 3,429 veh/day.
Specific quantitative traffic analyses have been conducted as part of this assessment utilizing
Syncho/Sim-Traffic 8.0 computer software, which is consistent with the latest version of the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010). The traffic analysis evaluated two intersections for
operating conditions with/without the proposed Hotel/RV Park. The intersections closest to the
November 6, 2015
4
project site include Monterey Street/US 101 NB On Ramp and the US 101 NB On Ramp and
Apple Farm Driveways immediately to the south. The PM peak hour represents the highest
volumes at this location and is therefore the condition evaluated as the most conservative.
Table 1 summarizes the PM peak hour delay and LOS at each intersection for the existing
condition.
TABLE 1: PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Intersection
Control
Type
Existing
Delay LOS
1
Monterey Street/US 101 NB Ramps/
Project Driveway (Combined with Trellis
Court North Driveway)
Free/
OWSC 6.2 A
2 Monterey Street/US 101 NB Off Ramp/
Trellis Court South Driveway
Free/
OWSC 12.8 B
Note: Free = Free Flowing (No Control); OWSC = One-Way Stop-Controlled.
As shown above, the adjacent study intersections located off of Monterey Street currently
operate at acceptable LOS B conditions or better during the PM peak hour under Existing PM
Peak Hour scenarios. The Synchro/ Sim-Traffic reports are attached in the Appendix.
Approach Speeds
The posted speed limit on Monterey Street in the project area is 30 mph prior to the US 101
northbound ramps. A spot speed study was performed by City staff on October 14, 2015 on
Monterey Street between Buena Vista Avenue and 101 NB on-and off-ramps (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: City Spot Speed Survey Locations (radar vehicle shown in red)
November 6, 2015
5
The study identified that the observed critical speed (85th percentile) was 40 mph in the
northeast-bound direction and 29 mph in the southwest-bound direction. Based on field
observation, the speeds are higher in the eastbound direction as vehicles accelerate prior to
reaching the northbound on-ramp. Many of the vehicles were observed to deviate from the
marked lane and drive within the median prior to the ramp to maintain speed.
Sight Distance
The critical speed of 30 mph for westbound Monterey Street results in a required stopping sight
distance of 200 feet (Caltrans HDM Table 201.1). In Figure 3, the sight triangle labeled as "1" is
the available stopping sight distance to the middle lane (145 feet). Since the available sight
distance is below the required stopping sight distance, a raised median is recommended as
depicted in Figures 3 through 6. The raised median would:
1. Prohibit left turns into the project driveway where insufficient sight distance is available
along the ramp itself, and
2. Provide a left-turn refuge and extend the merge point of vehicles exiting the project
driveway to a point where adequate sight distance is provided.
Based on a typical right-side mirror view angle of 20 degrees, the sight distance from merging
vehicles from the center lane should be provided the same 200 feet of sight distance to the
centerline of the off-ramp behind. This is represented by sight triangle 2 on Figure 3.
Although corner sight distance requirements are not applied to urban driveways (Caltrans HDM
405.1.2.d and 205.3), the available corner sight distance between left-turning vehicles out of the
project driveway and the northeast-bound vehicles on Monterey Street was nonetheless
evaluated as part of this study. The available sight distance was measured to be approximately
350' (sight triangle number "3"). The sight distance is limited by the profile of Monterey Street,
with a crest vertical curve located at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue. 350 feet provides
corner sight distance for a speed of approximately 37 mph. Driveways located south of the
project driveway have less sight distance since they are located closer to the crest of the curve.
November 6, 2015
7
Multi-Way Stop Control Analysis
This report also summarizes the evaluation of the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and
Monterey Street for all-way stop control.
Evaluation Criteria
Guidance provided in the publication California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways (MUTCD, 2014 Edition), Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications was
used as the basis for conducting this multi-way stop control installation engineering study for the
intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street. According to the MUTCD, the
following criteria should be considered when determining if the installation of multi-way stop
control is warranted at an intersection:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can
be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation
of the traffic control signal.
B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a
multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as
right-angle collisions.
C. Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of
both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average
day, and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from
the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per
hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at
least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but
3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street exceeds 40 mph, the minimum
vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Item 1 and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1 and C.2 are all satisfied to 80
percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.
Analysis
A. Traffic Signal Warrants
Applicable traffic signal warrants provided in the MUTCD, CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL
SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES, Section 4C.02 through Section 4C.10 were reviewed for the study
intersection.
Based on the provided warrants and data, traffic signals are not currently warranted at the study
intersection. Therefore, the installation of a multi-way stop would not represent an interim
measure.
B. Accident History
A review of the recent available 5-year accident information indicates that there were two
reported accidents at the Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street intersection. Since the
minimum number of accidents required to meet this warrant is five within a 12 month period, the
installation of a multi-way stop would not be warranted.
November 6, 2015
8
C. Minimum Volume and Delay
The data presented in Table 3 indicates that the AM peak 1-hour occurred between 8:00 – 9:00
AM with the PM peak 1-hour between 5:00 – 6:00 PM. Table 2 also shows the hourly totals
along Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street a comparison of them to the respective
minimum vehicular volumes. The minimum vehicular volume is 300 vehicles per hour on the
combined major street approaches (Monterey Street) and 200 veh/hr on the combined minor
street approaches (Buena Vista Avenue).
TABLE 2
MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT ANALYSIS
Hour of
the Day
Major Street Minor Street
Monterey Street Buena Vista Avenue
Traffic
Volumes
veh/hr)
Minimum
Volume
Warrant
veh/hr)
Traffic
Volumes
veh/hr)
Minimum
Volume
Warrant
veh/hr)
7:00 AM 613 300 299 200
8:00 AM 657 300 481 200
9:00 AM 427 300 265 200
10:00 AM 427 300 204 200
11:00 AM 432 300 245 200
12:00 PM 472 300 216 200
1:00 PM 480 300 231 200
2:00 PM 543 300 218 200
3:00 PM 591 300 244 200
4:00 PM 760 300 248 200
5:00 PM 867 300 274 200
6:00 PM 494 300 220 200
NB – Northbound, SB – Southbound, EB – Eastbound, WB – Westbound
As shown above, the minimum vehicular volume condition is met for more than the required 8
hours. However, an analysis of the delay using HCS 2010 indicates that the minor street does
not experience more than 30 seconds of delay during the peak hour therefore this warrant is not
met.
D. 80-Percent of the Minimum Values
Criteria B and C.1 are not satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Therefore, the study
intersection does not meet the guidance criteria for a multi-way stop control application at the
Buena Vista/ Monterey Street intersection.
Optional Criteria
Section 2B.07 of the MUTCD includes four other criteria that may be considered in an
engineering study to determine if the installation of multi-way stop control is warranted at an
intersection:
A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/ pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high
pedestrian volumes;
November 6, 2015
9
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to
negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and
D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collectors (through) streets of similar design
and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational
characteristics of the intersection.
Analysis
A. Control Left-Turn Conflicts
Left-turn conflicts are not a significant issue at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and
Monterey Street. There were no collisions reported between a left-turning vehicle and another
vehicle.
B. Control Vehicle/ Pedestrian Conflicts
The Buena Vista Avenue leg has high-visibility crosswalks and a pedestrian refuge island.
There is an uncontrolled marked crosswalk across Monterey Street that is properly signed and
marked. However, one of the collisions at this intersection was between a vehicle and a
pedestrian in the crosswalk at nighttime.
C. Sight Distance
The grade of Monterey Street near Buena Vista Avenue is gradual with a crest vertical curve at
Buena Vista Avenue. Adequate stopping sight distance is available on the approaches to the
intersection. There are no major obstructions limiting the corner sight distance between
Monterey Street and Buena Vista Avenue. The installation of stop signs on Monterey Street at
this intersection is not warranted based on sight distance requirements.
D. Intersection of Two Residential Collector Streets of Similar Design
Based on the City's General Plan, Monterey Street is an arterial, and Buena Vista Avenue is a
local street; therefore, this option did not apply.
Multi-Way Stop Analysis Conclusion
Based on the above warrant analysis, the installation of stop signs on Monterey Street at Buena
Vista Avenue is not warranted and the installation of stop signs on Monterey Street at Buena
Vista Avenue is not recommended.
IV. Traffic Operations Analysis with Proposed Project
Trip Generation
The project proposes a 52-unit hotel with 25 RV parking spaces with hookups. Trip generation
was calculated by City staff using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Manual, 9th Edition. The land uses selected were ITE Code 310 (Hotel) and ITE Code 416
Campground/Recreational Vehicle Park), and the generation is based on total number of
occupied rooms and campsites, respectively. The total trips expected to be generated by this
project are summarized in Table 3.
November 6, 2015
10
TABLE 3: WEEKDAY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Category Unit
Daily Trip
Rate/Unit
AM Peak Hour Rate/Unit PM Peak Hour Rate/Unit
Total In % Out % Total In % Out %
Hotel [ITE Code: 310] Per Occ.
Room 8.17 0.53 59% 41% 0.6 51% 49%
Campground/RV
Park [ITE Code: 416]
Per Occ.
Site 2.0 0.21 36% 64% 0.27 65% 35%
Description Quantity
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In Out Total In Out
Hotel [ITE Code:
310] 52 Rooms 425 28 17 11 32 16 16
Campground/RV
Park [ITE Code: 416] 25 Sites 50 5 2 3 7 5 2
Total Project Trips 475 33 19 14 39 21 18
Notes: Daily Trip Rates for Campground/RV Park not available; assumed 2.0/unit. Errors due to rounding may occur.
As shown in the table above, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 475 daily trips,
including 33 (19 in and 13 out) AM peak hour trips and 39 (21 in and 18 out) PM peak hour trips.
Existing Plus Project Traffic Operations
Specific quantitative traffic analyses have been conducted as part of this assessment utilizing
Syncho/Sim-Traffic 8.0 computer software, which is consistent with the latest version of the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010). The traffic analysis evaluated two intersections for
operating conditions with/without the proposed Hotel/RV Park. The intersections closest to the
project site include Monterey Street/US 101 NB On Ramp and the US 101 NB On Ramp and
Apple Farm Driveways immediately to the south. Table 4 summarizes the PM peak hour delay
and LOS at each intersection for the existing and existing plus project conditions. The "plus
project" condition limits the access to right-in, left-out to the project/Trellis Court north combined
driveway and the Trellis Court south driveway.
TABLE 4: PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WITH PROPOSED MOTEL INN
Intersection
Control
Type
Existing Existing + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1
Monterey Street/US 101 NB Ramps/
Project Driveway (Combined with Trellis
Court North Driveway)
Free/
OWSC 6.2 A 11.0 B
2 Monterey Street/US 101 NB Off Ramp/
Trellis Court South Driveway
Free/
OWSC 12.8 B 13.1 B
Note: Free = Free Flowing (No Control); OWSC = One-Way Stop-Controlled.
As shown above, the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS B
conditions or better, during the PM peak hour under Existing and Existing plus Project PM Peak
Hour scenarios. The Synchro/ Sim-Traffic reports are attached in the Appendix.
The multi-way stop warrant analysis for the Buena Vista Avenue/Monterey Street intersection
was recalculated using existing plus project volumes. As discussed under the existing condition,
the intersection meets volume warrants but not delay warrants. With the project, minor street
November 6, 2015
11
delay is projected to remain below 30 seconds and therefore warrants are not me for multi-way
stop control at this location.
V. Geometric Analysis and Recommendations
Omni-Means developed a design concept for the proposed Motel Inn project driveway based on
the above analysis for Monterey Street and U.S. 101 which includes requirements and
recommendations from Caltrans and City staff. The geometric design is primarily based on the
design vehicle, sight distance requirements, and restricted turning movements. The
recommended geometric concept is illustrated on Figure 4.
Conflict Diagram
A conflict diagram is shown on Figure 5 for the movements in the vicinity of the project
driveway. With the proposed raised median and the prohibition of left-turns into two driveways,
the number of crossing conflicts is reduced.
Design Vehicle
The project includes motor home hookups and parking/camping spaces; therefore, a motor
home with attached trailer was selected as the design vehicle for the proposed improvements.
The concept driveway and center left-turn refuge was analyzed for this vehicle's turning
movements using AutoTurn software. Figure 6 displays the wheel path of an RV with trailer
exiting the project driveway.
Sight Distance
As described in a previous section, the sight distance for vehicles on the NB off-ramp to the
project driveway is restricted; therefore, a raised median recommended to provide a refuge for
left-turning vehicles (and cyclists) from the project driveway before merging with southwest-
bound traffic on Monterey Street. This median also prohibits left-turns into the site and nearby
driveways on Monterey Street, in order to provide adequate stopping sight distance from the NB
off-ramp to a vehicle which may be stopped in the through lane waiting to turn left. The median
length is determined by the required stopping sight distance for a vehicle in the center lane to
merge into the southwest-bound lane.
Access Considerations
Right turns from the project driveway onto the NB on-ramp are recommended to be prohibited
as the distance from the driveway along the ramp to the merge point of mainline US 101 does
not meet standards for freeway ramps. The addition of the proposed RV use by the project in
particular would present a safety concern due to the slower acceleration of RVs. It is
recommended to design the driveway flares to discourage right turns and align the driver toward
the center left-turn lane. It is recommended to mark the driveway with a left-turn arrow and
install signage prohibiting right turns from the driveway.
Lane and Shoulder Widths
The lane configuration in the existing and concept design condition is illustrated in the cross-
section shown on Figure 4. The concept design provides an extension of the 8 foot shoulder on
northeast-bound Monterey Street and continuing an 8-foot minimum shoulder on the onramp.
The concept design curvature of northeast-bound Monterey Street is designed according to the
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
L
a
y
o
u
t
Sh
a
r
e
d
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
Be
g
i
n
t
w
o
w
a
y
le
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
Ra
i
s
e
d
M
e
d
i
a
n
Ex
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
t
o
R
e
m
a
i
n
November 6, 2015
15
Caltrans Highway Design Manual for the existing vehicle speeds of 40 miles per hour. It is
recommended to maintain the entry curve to the Northbound 101 on-ramp existing ramp curve
radius and design speed.
Alternative Concept
An alternative concept design is also shown on Figure 4 as dashed lines. This alternative would
provide extra width on the shoulder approaching the project driveway to provide room outside of
the through lane for decelerating vehicles turning right into the project driveway. This
configuration would also provide greater maneuverability for larger vehicles at the driveway due
to the orientation of the driveway facing in the direction of entering and exiting vehicles on
Monterey Street. However, during discussion with City and Caltrans staff is was agreed that
maintaining the existing urban street cross section of Monterey Street up to the driveway would
have the effect of calming traffic and therefore this alternative is not recommended but provided
for consideration.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
The concept developed would maintain the existing sidewalk along the south side of Monterey
Street to the Motel Inn project site in its current location. Pedestrian access would thereby be
maintained to/from the project site. It is not recommended however to provide a sidewalk along
the concept location of the curb and gutter as shown on Figure 4 since this would lead
pedestrians to the onramp.
Bicyclists travelling northeast on Monterey Street are provided an 8-foot shoulder where parking
is prohibited, and this shoulder is provided up to and continuing on the NB onramp to the US
101 Class III Cuesta Grade Bike Route. Although adequate width exists for a Class II bike lane,
it is not recommended to stripe the onramp as a bike lane but rather maintain the Class III bike
route which exists on the approach from Monterey Street and continuing on NB US 101.
Experienced bicyclists leaving the project site may act as a vehicle and utilize the protected left
and merge with southwest-bound Monterey Street traffic at the end of the raised median where
sufficient sight distance is provided. Less-experienced cyclists can walk their bike along the
sidewalk along the south side of Monterey Street to Buena Vista Avenue or a point where
crossing as a vehicle is comfortable for them.
Other Design Considerations
The conceptual plans developed do not include considerations for drainage or runoff. Survey
will also be required in order to determine the location of Caltrans and City rights of way and
adjacent property boundaries. Specific details for signage are not provided in this report and
should be developed by the project's engineer during design. It is finally recommended that the
vegetation along the inside curve of the NB offramp continue to be managed to maintain
adequate sight distance.
November 6, 2015
16
Appendices
A. Project Site Plan
B. Hatch Mott MacDonald Memo dated 2014
C. Collision History & Data Sheets
D. City Traffic Counts
E. Speed Survey
F. Synchro/ Sim-Traffic Output Reports